To expand your comments a bit... Nature photos are usually considered "journalistic" when published in a magazine, even a hunting mag. Pretty much the definitive nature photography magazine, National Geographic made a policy back in 1982 that they would not do manipulation of objects, after using a "Scitex" device to digitize and move a pyramid. They issued a statement:
At the beginning of our access to Scitex, I think we were seduced by the dictum, 'If it can be done, it must be done.' But there's a danger there. When a photograph becomes synthesis, fantasy, rather than reportage, then the whole purpose of the photograph dies. A photographer is a reporter — a photon thief, if you will. He goes and takes, with a delicate instrument, an extremely thin slice of life. When we changed that slice of life, no matter in what small way, we diluted our credibility. If images are altered to suit the editorial purposes of anyone, if soda cans or clutter or blacks or people of ethnic backgrounds are taken out, suddenly you've got a world that's not only unreal but surreal. At National Geographic, the Scitex will never be used again to shift any one of the Seven Wonders of the World, or to delete anything that's unpleasant or add anything that's left out.
Most non-journalistic venues allow plenty of manipulation, especially contests (except for NG which allows only exposure and color adjustment, including burn/dodging).
If you can convert cellulose to simple sugars, then brewer's yeast can convert that to ethanol without worrying about going blind from creating wood alcohol, methanol.
Of course, you'd want to be blind before reading the "Panda Poo Porter" on the label.
According to noaa's graphic charts, they give 100% probability of hurricane winds just off the coast of North Carolina. Also check the surface wind history which claims sustained 74mph winds over NC and into VA.
Any small low pressure fronts would've turned it into a much nastier hurricane, instead of downgrading to a tropical cyclone. Imagine if, after Katrina, the president dropped the ball on this.
Hobby flying falls under specific and fairly nice rules. Don't fly closer to an airport than 5 miles unless it's near a building abduction below the roof. That kind of thing. Hobbyists do consider it dangerous to fly outside of sight. You can expect s visit if you crash it and you were flying it irresponsibly, if they can find you.
However NO COMMERCIAL permits are being granted. Only experimental UAVs and law enforcement uavs can legally get a permit. They have been looking at it for years but are unlikely to grant permits anytime soon. They'll probably claim homeland security or something.
You stated you did this separate from work...that makes it yours. If you invented it on their time and dollar, and you were hired as a programmer, they probably own the copyright. But if you did it on your own time, even if you signed some sort of contract, if you invented it on your own time and hardware, you likely have a claim to the code. And if you also GPLed it and made it public, they can't really get rid of it. If they have a claim to the copyright, they certainly can make a proprietary version of it, though, even if it's also GPLed. That's the crux... do they have claim to the copyright? If so, it can be both GPLed (by you) and proprietary (by them).
But if you just post the code, what's the problem? You claim it's GPLed, so posting it is not an issue.
Seriously, what's the problem? Post the code, make it public. Then when they try to make GPL code proprietary, you can simply let someone else go after them. You're whining like you're being harmed. You're not. You're simply trying to prevent someone from stealing, even though nobody is really being harmed. Sticking your neck out for justice reasons is not an issue, as long as you realize you're just trying to "stick it to the man".
If you don't get that "tack on" garbage, you don't deserve a degree. A well-rounded knowledge is part of a degree, not just being a one-trick pony.
That's pretty much what I came here to say, and the parent said it pretty well. But I'd even state that without being able to apply metaphysics to AI and psychology to GUI design, the hallmark of a college graduate is someone who knows some of the arts, some of technology, and can hold a conversation in something other than his exact field of study.
You might believe an employer should have those rights, however here in Europe we actually believe in protecting and putting our citizens above corporations.
I don't think that's what he's saying. Consistent with the GP's title, it's the property of the company. That's the point.
I would not work somewhere where I was not allowed to go to lunch in the cafeteria, or a place on the campus (where cellphones were allowed) and browse facebook on my laptop or phone. This is on my time and on my equipment. I would not submit my computer to scanning unless it could somehow compromise the company's network. I would never submit it to monitoring.
The issue is that the company purchases equipment and bandwidth, and they have a right to determine appropriate use of that equipment before you use it and during your using it. Technical measures can be overbearing, and I have no problem with laws against overbearing technical measures, yet the fact remains that the equipment still belongs to the company.
