Well, yeah.... that's the idea. High blood sugar causes the production of insulin which triggers fat storage. Lower blood sugar = slow or stops the production of insulin which triggers body fat releasing it's stores into the blood stream. What doesn't get used gets filtered out through urination (and even just breathing). It's why calories in minus calories burned is a fallacy - and what most people don't get about low carb diets. You CAN lose more weight than you "burn."
Yes... the packaged fruit I sometimes buy (I buy a lot fresh, too, don't hassle me) doesn't say "sugar free," it says "no added sugar." Huge difference; people need to read beyond the splashy labels.
That's what my nutritionist told me over 10 years ago - aspartame (and certain other no-calorie sweeteners) was bad for low-carb diets because the whole science behind low carb is keeping blood sugar low. She recommended Splenda (sucralose) as not have the same effect; also things like Stevia are good. At the time, I used Spenda as sweetener and, combined with the other aspects of the low-carb diet I lost a lot of weight, so I imagine she was at least right that Spenda didn't have that problem.
Perhaps Getty argued they had creative input. Perhaps they not only digitized it, but color corrected or cleaned it up. Again, as I've also stated several times, we don't know enough information to pass judgment.
Perhaps. Did CC even exist back then? I guess not, since it was formed over a decade after she released her photos. But for the record, let's say someone publishes a hard copy of CC'ed short stories. Are they not allowed to charge for it? For some reason it doesn't surprise people that companies are selling GNU licensed software (although you can largely get the same stuff for free) because they made a nice package out of it.
It's a lot more tricky than that, and I think people should refrain from following the big-company-bad, artist-good mantra when we don't know all the details. For example, if I create a painting and "donate" it to the public domain, if someone takes a picture of it they absolutely have a right to license the use of that picture of it. You're free to go take your own picture of the painting, or pay for someone else's picture of it... or even possibly get it for free from somewhere else.
In this case, while I certainly don't know all the details either, these had to have been physical pictures (based on the year she released them to the public domain - a year before digital cameras were sold commercially). The way I see it, if she used a digital version of the image that Getty created, it's a far different story than if she scanned in her own physical copy. I know it sucks that someone would want you to pay for something they wouldn't even have if you hadn't given it to them... it's sucks, but there's not much legal standing to complain. Without more information, I don't think any of us should be demonizing anybody at this point.
IANAL but I think there's more to this story that we're not hearing; there's a lot of things we simply don't know and I think it looks foolish to draw conclusions about it without knowing the details. She released the images to the public domain in 1988. How many photographers were using digital cameras in 1988? Let's say none, since the first commercially available digital camera didn't come out until 1989. Anyway, that means Getty probably scanned in and cataloged all of those thousands of images she "donated" to the public. They provide a service, they provide access to millions of searchable images (not something you can do for free). Was Carol using one of those images that Getty digitized? Did she get it from them, or from someone who got it from them? There's too much we don't really know about it. If she digitized it herself from her own pictures or negatives, then Getty was completely in the wrong, here, but we don't know.
How do you know that? I read the article - she passed the images into public domain in 1988; I highly doubt they were digital at that time, so someone took the time to digitize and catalog them. How did she get a digital copy? She could have done it herself, sure, but do you know that? Neither do I. How do we know she doesn't use the service at all? How do we know she didn't pull them from Getty? I think we're missing too much information here to slam one side or the other. As far as you know, she pulled it from Getty (or from somewhere that used Getty) and put it on her website - the digitized version might very well be subject to copyright by the entity that did the work. If she scanned it herself, or had a service digitize it from a negative, I'd agree with her side of the story... but we don't know.
Getty is a service - they are storing and providing the images, making them search-able and easy to find and use, and that's at least part of what people are paying for. It's like the GNU license - people can still charge for packaging it up and selling you the media. So the question I have is if she used the service to get the images. The pictures dated to 1988, so I think we can assume they weren't digital from the get-go, and that Getty perhaps did some work to digitize them.
If that's not the case, I absolutely agree that Getty is wrong and the court screwed up (and I also believe this may be the case because the "threatening" letter specifically mentioned copyright claims.... Getty can no more claim copyright than she can.
I have to hope using Chromecast to cast your phone's screen to the TV has helped a few people understand why they should do video in landscape... but I think I'm overly optimistic about people "realizing" things.
There's this fallacy that people have that they think just because they've managed to not get in an accident yet that it means they are somehow capable of the distractions where others aren't. Specifically, while having your map application and music playing (especially with integrated steering wheel controls), or answering the phone hands free might be fine - reading text messages (again, unless your phone/car read them to you without you having to look) is terrible - as is responding to them. Just because you've manage so far doesn't mean you aren't driving dangerously.
That's OK in some areas, but not in a city with 5 lanes of one way traffic.... but yes, you don't just assume drivers will give you the right of way that they should; you'll live far longer assuming they won't.
Yes - I agree completely, with some apps. Pokemon Go not being one of them... but navigation and music and the normal things you might otherwise have going on your phone while you're driving should just default to your usual choices and just go without further asking you anything at all. That would be the safest (other than not using the phone at all - but that's not going to happen).
