In keeping with the political notion, I think the biggest problem is that, like everything else in the US, there is no middle ground. We drive people to make uneducated choices simply so they can buy the t-shirt and blindly root for their 'team'.
We are constantly told that if we're not in favor of fighting overseas, then we're in favor of terrorism. If we believe in a god of some sort, then we have to be anti-science. That if we're not 'for the children' then we're automatically against them.
And how much have we actually proven, versus simply not being able to disprove? Does my belief that the theory of evolution is probably correct somehow prohibit me from seeking a spiritual understanding of the world around me?
One of the wondrous aspects of the human mind is the ability to operate equally well in the realm of concrete truths (fire is hot) and the the realm of imagination or unprovable concepts (is fire hot and why? What if it weren't?). And yet, we do all that we can to divorce ourselves from this in favor of being either-or.
I never get polled, so I'd like to take a minute to publicly air my sentiments.
Sure, push me around a bit, Uncle Sam. I know that you occasionally have to bend the rules to keep the game playable.
But I won't take much more pushing and shoving.
And to Mr. Bush - enjoy your last few months in the great white palace. Bang as much intern as you can, because after you pack your bags, your days as a Former US President begin. You and your ilk will be reviled for your administration.
Nothing like being remembered for all history as one of the most deranged and impotent administrations ever, hunh?
I haven't been a foreign correspondent, but am a professional photojournalist often working in Mexico on longer-term stories.
I wholly agree that part of the problem is the instant gratification, but the newspapers play into that. If I want to know if my favorite sports team won, I'm not going to wait until tomorrow's paper to find out. Likewise, when I read tomorrow's paper, I couldn't give less of a shit about a small car accident that happened yesterday. It either affected my day (in which case a follow-up might be nice) or it more than likely didn't.
Newspapers have an advantage in knowing that they're no longer breaking spot news. Great! Not a responsibility anymore to get a reporter/photographer out to cover an otherwise un-newsworthy car crash or mall event. Without that extra burden, newspapers can now focus on in-depth journalism and breaking the stories that won't be found out by being seen in public or announced in a press-release.
Now is a time when we can focus on doing it better because we're not rushed to get it out the door for tomorrow. But instead, we're shrinking our staffs and dumping our contributors in favor of cheaper wire and PR puff stories (and rushing them out to blogs).
Not many shareholders can really expect papers to do well these days, so why aren't papers trying new things? By new things I don't mean throwing shit online and seeing what sticks, but looking at another way of reporting and delivering news.
The other problem is that newspapers are short on green because they have failed to innovate on their sales model. It used to be much more expensive (and necessary) to distribute information on paper, and not everyone could afford to do it. Today, disseminating information is relatively super-cheap and easy. I have several ideas on how to restructure distribution to once again make it profitable, and therefore return to our mission of holding those with power accountable.
Of course, we've heard stories about staffers at papers and magazines faking or 'enhancing' photos. If it happens with people ON STAFF, then why do news outlets take hand-out art from companies, foreign governments and other non-trusted sources?
For years, I have made my living as a freelance news photographer, and am a member in good standing with several professional organizations. Sure, I could still lie, doctor photos or submit work that isn't my own; but I have added incentive not to: I depend on being trusted to sell my work. If I can't be trusted, I can't get jobs. So beyond my personal ethics paying respect for professional ethics, I have financial incentive not to make shit up.
But alas, as newsrooms shrink their staffs and call out for less freelance work, my as-true-as-I-can-humanly-make-them photographs will be left to go by the wayside in favor of hand-outs from people and organizations who have no incentive to follow the ethical rules AND an interest in making themselves look good.
I guess that's why I find myself photographing more weddings and corporate/advertising pieces. Oddly enough, they are clients who EXPECT to be lied to with heavily retouched photos.
And for the record, it is my professional opinion that this software won't make a bit of difference.
Any of you guys work for international media companies that are looking for America-based freelance contributors? I know a lot of the overseas media still looks for truth in reporting.
I'll preface this by saying that I think Obama is a good candidate, but so what if he studied and lectured C-law? Knowing the law can also mean knowing ways around the law.
I'd bet dollars to cents that some lawyer(s) somewhere is telling Google to continue calling it 'Beta' simply so that if something breaks, and causes some amount of damage to the end user, it's even more clear-cut that Google has not created any expectation of warranty or guaranty.
Heck, I've seen a lot of other software sans 'beta' markings that should not have even passed muster as alpha software.
Firstly, I have one of those 'Arts degrees' (BFA in Studio Art with minor studies in journalism, art history and economics). I am gainfully employed, and run my own business. In fact, I tend to avoid working with people who proudly tout their cookie-cutter business, marketing or management degrees from second or third-rate schools (or as derivatives of half-assed efforts put in at first-rate schools). I value people who have educational and/or personal backgrounds that have caused them to develop superior critical thinking skills and a wide range of knowledge that can be focused at different targets with ease.
With that out of the way, I went to college in the late 90's, when just about every student had a computer in the dorms, and each room had two connections. I rarely saw anyone online doing anything school-related. Usually it was Napster, pr0n, games, shopping, Joe Cartoon or trying to figure out how to make a fake ID. I can't imagine that things are different/better now.
Students SHOULD have open and unfettered network access in college, and schools shouldn't be unduly responsible for policing them. Let's just stop pretending, though, that unlimited net access is a critical point of modern collegiate education. As more university resources have gone Web-based, I've seen the quality of education diminish firsthand.
. The people who run things want to import cheap labor and they're not about to let anyone stop their gravy train.
And the people who elect and line the pockets of those people who run things want to continue to buy crap they don't need at low, low prices. That is accomplished by 1) outsourcing manufacturing to the cheapest locale possible 2) paying the people that cook/process food or that clean the floors and toilets at the local Wal Mart as little as possible.