Why would a company supply equipment if they couldn't monitor that equipment? Should you be able to drive home a front-end loader to dig a hole in your garden, and the company be under penalty of law to look the other way?
This will end up resulting in companies requiring employees to supply a laptop which they format and install software, then chain it to the desk (why should they supply hardware if they can't monitor it from misues?) It will result in more workplaces with extremely limited internet access, or access only through a kiosk.
Because the AC is talking about "rewarding perpetually", the term "consume" in this case does not mean merely view. It does not mean do not "be in the presence of something placed in a fixed medium, and therefore copyrighted."
Consume, in this case, means don't buy (or pirate) the shit. You don't have to boycott TV. Far from it, in fact, you should view all the FREE copyrighted stuff you can. You can walk past a billboard, or view a menu. That's not consuming.
You just don't buy the copyrighted shit. It's actually a lot easier than you want to believe.
Even if coal-fired energy was sold through those cables, who cares? The environmentalists don't. They care that it does the stated goal of transferring renewable energy and want to make sure that, if connected to a non-renewable grid, some bozo doesn't suddenly decide to shitcan the solar arrays.
If it never connects to a non-renewable grid, great. In that case, the environmental groups are incorrect. But from the response, it sounds like the project is intentionally connecting to a non-renewable grid to help power the local area, too. The thing is, once an electron is on a wire, it's kind of difficult to determine where that electron came from. Cheating (or outright lying about) what you call "renewable" when it can't be traced surely will lead to corruption.
From everything I've read when researching flash drivers, thumb drives (and most removable flash drives) have auto-wear-levelling, which may map the sector to a different physical sector. You basically cannot do a low level format, so the suggestion above will probably be about as close as possible. Each sector will still have its internal tags which probably will not be overwritten with dd.
The whole "draw a flag" thing I consider to be the same as vandals tagging walls.
As long as it can only be seen with a really high-power telescope, I guess I don't care a lot. But it's still vandalism, and very distasteful.
Imagine if corporations could simply buy moon advertisements.... We'd be seeing crap like [KRAFT CHEESE] and other crap. The original footprints from the astronauts are still there 50 years later.
Yes, that is completely different than me using my Canon camera with dual Digic 4 processors and CMOS sensor. The last Non-computer generated image I made was of my dog, which bore a tremendous likeness, generated from the CMOS imager and fed through a series of algorithms, compressed, and stored on a solid state device, but because it looked like a dog it couldn't be a computer generated image.
But because mine was shot on something that resembles a camera that measures light hitting a sensor instead of sound, somehow it's an accurate capture of reality instead of those nasty fake computer-generated images.
A friend worked on police simulators, and those are very intense. They use real guns firing blanks, with laser pointers in the barrels, and lots of unknown situations. This type of feedback is something that would make it more intense.
Intensity and immersion is important for this type of training, because the brain does different things when you are in the heat of a battle... and that's difficult without immersion.
Frankly, I can't see this being used in movies. 3D glasses are cheap as hell, disposable, and are only a niche market today. Plus, the 3D mostly sucks in movies. I don't want to wear a vest 500 other patrons were wearing the past couple weeks, depending on some idiot hollywood PR freak to decide when I get punched in the chest. I'd be far more interested if I could punch something and HE would feel it.
Although blizzard is not known for being particularly open with their tech by going after private servers and such, they will recognize first sale by making any world of Warcraft game playable if bought used. Cd keys can't be reused and it's against the Eula to give your account to the new purchaser, but that person can send in the physical cd key and will be sent a new one to make a new account.
I would love to see dlc hacks get tested in court and win a precedent. There are so many analogies which show how messed up this is... Like having options on your car only valid for the original purchaser, like having your AC disabled when you buy used.
... but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I completely believe they do exist.
However, I've met really nasty, mean Jehovah's witnesses which demonstrated all of the points made in TFA. They go after people who try to leave, using incredible guilt trips, calls and visits to their family, etc, and destroy family ties through threats and ostracism. But I've yet to see a publicized abduction for deprogramming of JW tenets.