I live in a border state that gets saddled with billions of dollars in non-Federal subsidized expenses (and hence spend MORE on illegal immigration than other Americans in, say, Colorado) every year. As a journalist, I have spent years working along the US-Mexico border. I would bet the farm that the amount of economic harm done by illegal immigration is far outweighed by the economic good it has done our country and the global economy by allowing an increasingly slender middle class to continue to spend well beyond their means (keeping the country going), and yet maintain one step on the creditors. That's not even taking into account the amount of families and companies that are fed by government money spent trying to keep illegals out.
Like it or not, turning off the flow of illegals (even if it were possible) would be another nail in the coffin of the already ugly looking American economy.
And you know what? They really do jobs Americans won't do. The vast majority of US citizens would, if faced with making $6/hour for 12-14 hours a day to bone chickens and still not be able to feed the fam and drive the Hummer, would either go on welfare (get more money that way and avoid shitty work) or would resort to crime (selling drugs/sex/stolen property).
Private people and business PAY ME to take pictures all the time. It's what I do. And in any licensing agreement you'd ever sign before sending me out on assignment or setting foot into my studio would plainly dictate:
But copyright differs from license of rights. If I shot your kid's wedding, I retain copyright, future resale, etc., but I do allow you to make your own prints if you so desire, put up on a Web page and generally consume and use the work in any reasonable, non-commercial manner that isn't competing with my interests. If I shot the cover of your magazine, we'd work something out that was mutually beneficial.
The very few people/companies who raise a complaint over this clause either wind up paying me a lot more in creative fees (compensating me for giving up potential future revenue and/or giving them the advantage of permanent exclusivity; generally more applicable to commercial news/advertising clients), or I just don't work with them.
I am a professional news, documentary and advertising photographer widely published in the American Southwest, Central America and Western Europe. I also do high-end wedding photography for additional income (hey, news doesn't pay crap).
I am a freelancer (full-time), in that I am not an employee at any publication I contribute to. Thus, I rely heavily on retaining sale and resale rights to my work, and must actively protect my copyright and therefore the value of my work.
But you raise a very good question: What if I was a 'sleazy' mall photographer or kids photographer? It may not be high art, but does that provide me with less copyright protection under the law? If you see one of my photos and don't think it's good, does that entitle you to do what you will with it?
I have a broad definition of fair use, and don't make a habit of suing my customers/clients. Although, if someone blatantly and willfully used my work to turn a buck, claimed it as their own, or otherwise violated our mutually agreed-upon license, there would be some degree of legal action taken on my part ranging from a formal notice of infringement to an outright lawsuit. I really couldn't care less if a private client scans pictures and puts them on a Web site, or even prints his own copies to give to family and friends. It would be great for my business if they had to print through me, but printing is no longer expensive and/or only available to a limited few. Why fight changes in the market?
Going back to the mall photographer example, any professional will provide you with a rights agreement (license) up-front. Some are more restrictive than others. If you don't like it, don't buy the service. I don't require wedding clients to order prints through me, but I do make them available. More often than not, they order prints through me anyway, despite having a DVD-ROM of all their pictures in their hands.
My business philosophy is that people are paying for ME (my expertise, talent, professionalism, experience, etc.), not the physical finished product. People pay for the look and feel of what I provide. I could do your portrait, or Mall Portrait Place could. Mine's going to be better, and cost you more on the service side (I make my money on the service, not the physical prints). But you'd be paying me to create your portrait, and paying Mall Portrait Place to put you in front of a colored background of your choice, hit the shutter release, and then make you pay dearly every time they hit the print button.
Very often I hear something to the effect of, "Well heck, I could get studio X to do my portrait/wedding for a lot less." My answer is always, "Yup, you could. And I encourage you to do so if they meet your needs and price."
unless they allow private citizens to own nuclear weapons, no amount of firepower you amass will do you a damned bit of good, right?
Wrong.
Tell that to Iraqi and Afghani insurgents. They manage to kill Marines, trained killers armed with some of the best tech available, with 20-year-old rifles and surplus small arms and glorified pipe-bombs almost daily.
History will point you to the Boer war, where Zulu tribesmen armed with pointy sticks slaughtered occupational forces.
13 colonies took on what was arguably the best army/navy in the world (twice) and sent them packing for home, twice.
And Sitting Bull did a number on Custer's cavalry using great tactics (including playing Custer's ego) and inferior weapons.
In WWII, Allied nations were out-teched and out-gunned by Germany; and yet with stamped-steel assault weapons issued to Iowa/Saskatchewan/Staffordshire/Stalingrad farm boys pushed out of plywood aircraft after fairly minimal training, Hitler's better tech was proven ineffective.
Nelson managed to wrap up Trafalgar pretty well, despite having an outnumbered and aging fleet (albeit, I'll make the concession that he had the best fed and trained sailors).
Politics aside, Castro handed Batista his ass with less men than a modern platoon; landed by a fishing boat from Mexico. As an interesting aside, Castro et al. were quite adept at stealing the government's better weapons, and using them for their own purposes.
Should I keep going?
You're right, though. Political and civil initiatives (diplomacy) are and always should be the first option. You're also right that Koresh, McVeigh and others are nutters. But it's important to note that they were crazy. They took up arms in a very, very small scale (or in Koresh's case, kinda sorta threatened to) against the government for really no good reason. The people of the US were not in agreement with their cause, and therefore didn't support it. They were rightfully branded terrorists, and met an expected end. Generally, you don't try to overthrow a government when everyone is fed, happy, the economy is record-holding great and the nation is in a pretty good place.
As rough as things have gotten here in the US, I can still move about freely, say basically whatever I want (especially important since I am employed as a photojournalist) and have as much a chance as ever as advancing myself either through hard work or connections. I can read whatever I want and associate with whoever I want. People don't die as a result of elections here.
It's not bad enough here for there to be an armed revolution or insurrection. With prudent diplomacy and civil oversight and activism in government, hopefully things will never get so bad here as to merit a revolution.
The prime fear is that we will lose our freedom. That we won't be able to vote, travel, read, speak and associate. That we won't be able to talk our way through to change in government. And that's when we will see, once again, men and women of all races and creeds lined up with Wal-Mart shotguns and home-made napalm to either fight and die against an oppressive government or create the new government.
Remember that Samuel Adams was branded a terrorist in England and a patriot in the US. The difference between Adams and Koresh? Adams had the support of the people he claimed to represent, he had a lot of them, and he was successful in his efforts.
It's not that hard to prove ownership of photos (for purposes of copyright assertions). I've gone head-to-head with people a couple times to prove that I created (and therefore was the owner of) the work in question. Nobody's ever argued that, really.
The problem with copyright is more on the law side than the proving ownership side. Copyright attorneys are wildly expensive, and cases are usually long and drawn-out. Plus, just holding the copyright only entitles the owner to sue for actual damages. Only when the work is registered Federally within 90 days of publication (first use) can the owner sue for anything more than actual cost (IE, damages). Hopefully damages are enough to cover not only the bills, but the work missed while in court.
I would much rather see a less tiered system where any use outside of fair use (and I have a broad view of fair use) is open to suit for cost as well as damages. I don't mind seeing one of my photos on a MySpace page or copied to someone's blog (especially if I'm actually given credit), or even if someone goes to my site, grabs a bunch of photos and makes a screensaver FOR THEMSELVES, but I can't stand it when my photos are appropriated into ads, tourist sites, news sites I didn't contract with, etc.
It is much easier (and cheaper) to spell out user licenses and sue for breach-of-contract than it is to get anyone on copyright infringement and actually have it be worth your time to pursue.
In my estimation, the ONLY good thing to come from the DMCA is the ability to serve voluntary and involuntary infringers with takedown notices relatively easily and cheaply.
I agree completely with your sentiments on Paul, except I cannot support him in the White House. As is mentioned in the Federalist Papers (kind of the liner notes to our government as drafted by the early patriots), the office of the President was never meant to wield the power that it does today.
In my interpretation, the office of the President is the only one-man branch of government simply because in some cases, snap decisions need to be made (under the laws set by Congress and the oversight of the Judiciary) when it is just not practical to convene the Congress. Military action is a good example, hence the reason for the Commander-in-Chief title. But snap military actions are supposed to be judged and authorized by the other branches, even if retroactively.
Diplomacy is also another reason for a one-man branch. It would be impractical to fly all of Congress to another country for a sit-down with another head of state. It would be equally impractical (especially at the time of the drafting of the Constitution) for Congress to convene to meet with a visiting dignitary and conduct any meaningful business.
But over the years, the office of the President (and some administrations more than others) have used their control of foreign policy and military action to dilute the power of the Congress and draw more powers for themselves. And that's bad.
Indeed, if powerful, persuasive and right-minded people were allocated to Capitol Hill, we would have a government far more representative of the people. I would like to see a lot more Ron Pauls on the Hill, but don't think he could do anything of any consequence in the big chair under the present government.
Of course the Presidential election is supremely important (precisely because the office has wrangled so much more power than it was originally intended to have), but we often fail to see that the Hill is equally, if not more important.
With that in mind (and to get this post a little more on-topic), I think that McCain is the best the Republicans have to offer.
Mitt is an open liar (claiming vehemently that no one affiliated in any significant way with his campaign was a lobbyist) and too deeply in love with corporate America.
Huckabee just plain scares me. It's people like him that cause America to confuse conservatism with right-wing theocracy. I have no problem with people openly being religious, praying, thanking God, etc., but this guy seems to want to make everyone fit into his Sunday morning routine. And I certainly don't find him charming or socially skillful enough to successfully relate to other heads of state.
Ron Paul will do more good as a voice for the people than as President.
McCain is a respectable (although I don't pretend he's squeaky clean) elder statesman, and one who can empathetically relate to others. He has nearly 80 years of diversified life experience in all kinds of situations. That is much more 'experience' than other candidates on either side can offer. He is an honorable man and one who takes respect very seriously. He has an awful temper, but that has not been a limiting factor in other administrations (ahem, Teddy Roosevelt). People accuse him of being a flip-flopper, but I think it's important that people have the ability to change their position when confronted with new/better evidence and arguments. Maintaining that the world is flat long after it was proven to be round just to avoid 'flip-flopping' would be dumb.
One of the biggest McCain issues for me is that I'm not entirely sure how ingrained he is with the Republican cronies we've seen over the last few administrations. I'm sure he lunches with them, I just need to know he's not in bed with them.
The other problem could be his choice of VP. The thought that Rice or Giuliani could be VP under an aging President scares the hell out of me. I don't think McCain is too old to be President, or that he will invariably die in office, but as an older man we can likely expect h
I bet most New Yorkers don't know how to run a Geiger counter (or possibly even what one is).
All the same, slaves were prevented from learning how to read, Jews in the death camps were not given any information about the war, their future, and today, people we want to strip of power are kept in the dark.
Check my history, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I really think that those in power (ALL of them, not just the Bushies) have gotten to the point of realizing that the American populace have become dumb sheep. Through fear, all is possible for them.
I fail to see how any of that implies guilt. Infringing upon someone's copyright IS illegal and is probably discouraged by MIT. They're not saying not to go grab the latest Ubuntu distro...
I don't agree with how the mafIAA handles their copyright cases, but as the law stands, it's well within their rights to go after infringers.
This guy claims that people will just stop making music because it will no longer be profitable... Is that why Bach and Beethoven wrote music?