I've actually met a lot of scientologists (over a dozen and roomed with several long ago), and while some are a bit fanatical, they themselves stated to me "don't judge groups by the fanatics... we do have ours and they're misguided." It's a truism, and is why I don't hate the mormons, the catholics, and pretty much most similar groups, including atheists of which I'm one. The thing is, people have the right to believe what the hell they want to believe, whether it's souls, thetans, god, spirituality, or a flying pasta creation. Every article I see about scientology tries to poke fun at their beliefs, dismissing them and using that as the basis of the article, but all religious faith is the same. All of it. Poke fun at one, and you poke fun at faith itself, which means you attack all religions. At it's base, Scientology == Catholicism == Christianity.
The biggest issue scientology has is their inability to adapt. Even the catholic church has that skill. The debacle of trying to use outmoded techniques (attacking the person, trying to shut down the communication, legal threats) has been shown not to work in this day and age, and yet they still persist. LRH actually wrote techniques that worked in the 60's on how to shut down the critics. I read them. They absolutely will not work today.
So, scientology is really failing only that they cannot adapt, and as a result, have made many enemies. I am not one of those enemies, but I can understand why they have them. Some of their "technology" as they call it actually does work and is very useful in everyday life.
Several of the scientologists I knew, btw, left the church with little-to-no hassle. Sure, there are cases where there is huge hassle. And that's EXACTLY THE SAME with any church.
It's either [disable the site], or be liable themselves for any infringement.
You are incorrect, in my non-lawyer's opinion from what I know of the DMCA.
The owner of cryptome.org sent a DMCA counter-claim, under penalty of perjury. This means he acknowledges the accusation and bears the responsibility. NSol cannot be held responsible, and is granted immunity from prosecution by the DMCA. MS cannot file another DMCA claim at this point; they can only take him to court.
The problem is by giving your hashed prints to a database, anyone can take any random print (using cellotape like you said) and run it through this database to see who it belongs to. This is a risk, because the database might not be well controlled.
Slashdot Mirror
Grant "Usage Rights".
I'd go with the Creative Commons language, posted earlier. It will do what you want and has been examined by lawyers.
Haha!
To expand your comments a bit...
Nature photos are usually considered "journalistic" when published in a magazine, even a hunting mag. Pretty much the definitive nature photography magazine, National Geographic made a policy back in 1982 that they would not do manipulation of objects, after using a "Scitex" device to digitize and move a pyramid. They issued a statement:
Most non-journalistic venues allow plenty of manipulation, especially contests (except for NG which allows only exposure and color adjustment, including burn/dodging).
I do find NG's comment about removing people from images particularly interesting, after Hillary Clinton was removed from a white house picture in a newspaper earlier this year. If that paper ever had credibility before, it no longer does.
Plagiarism is everywhere, and only gets worse as people are better connected.
Information wants to be free, and people want free information... especially to call their own to make money or higher grades or other personal gain.
Many animals have segmented stomachs for extra bug time, and chew their cud to give it multiple chewings.
95% rate is pretty good.
If you can convert cellulose to simple sugars, then brewer's yeast can convert that to ethanol without worrying about going blind from creating wood alcohol, methanol.
Of course, you'd want to be blind before reading the "Panda Poo Porter" on the label.
According to noaa's graphic charts, they give 100% probability of hurricane winds just off the coast of North Carolina. Also check the surface wind history which claims sustained 74mph winds over NC and into VA.
Any small low pressure fronts would've turned it into a much nastier hurricane, instead of downgrading to a tropical cyclone. Imagine if, after Katrina, the president dropped the ball on this.
Hobby flying falls under specific and fairly nice rules. Don't fly closer to an airport than 5 miles unless it's near a building abduction below the roof. That kind of thing. Hobbyists do consider it dangerous to fly outside of sight. You can expect s visit if you crash it and you were flying it irresponsibly, if they can find you.
However NO COMMERCIAL permits are being granted. Only experimental UAVs and law enforcement uavs can legally get a permit. They have been looking at it for years but are unlikely to grant permits anytime soon. They'll probably claim homeland security or something.
You stated you did this separate from work...that makes it yours. If you invented it on their time and dollar, and you were hired as a programmer, they probably own the copyright. But if you did it on your own time, even if you signed some sort of contract, if you invented it on your own time and hardware, you likely have a claim to the code. And if you also GPLed it and made it public, they can't really get rid of it. If they have a claim to the copyright, they certainly can make a proprietary version of it, though, even if it's also GPLed. That's the crux... do they have claim to the copyright? If so, it can be both GPLed (by you) and proprietary (by them).