If by that you mean that Bach wrote music for the sake of doing it, he didn't. Bach, Handel, Mozart, Boccherini and all the others did it because they loved doing it AND because it payed the bills.
They came from a time when there was no means of distributing music in any form other than sheet (and even that was very limited), and no way of advertising concerts. They played to entertain a very wealthy class of royalty, and were paid commissions by royalty.
Some came from affluent families and never had too much to worry about money-wise, and others were born and died poor. Not many really became the mega pop stars of today. But they weren't giving it away either.
John Dowland is arguably the first modern pop star c. AD 1600. Through his letters, it is made clear that he was paid and paid dearly by the courts of James I and a few others, and his music is still respected and played today. In fact, Sting made a great record of Dowland's music on Deutsche Grammophon in 2006.
Dowland set the standard 400 years ago. Now, there are more people with disposable income and better distribution schemes. Love what you do, sure, but make a killing doing it if possible.
Part of the problem with the world's economy these days (at least in fully developed countries) is that there are far too many people making money 'consulting'; IE not producing anything.
Sure, there is a need for SOME consultants, but at some point, something has to be manufactured, put to market and sold for the economy to carry on.
While crossing my fingers, I'm happy to say that since getting my Xbox360 in early 2007, I've not had any RRoD problems with it. In fact, other than a few crashes while trying to join MP games in COD3, I've not had any real problems with the unit EXCEPT:
The drive tray sticks badly. I have to leave a disc in it at all times, or it becomes impossible to open. Even with a disc in, it can take 3-4 attempts to get the door to open, with some well-placed tapping (and I really mean tapping).
It used to do it only occasionally, but now that the device is out of warranty (the extended only covers the RRoD AFAIK), it seems to be doing it all the time.
It's still usable, so I haven't gone out of my way to get it fixed or replaced, but I think it's day is coming.
The whole family thing, and it doesn't have to be a traditional family, can greatly and positively impact society. I don't have any children, but if I did, I would like to think that not only can I be a positive influence on the world, but that at some point my offspring would be too.
And let's not forget that stuff like buying houses and cars, especially houses, generally helps the economy.
Your car needs the transmission serviced after so many miles, and that's not considered a user-maintenance thing either.
Changing the gearbox fluid on my TJ is easier than changing the engine oil. Break open the fill nut (to let air into the transmission) and open the drain plug. Close drain plug and add gear oil until it starts dribbling out of the fill hole. Then tighten the fill nut, and you're done. And even engine oil is that plus filter.
What seems easy and simple to some (read: user serviceable) is difficult for others.
I spent my time after I got home from work tonight (until now) cleaning graffiti off of the backside of the fence in my yard.
On my way home from work, I drove past tons of high school students (I live almost next door to a high school, and in one of the best neighborhoods in my city) with ripped t-shirts, wildly colored hair, baggy pants with zippers everywhere, and no purpose in their step.
The problem is twofold: The American family structure these days blows, and the educational system blows.
The family has nothing to do, really, with single parents and divorce. It has to do with the fact that too many parents value their time and lives more than their kids. So they get babysitters one night a week so they can go to the bar. And they turn on the TV when they get home from work so that they can 'unwind' in peace. And their weekend family time is spent at America's favorite pastime: shopping.
In the monkey-see monkey-do world of childhood, kids see their parents shirk responsibility and act as good little consumers from day one. Even better, the parents have no involvement in their children's schools and educational programs.
The school system blows because there is no emphasis whatsoever put on critical thinking. Kids can't handle their math class for the same reason they can't handle the critical analysis part of their English Lit classes. They are taught to go look something up (in three sources), combine what's in those three sources into three paragraphs and turn it in.
Kids can't handle math because they're taught the hows of problem solving, not the whys.
Kids don't do well with critical thinking, because they're not thought to think creatively either. Arts and music are the first things cut by the powers that be, and when they're not cut, they're often taught by highly under-qualified instructors.
Sports and activities are good and important, but there's a major problem in that ATHLETICS are perceived as the best way to earn a scholarship for ACADEMIC study.
From preschool to grad school, too many institutions ignore critical and creative thinking. Everything is taught vocationally. Hence, the death of the liberal arts education.
And then after school, kids are getting further screwed over by their a) overworked and/or b) undereducated and/or c) socialite and/or d) overly consumerist parent(s).
That's part of the problem with this Democracy. A turd gets elected (twice) and it's a game of fingerpointing, blaming the other 'team' for everything. This is not football.
I, as a registered Republican (but not one who has ever even comes close to voting a straight ticket) voted for Bush on the first go-around, and against him on the second.
The Democrat bastards I helped vote into office on the second go-around appear to be every bit as colluding, impotent and worthless as the last lot of idiots on the other side of the aisle.
It's ok, though. You don't like the way things are going? Just blame the party you're not a part of (right or wrong) and hang the rest on everyone else. Thou dost protest too much.
You know, we can keep ourselves busy bitching, or getting out there and doing something about it. The national politicians, almost without exception start their careers at the local and state level. In addition to writing letters to the people currently holding Federal office, be proactive in your state and community to make sure the people presently getting elected at the State and local levels are the kinds of people you might eventually want on the Hill or in the White House.
Also, get involved with whatever party your a member of, and start actively setting standards and goals at the lowest levels of the party.
Not many people are happy with this administration, and I'm certainly not either. But every moment spent bitching, complaining and blaming is time detracted from getting out there and making a difference.
For what it's worth, the current crop of buffoons vying for the White House are nearly imperceptible from the last bunch of idiots. With the possible exception of John Edwards.
But that's fine. We can just all sit back and treat this like the Super Bowl, throwing popcorn at the TV when our guy wins or loses, and then quite possibly spending the next four years wishing things had gone differently, passing our time with childish infighting.