But if you just post the code, what's the problem? You claim it's GPLed, so posting it is not an issue.
Seriously, what's the problem? Post the code, make it public. Then when they try to make GPL code proprietary, you can simply let someone else go after them. You're whining like you're being harmed. You're not. You're simply trying to prevent someone from stealing, even though nobody is really being harmed. Sticking your neck out for justice reasons is not an issue, as long as you realize you're just trying to "stick it to the man".
It should've started "In soviet Russia..."
If you don't get that "tack on" garbage, you don't deserve a degree. A well-rounded knowledge is part of a degree, not just being a one-trick pony.
That's pretty much what I came here to say, and the parent said it pretty well. But I'd even state that without being able to apply metaphysics to AI and psychology to GUI design, the hallmark of a college graduate is someone who knows some of the arts, some of technology, and can hold a conversation in something other than his exact field of study.
Aye, and a lot of the enjoyment of DN3D was the adolescent humor (which, btw, I played on an overclocked cyrix and an original voodoo).
After 12 years of drooling over DNF, you'd think a few of their old fans have, you know, grown up and had kids and such.
And NO F*(&ING WAY will these new parents let their kids play it!
In the old days, we used to pipe our play-by-email instructions through jive(6) to avoid giving away too much info.
I could see anon email services offering a filter. The fastest way is to convert it to French and back.
You might believe an employer should have those rights, however here in Europe we actually believe in protecting and putting our citizens above corporations.
I don't think that's what he's saying. Consistent with the GP's title, it's the property of the company. That's the point.
I would not work somewhere where I was not allowed to go to lunch in the cafeteria, or a place on the campus (where cellphones were allowed) and browse facebook on my laptop or phone. This is on my time and on my equipment. I would not submit my computer to scanning unless it could somehow compromise the company's network. I would never submit it to monitoring.
The issue is that the company purchases equipment and bandwidth, and they have a right to determine appropriate use of that equipment before you use it and during your using it. Technical measures can be overbearing, and I have no problem with laws against overbearing technical measures, yet the fact remains that the equipment still belongs to the company.
Why would a company supply equipment if they couldn't monitor that equipment? Should you be able to drive home a front-end loader to dig a hole in your garden, and the company be under penalty of law to look the other way?
This will end up resulting in companies requiring employees to supply a laptop which they format and install software, then chain it to the desk (why should they supply hardware if they can't monitor it from misues?) It will result in more workplaces with extremely limited internet access, or access only through a kiosk.
Because the AC is talking about "rewarding perpetually", the term "consume" in this case does not mean merely view. It does not mean do not "be in the presence of something placed in a fixed medium, and therefore copyrighted."
Consume, in this case, means don't buy (or pirate) the shit. You don't have to boycott TV. Far from it, in fact, you should view all the FREE copyrighted stuff you can. You can walk past a billboard, or view a menu. That's not consuming.
You just don't buy the copyrighted shit. It's actually a lot easier than you want to believe.
Even if coal-fired energy was sold through those cables, who cares? The environmentalists don't. They care that it does the stated goal of transferring renewable energy and want to make sure that, if connected to a non-renewable grid, some bozo doesn't suddenly decide to shitcan the solar arrays.
If it never connects to a non-renewable grid, great. In that case, the environmental groups are incorrect. But from the response, it sounds like the project is intentionally connecting to a non-renewable grid to help power the local area, too. The thing is, once an electron is on a wire, it's kind of difficult to determine where that electron came from. Cheating (or outright lying about) what you call "renewable" when it can't be traced surely will lead to corruption.
From everything I've read when researching flash drivers, thumb drives (and most removable flash drives) have auto-wear-levelling, which may map the sector to a different physical sector. You basically cannot do a low level format, so the suggestion above will probably be about as close as possible. Each sector will still have its internal tags which probably will not be overwritten with dd.
The whole "draw a flag" thing I consider to be the same as vandals tagging walls.
As long as it can only be seen with a really high-power telescope, I guess I don't care a lot. But it's still vandalism, and very distasteful.