Slashdot Mirror
In keeping with the political notion, I think the biggest problem is that, like everything else in the US, there is no middle ground. We drive people to make uneducated choices simply so they can buy the t-shirt and blindly root for their 'team'.
We are constantly told that if we're not in favor of fighting overseas, then we're in favor of terrorism. If we believe in a god of some sort, then we have to be anti-science. That if we're not 'for the children' then we're automatically against them.
And how much have we actually proven, versus simply not being able to disprove? Does my belief that the theory of evolution is probably correct somehow prohibit me from seeking a spiritual understanding of the world around me?
One of the wondrous aspects of the human mind is the ability to operate equally well in the realm of concrete truths (fire is hot) and the the realm of imagination or unprovable concepts (is fire hot and why? What if it weren't?). And yet, we do all that we can to divorce ourselves from this in favor of being either-or.
I never get polled, so I'd like to take a minute to publicly air my sentiments.
Sure, push me around a bit, Uncle Sam. I know that you occasionally have to bend the rules to keep the game playable.
But I won't take much more pushing and shoving.
And to Mr. Bush - enjoy your last few months in the great white palace. Bang as much intern as you can, because after you pack your bags, your days as a Former US President begin. You and your ilk will be reviled for your administration.
Nothing like being remembered for all history as one of the most deranged and impotent administrations ever, hunh?
I haven't been a foreign correspondent, but am a professional photojournalist often working in Mexico on longer-term stories.
I wholly agree that part of the problem is the instant gratification, but the newspapers play into that. If I want to know if my favorite sports team won, I'm not going to wait until tomorrow's paper to find out. Likewise, when I read tomorrow's paper, I couldn't give less of a shit about a small car accident that happened yesterday. It either affected my day (in which case a follow-up might be nice) or it more than likely didn't.
Newspapers have an advantage in knowing that they're no longer breaking spot news. Great! Not a responsibility anymore to get a reporter/photographer out to cover an otherwise un-newsworthy car crash or mall event. Without that extra burden, newspapers can now focus on in-depth journalism and breaking the stories that won't be found out by being seen in public or announced in a press-release.
Now is a time when we can focus on doing it better because we're not rushed to get it out the door for tomorrow. But instead, we're shrinking our staffs and dumping our contributors in favor of cheaper wire and PR puff stories (and rushing them out to blogs).
Not many shareholders can really expect papers to do well these days, so why aren't papers trying new things? By new things I don't mean throwing shit online and seeing what sticks, but looking at another way of reporting and delivering news.
The other problem is that newspapers are short on green because they have failed to innovate on their sales model. It used to be much more expensive (and necessary) to distribute information on paper, and not everyone could afford to do it. Today, disseminating information is relatively super-cheap and easy. I have several ideas on how to restructure distribution to once again make it profitable, and therefore return to our mission of holding those with power accountable.
Of course, we've heard stories about staffers at papers and magazines faking or 'enhancing' photos. If it happens with people ON STAFF, then why do news outlets take hand-out art from companies, foreign governments and other non-trusted sources?
For years, I have made my living as a freelance news photographer, and am a member in good standing with several professional organizations. Sure, I could still lie, doctor photos or submit work that isn't my own; but I have added incentive not to: I depend on being trusted to sell my work. If I can't be trusted, I can't get jobs. So beyond my personal ethics paying respect for professional ethics, I have financial incentive not to make shit up.
But alas, as newsrooms shrink their staffs and call out for less freelance work, my as-true-as-I-can-humanly-make-them photographs will be left to go by the wayside in favor of hand-outs from people and organizations who have no incentive to follow the ethical rules AND an interest in making themselves look good.
I guess that's why I find myself photographing more weddings and corporate/advertising pieces. Oddly enough, they are clients who EXPECT to be lied to with heavily retouched photos.
And for the record, it is my professional opinion that this software won't make a bit of difference.
Any of you guys work for international media companies that are looking for America-based freelance contributors? I know a lot of the overseas media still looks for truth in reporting.
I'll preface this by saying that I think Obama is a good candidate, but so what if he studied and lectured C-law? Knowing the law can also mean knowing ways around the law.
Meh.
I'd bet dollars to cents that some lawyer(s) somewhere is telling Google to continue calling it 'Beta' simply so that if something breaks, and causes some amount of damage to the end user, it's even more clear-cut that Google has not created any expectation of warranty or guaranty.
Heck, I've seen a lot of other software sans 'beta' markings that should not have even passed muster as alpha software.
That's rather funny.
Firstly, I have one of those 'Arts degrees' (BFA in Studio Art with minor studies in journalism, art history and economics). I am gainfully employed, and run my own business. In fact, I tend to avoid working with people who proudly tout their cookie-cutter business, marketing or management degrees from second or third-rate schools (or as derivatives of half-assed efforts put in at first-rate schools). I value people who have educational and/or personal backgrounds that have caused them to develop superior critical thinking skills and a wide range of knowledge that can be focused at different targets with ease.
With that out of the way, I went to college in the late 90's, when just about every student had a computer in the dorms, and each room had two connections. I rarely saw anyone online doing anything school-related. Usually it was Napster, pr0n, games, shopping, Joe Cartoon or trying to figure out how to make a fake ID. I can't imagine that things are different/better now.
Students SHOULD have open and unfettered network access in college, and schools shouldn't be unduly responsible for policing them. Let's just stop pretending, though, that unlimited net access is a critical point of modern collegiate education. As more university resources have gone Web-based, I've seen the quality of education diminish firsthand.
And the people who elect and line the pockets of those people who run things want to continue to buy crap they don't need at low, low prices. That is accomplished by 1) outsourcing manufacturing to the cheapest locale possible 2) paying the people that cook/process food or that clean the floors and toilets at the local Wal Mart as little as possible.
I live in a border state that gets saddled with billions of dollars in non-Federal subsidized expenses (and hence spend MORE on illegal immigration than other Americans in, say, Colorado) every year. As a journalist, I have spent years working along the US-Mexico border. I would bet the farm that the amount of economic harm done by illegal immigration is far outweighed by the economic good it has done our country and the global economy by allowing an increasingly slender middle class to continue to spend well beyond their means (keeping the country going), and yet maintain one step on the creditors. That's not even taking into account the amount of families and companies that are fed by government money spent trying to keep illegals out.
Like it or not, turning off the flow of illegals (even if it were possible) would be another nail in the coffin of the already ugly looking American economy.
And you know what? They really do jobs Americans won't do. The vast majority of US citizens would, if faced with making $6/hour for 12-14 hours a day to bone chickens and still not be able to feed the fam and drive the Hummer, would either go on welfare (get more money that way and avoid shitty work) or would resort to crime (selling drugs/sex/stolen property).
There, fixed that for ya.
And some really nice beaches.
And a great culture.
Hell, I'll trade California back to them for Sonora and Sinaloa any damn day of the week.
Private people and business PAY ME to take pictures all the time. It's what I do. And in any licensing agreement you'd ever sign before sending me out on assignment or setting foot into my studio would plainly dictate:
"The complete collection of photographs, physical or electronic, resulting from this session/assignment, are ©Year Photographer, with all rights reserved. Under no circumstance pertinent to this agreement is the Photographer to be considered an employee of the Client, nor are the resulting photographs and other work-product to be construed as "work-for-hire."
But copyright differs from license of rights. If I shot your kid's wedding, I retain copyright, future resale, etc., but I do allow you to make your own prints if you so desire, put up on a Web page and generally consume and use the work in any reasonable, non-commercial manner that isn't competing with my interests. If I shot the cover of your magazine, we'd work something out that was mutually beneficial.
The very few people/companies who raise a complaint over this clause either wind up paying me a lot more in creative fees (compensating me for giving up potential future revenue and/or giving them the advantage of permanent exclusivity; generally more applicable to commercial news/advertising clients), or I just don't work with them.
I am a professional news, documentary and advertising photographer widely published in the American Southwest, Central America and Western Europe. I also do high-end wedding photography for additional income (hey, news doesn't pay crap).
I am a freelancer (full-time), in that I am not an employee at any publication I contribute to. Thus, I rely heavily on retaining sale and resale rights to my work, and must actively protect my copyright and therefore the value of my work.
But you raise a very good question: What if I was a 'sleazy' mall photographer or kids photographer? It may not be high art, but does that provide me with less copyright protection under the law? If you see one of my photos and don't think it's good, does that entitle you to do what you will with it?
I have a broad definition of fair use, and don't make a habit of suing my customers/clients. Although, if someone blatantly and willfully used my work to turn a buck, claimed it as their own, or otherwise violated our mutually agreed-upon license, there would be some degree of legal action taken on my part ranging from a formal notice of infringement to an outright lawsuit. I really couldn't care less if a private client scans pictures and puts them on a Web site, or even prints his own copies to give to family and friends. It would be great for my business if they had to print through me, but printing is no longer expensive and/or only available to a limited few. Why fight changes in the market?
Going back to the mall photographer example, any professional will provide you with a rights agreement (license) up-front. Some are more restrictive than others. If you don't like it, don't buy the service. I don't require wedding clients to order prints through me, but I do make them available. More often than not, they order prints through me anyway, despite having a DVD-ROM of all their pictures in their hands.
My business philosophy is that people are paying for ME (my expertise, talent, professionalism, experience, etc.), not the physical finished product. People pay for the look and feel of what I provide. I could do your portrait, or Mall Portrait Place could. Mine's going to be better, and cost you more on the service side (I make my money on the service, not the physical prints). But you'd be paying me to create your portrait, and paying Mall Portrait Place to put you in front of a colored background of your choice, hit the shutter release, and then make you pay dearly every time they hit the print button.
Very often I hear something to the effect of, "Well heck, I could get studio X to do my portrait/wedding for a lot less." My answer is always, "Yup, you could. And I encourage you to do so if they meet your needs and price."
Wrong.
Tell that to Iraqi and Afghani insurgents. They manage to kill Marines, trained killers armed with some of the best tech available, with 20-year-old rifles and surplus small arms and glorified pipe-bombs almost daily.
History will point you to the Boer war, where Zulu tribesmen armed with pointy sticks slaughtered occupational forces.
13 colonies took on what was arguably the best army/navy in the world (twice) and sent them packing for home, twice.
And Sitting Bull did a number on Custer's cavalry using great tactics (including playing Custer's ego) and inferior weapons.
In WWII, Allied nations were out-teched and out-gunned by Germany; and yet with stamped-steel assault weapons issued to Iowa/Saskatchewan/Staffordshire/Stalingrad farm boys pushed out of plywood aircraft after fairly minimal training, Hitler's better tech was proven ineffective.
Nelson managed to wrap up Trafalgar pretty well, despite having an outnumbered and aging fleet (albeit, I'll make the concession that he had the best fed and trained sailors).
Politics aside, Castro handed Batista his ass with less men than a modern platoon; landed by a fishing boat from Mexico. As an interesting aside, Castro et al. were quite adept at stealing the government's better weapons, and using them for their own purposes.
Should I keep going?
You're right, though. Political and civil initiatives (diplomacy) are and always should be the first option. You're also right that Koresh, McVeigh and others are nutters. But it's important to note that they were crazy. They took up arms in a very, very small scale (or in Koresh's case, kinda sorta threatened to) against the government for really no good reason. The people of the US were not in agreement with their cause, and therefore didn't support it. They were rightfully branded terrorists, and met an expected end. Generally, you don't try to overthrow a government when everyone is fed, happy, the economy is record-holding great and the nation is in a pretty good place.