Imagine if corporations could simply buy moon advertisements.... We'd be seeing crap like [KRAFT CHEESE] and other crap. The original footprints from the astronauts are still there 50 years later.
Yes, that is completely different than me using my Canon camera with dual Digic 4 processors and CMOS sensor. The last Non-computer generated image I made was of my dog, which bore a tremendous likeness, generated from the CMOS imager and fed through a series of algorithms, compressed, and stored on a solid state device, but because it looked like a dog it couldn't be a computer generated image.
But because mine was shot on something that resembles a camera that measures light hitting a sensor instead of sound, somehow it's an accurate capture of reality instead of those nasty fake computer-generated images.
A friend worked on police simulators, and those are very intense. They use real guns firing blanks, with laser pointers in the barrels, and lots of unknown situations. This type of feedback is something that would make it more intense.
Intensity and immersion is important for this type of training, because the brain does different things when you are in the heat of a battle... and that's difficult without immersion.
Frankly, I can't see this being used in movies. 3D glasses are cheap as hell, disposable, and are only a niche market today. Plus, the 3D mostly sucks in movies. I don't want to wear a vest 500 other patrons were wearing the past couple weeks, depending on some idiot hollywood PR freak to decide when I get punched in the chest. I'd be far more interested if I could punch something and HE would feel it.
Although blizzard is not known for being particularly open with their tech by going after private servers and such, they will recognize first sale by making any world of Warcraft game playable if bought used. Cd keys can't be reused and it's against the Eula to give your account to the new purchaser, but that person can send in the physical cd key and will be sent a new one to make a new account.
I would love to see dlc hacks get tested in court and win a precedent. There are so many analogies which show how messed up this is ... Like having options on your car only valid for the original purchaser, like having your AC disabled when you buy used.
... but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I completely believe they do exist.
However, I've met really nasty, mean Jehovah's witnesses which demonstrated all of the points made in TFA. They go after people who try to leave, using incredible guilt trips, calls and visits to their family, etc, and destroy family ties through threats and ostracism. But I've yet to see a publicized abduction for deprogramming of JW tenets.
I've actually met a lot of scientologists (over a dozen and roomed with several long ago), and while some are a bit fanatical, they themselves stated to me "don't judge groups by the fanatics ... we do have ours and they're misguided." It's a truism, and is why I don't hate the mormons, the catholics, and pretty much most similar groups, including atheists of which I'm one. The thing is, people have the right to believe what the hell they want to believe, whether it's souls, thetans, god, spirituality, or a flying pasta creation. Every article I see about scientology tries to poke fun at their beliefs, dismissing them and using that as the basis of the article, but all religious faith is the same. All of it. Poke fun at one, and you poke fun at faith itself, which means you attack all religions. At it's base, Scientology == Catholicism == Christianity.
The biggest issue scientology has is their inability to adapt. Even the catholic church has that skill. The debacle of trying to use outmoded techniques (attacking the person, trying to shut down the communication, legal threats) has been shown not to work in this day and age, and yet they still persist. LRH actually wrote techniques that worked in the 60's on how to shut down the critics. I read them. They absolutely will not work today.
So, scientology is really failing only that they cannot adapt, and as a result, have made many enemies. I am not one of those enemies, but I can understand why they have them. Some of their "technology" as they call it actually does work and is very useful in everyday life.
Several of the scientologists I knew, btw, left the church with little-to-no hassle. Sure, there are cases where there is huge hassle. And that's EXACTLY THE SAME with any church.
It's either [disable the site], or be liable themselves for any infringement.
You are incorrect, in my non-lawyer's opinion from what I know of the DMCA.
The owner of cryptome.org sent a DMCA counter-claim, under penalty of perjury. This means he acknowledges the accusation and bears the responsibility. NSol cannot be held responsible, and is granted immunity from prosecution by the DMCA. MS cannot file another DMCA claim at this point; they can only take him to court.
What? You think author's scanned book should have their copyright expired in scanned form?
You can't just randomly decide someone's work is now public domain. That is even worse than what google is trying to do.
The problem is by giving your hashed prints to a database, anyone can take any random print (using cellotape like you said) and run it through this database to see who it belongs to. This is a risk, because the database might not be well controlled.