As rough as things have gotten here in the US, I can still move about freely, say basically whatever I want (especially important since I am employed as a photojournalist) and have as much a chance as ever as advancing myself either through hard work or connections. I can read whatever I want and associate with whoever I want. People don't die as a result of elections here.
It's not bad enough here for there to be an armed revolution or insurrection. With prudent diplomacy and civil oversight and activism in government, hopefully things will never get so bad here as to merit a revolution.
The prime fear is that we will lose our freedom. That we won't be able to vote, travel, read, speak and associate. That we won't be able to talk our way through to change in government. And that's when we will see, once again, men and women of all races and creeds lined up with Wal-Mart shotguns and home-made napalm to either fight and die against an oppressive government or create the new government.
Remember that Samuel Adams was branded a terrorist in England and a patriot in the US. The difference between Adams and Koresh? Adams had the support of the people he claimed to represent, he had a lot of them, and he was successful in his efforts.
Pro photographer here:
It's not that hard to prove ownership of photos (for purposes of copyright assertions). I've gone head-to-head with people a couple times to prove that I created (and therefore was the owner of) the work in question. Nobody's ever argued that, really.
The problem with copyright is more on the law side than the proving ownership side. Copyright attorneys are wildly expensive, and cases are usually long and drawn-out. Plus, just holding the copyright only entitles the owner to sue for actual damages. Only when the work is registered Federally within 90 days of publication (first use) can the owner sue for anything more than actual cost (IE, damages). Hopefully damages are enough to cover not only the bills, but the work missed while in court.
I would much rather see a less tiered system where any use outside of fair use (and I have a broad view of fair use) is open to suit for cost as well as damages. I don't mind seeing one of my photos on a MySpace page or copied to someone's blog (especially if I'm actually given credit), or even if someone goes to my site, grabs a bunch of photos and makes a screensaver FOR THEMSELVES, but I can't stand it when my photos are appropriated into ads, tourist sites, news sites I didn't contract with, etc.
It is much easier (and cheaper) to spell out user licenses and sue for breach-of-contract than it is to get anyone on copyright infringement and actually have it be worth your time to pursue.
In my estimation, the ONLY good thing to come from the DMCA is the ability to serve voluntary and involuntary infringers with takedown notices relatively easily and cheaply.
I agree completely with your sentiments on Paul, except I cannot support him in the White House. As is mentioned in the Federalist Papers (kind of the liner notes to our government as drafted by the early patriots), the office of the President was never meant to wield the power that it does today.
In my interpretation, the office of the President is the only one-man branch of government simply because in some cases, snap decisions need to be made (under the laws set by Congress and the oversight of the Judiciary) when it is just not practical to convene the Congress. Military action is a good example, hence the reason for the Commander-in-Chief title. But snap military actions are supposed to be judged and authorized by the other branches, even if retroactively.
Diplomacy is also another reason for a one-man branch. It would be impractical to fly all of Congress to another country for a sit-down with another head of state. It would be equally impractical (especially at the time of the drafting of the Constitution) for Congress to convene to meet with a visiting dignitary and conduct any meaningful business.
But over the years, the office of the President (and some administrations more than others) have used their control of foreign policy and military action to dilute the power of the Congress and draw more powers for themselves. And that's bad.
Indeed, if powerful, persuasive and right-minded people were allocated to Capitol Hill, we would have a government far more representative of the people. I would like to see a lot more Ron Pauls on the Hill, but don't think he could do anything of any consequence in the big chair under the present government.
Of course the Presidential election is supremely important (precisely because the office has wrangled so much more power than it was originally intended to have), but we often fail to see that the Hill is equally, if not more important.
With that in mind (and to get this post a little more on-topic), I think that McCain is the best the Republicans have to offer.
Mitt is an open liar (claiming vehemently that no one affiliated in any significant way with his campaign was a lobbyist) and too deeply in love with corporate America.
Huckabee just plain scares me. It's people like him that cause America to confuse conservatism with right-wing theocracy. I have no problem with people openly being religious, praying, thanking God, etc., but this guy seems to want to make everyone fit into his Sunday morning routine. And I certainly don't find him charming or socially skillful enough to successfully relate to other heads of state.
Ron Paul will do more good as a voice for the people than as President.
McCain is a respectable (although I don't pretend he's squeaky clean) elder statesman, and one who can empathetically relate to others. He has nearly 80 years of diversified life experience in all kinds of situations. That is much more 'experience' than other candidates on either side can offer. He is an honorable man and one who takes respect very seriously. He has an awful temper, but that has not been a limiting factor in other administrations (ahem, Teddy Roosevelt). People accuse him of being a flip-flopper, but I think it's important that people have the ability to change their position when confronted with new/better evidence and arguments. Maintaining that the world is flat long after it was proven to be round just to avoid 'flip-flopping' would be dumb.
One of the biggest McCain issues for me is that I'm not entirely sure how ingrained he is with the Republican cronies we've seen over the last few administrations. I'm sure he lunches with them, I just need to know he's not in bed with them.
The other problem could be his choice of VP. The thought that Rice or Giuliani could be VP under an aging President scares the hell out of me. I don't think McCain is too old to be President, or that he will invariably die in office, but as an older man we can likely expect h
I bet most New Yorkers don't know how to run a Geiger counter (or possibly even what one is).
All the same, slaves were prevented from learning how to read, Jews in the death camps were not given any information about the war, their future, and today, people we want to strip of power are kept in the dark.
Check my history, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I really think that those in power (ALL of them, not just the Bushies) have gotten to the point of realizing that the American populace have become dumb sheep. Through fear, all is possible for them.
Refuse, resist.
I fail to see how any of that implies guilt. Infringing upon someone's copyright IS illegal and is probably discouraged by MIT. They're not saying not to go grab the latest Ubuntu distro...
I don't agree with how the mafIAA handles their copyright cases, but as the law stands, it's well within their rights to go after infringers.
If by that you mean that Bach wrote music for the sake of doing it, he didn't. Bach, Handel, Mozart, Boccherini and all the others did it because they loved doing it AND because it payed the bills.
They came from a time when there was no means of distributing music in any form other than sheet (and even that was very limited), and no way of advertising concerts. They played to entertain a very wealthy class of royalty, and were paid commissions by royalty.
Some came from affluent families and never had too much to worry about money-wise, and others were born and died poor. Not many really became the mega pop stars of today. But they weren't giving it away either.
John Dowland is arguably the first modern pop star c. AD 1600. Through his letters, it is made clear that he was paid and paid dearly by the courts of James I and a few others, and his music is still respected and played today. In fact, Sting made a great record of Dowland's music on Deutsche Grammophon in 2006.
Dowland set the standard 400 years ago. Now, there are more people with disposable income and better distribution schemes. Love what you do, sure, but make a killing doing it if possible.
Part of the problem with the world's economy these days (at least in fully developed countries) is that there are far too many people making money 'consulting'; IE not producing anything.
Sure, there is a need for SOME consultants, but at some point, something has to be manufactured, put to market and sold for the economy to carry on.
holy. shit.
While crossing my fingers, I'm happy to say that since getting my Xbox360 in early 2007, I've not had any RRoD problems with it. In fact, other than a few crashes while trying to join MP games in COD3, I've not had any real problems with the unit EXCEPT:
The drive tray sticks badly. I have to leave a disc in it at all times, or it becomes impossible to open. Even with a disc in, it can take 3-4 attempts to get the door to open, with some well-placed tapping (and I really mean tapping).
It used to do it only occasionally, but now that the device is out of warranty (the extended only covers the RRoD AFAIK), it seems to be doing it all the time.
It's still usable, so I haven't gone out of my way to get it fixed or replaced, but I think it's day is coming.
Ok, generally I agree with you.
The whole family thing, and it doesn't have to be a traditional family, can greatly and positively impact society. I don't have any children, but if I did, I would like to think that not only can I be a positive influence on the world, but that at some point my offspring would be too.
And let's not forget that stuff like buying houses and cars, especially houses, generally helps the economy.
Changing the gearbox fluid on my TJ is easier than changing the engine oil. Break open the fill nut (to let air into the transmission) and open the drain plug. Close drain plug and add gear oil until it starts dribbling out of the fill hole. Then tighten the fill nut, and you're done. And even engine oil is that plus filter.
What seems easy and simple to some (read: user serviceable) is difficult for others.
I spent my time after I got home from work tonight (until now) cleaning graffiti off of the backside of the fence in my yard.
On my way home from work, I drove past tons of high school students (I live almost next door to a high school, and in one of the best neighborhoods in my city) with ripped t-shirts, wildly colored hair, baggy pants with zippers everywhere, and no purpose in their step.
The problem is twofold: The American family structure these days blows, and the educational system blows.
The family has nothing to do, really, with single parents and divorce. It has to do with the fact that too many parents value their time and lives more than their kids. So they get babysitters one night a week so they can go to the bar. And they turn on the TV when they get home from work so that they can 'unwind' in peace. And their weekend family time is spent at America's favorite pastime: shopping.
In the monkey-see monkey-do world of childhood, kids see their parents shirk responsibility and act as good little consumers from day one. Even better, the parents have no involvement in their children's schools and educational programs.
The school system blows because there is no emphasis whatsoever put on critical thinking. Kids can't handle their math class for the same reason they can't handle the critical analysis part of their English Lit classes. They are taught to go look something up (in three sources), combine what's in those three sources into three paragraphs and turn it in.
Kids can't handle math because they're taught the hows of problem solving, not the whys.
Kids don't do well with critical thinking, because they're not thought to think creatively either. Arts and music are the first things cut by the powers that be, and when they're not cut, they're often taught by highly under-qualified instructors.
Sports and activities are good and important, but there's a major problem in that ATHLETICS are perceived as the best way to earn a scholarship for ACADEMIC study.
From preschool to grad school, too many institutions ignore critical and creative thinking. Everything is taught vocationally. Hence, the death of the liberal arts education.
And then after school, kids are getting further screwed over by their a) overworked and/or b) undereducated and/or c) socialite and/or d) overly consumerist parent(s).
That's part of the problem with this Democracy. A turd gets elected (twice) and it's a game of fingerpointing, blaming the other 'team' for everything. This is not football.
I, as a registered Republican (but not one who has ever even comes close to voting a straight ticket) voted for Bush on the first go-around, and against him on the second.
The Democrat bastards I helped vote into office on the second go-around appear to be every bit as colluding, impotent and worthless as the last lot of idiots on the other side of the aisle.
It's ok, though. You don't like the way things are going? Just blame the party you're not a part of (right or wrong) and hang the rest on everyone else. Thou dost protest too much.
You know, we can keep ourselves busy bitching, or getting out there and doing something about it. The national politicians, almost without exception start their careers at the local and state level. In addition to writing letters to the people currently holding Federal office, be proactive in your state and community to make sure the people presently getting elected at the State and local levels are the kinds of people you might eventually want on the Hill or in the White House.
Also, get involved with whatever party your a member of, and start actively setting standards and goals at the lowest levels of the party.
Not many people are happy with this administration, and I'm certainly not either. But every moment spent bitching, complaining and blaming is time detracted from getting out there and making a difference.
For what it's worth, the current crop of buffoons vying for the White House are nearly imperceptible from the last bunch of idiots. With the possible exception of John Edwards.
But that's fine. We can just all sit back and treat this like the Super Bowl, throwing popcorn at the TV when our guy wins or loses, and then quite possibly spending the next four years wishing things had gone differently, passing our time with childish infighting.