I think it's a great idea for pretty much every app - but when I click on a predefined destination in my navigation app, instead of just going straight to navigation it asks if I'm the passenger.... making me even more distracted, because now I have to answer questions (and lie that I'm the passenger). Or if you start up your music or news apps, they should just start playing the audio instead of nagging you... that would cause LESS distraction. So it's actually very rare - maybe a half dozen times I've had a problem with my navigation app because of this (because if I wasn't already using it, I'd only switch it on during stop and go traffic anyway, to try to find an alternate). But still - some apps should just go to their default if they think you might be driving instead of asking more distracting questions.
I often wish I went into psychology because of things like that. I know you are right, I know it's true - it just doesn't happen to me, and I find it fascinating and want to understand what people's damage is. It actually started over 20 years ago, before everyone had cellphones... my idiot roommate would get home from work and immediately pick up the phone and start calling people and having absolutely pointless conversations with people he'd be seeing within a few days anyway, if not not later that day.
Of course, I've also thought I'd like to be an architect, too, so... whatever.
I would ignore calls before I had bluetooth integration (hands and eyes free). My new car has a steering wheel button to answer the phone, I don't even have to glance at it. I also think I'm one of the few people who has the self control to completely ignore text messages while I'm driving. I think the phone is a great addition to my commute - IHeartRadio, or Pandora; much better than the morning talk shows that are 40% commercials. Waze is a million times better than getting a brief traffic report every 5 to 10 minutes that doesn't even necessarily cover where I'm driving. But the issue is starting these things up BEFORE you start driving.
True - the nagging can actually make it worse. Touch on the pre-entered name of the location I want to go to, and the phone, realizing it was moving in a manner that it could only be in a car on the road, it asks if you're NOT the driver. Instead it should go immediately to directions.
Interesting points, but I don't think anyone is belittling printing proofs, or decorations... someday we might all have digital walls to decorate digitally, but that day is not today. It will be neat, like in the movies, to tell your wall you want to be at the beach, or see a sunset, or whatever. Cool. But not today.
As far as school goes, it's a good point - even in college, you may not be able to expect everyone to bring a laptop to class. Sure, for some schools it's required, for some courses it only makes sense, but for a lot - especially less expensive junior colleges, it's not practical. In high school, my kids aren't even allowed to use their tablets - even though some of the text books are available online (so they lug around huge 50lb backpacks). They have to buy a $150 calculator for physics and calculus instead of getting a $10 app on their tablets. It's ridiculous. I guess the notion is they can use it to cheat on tests... they are given assignments over the web, but sometimes the teacher doesn't put it online until like 7 or 8pm - my kids have activities, they do their homework right after school and then are free to other things... unless the idiot teacher doesn't put things online early enough. They get up at 5:00am for high school - if a teacher puts a 3 hour assignment online at 8pm, it's really crappy. If they had to hand out the assignment in class, it wouldn't happen. Ideally, they'd put it online the morning of the class the work is based on - then kids might even be able to do something during lunch or study hall.
A+. I do think that, as time goes on it will get easier - but my company isn't going to buy everybody iPads with the necessary programs to be able to take notes digitally as easy as it is in a notebook. It's still easier for me to print a meeting agenda and then annotate it during the meeting. It's just easier. Printed manuals were better, especially programming APIs and software manuals, but now it's not as inconvenient if you have multiple monitors... but then when I take my laptop out of the "dock" and only have the one screen, it still sucks. Things improve over time, but paper is still easier sometimes.
Agree completely.... I might add that, before smart phones, people had these electronic address books that were practically pointless, for example. Nowadays the phone is your address book - so yes, things evolve, but it was still during the big push to paperless that people started using them, and it just made things less convenient and take longer to look someone up. Now you tell your phone "call Joe" and it just does it - great. But some things are still just easier on paper, especially when taking notes and being able to diagram and annotate and draw arrows between parts...
I'm almost 50 and you're wrong - like a previous poster mentioned, with several monitors on my desk nowadays I print far less than I used to. It depends on the kind of document, though. My father is over 80 and still runs an accounting practice, and a few years ago switched to electronic delivery of protected PDFs. So it's the individuals, not the age.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's good then, because that's not what I said. The fallacy is that burning them is the only way.
It gets used as energy; excess also gets filtered out through the kidneys and even released when exhaled from the lungs.
Well, yeah.... that's the idea. High blood sugar causes the production of insulin which triggers fat storage. Lower blood sugar = slow or stops the production of insulin which triggers body fat releasing it's stores into the blood stream. What doesn't get used gets filtered out through urination (and even just breathing). It's why calories in minus calories burned is a fallacy - and what most people don't get about low carb diets. You CAN lose more weight than you "burn."
Yes... the packaged fruit I sometimes buy (I buy a lot fresh, too, don't hassle me) doesn't say "sugar free," it says "no added sugar." Huge difference; people need to read beyond the splashy labels.
That's what my nutritionist told me over 10 years ago - aspartame (and certain other no-calorie sweeteners) was bad for low-carb diets because the whole science behind low carb is keeping blood sugar low. She recommended Splenda (sucralose) as not have the same effect; also things like Stevia are good. At the time, I used Spenda as sweetener and, combined with the other aspects of the low-carb diet I lost a lot of weight, so I imagine she was at least right that Spenda didn't have that problem.
Perhaps Getty argued they had creative input. Perhaps they not only digitized it, but color corrected or cleaned it up. Again, as I've also stated several times, we don't know enough information to pass judgment.
Perhaps. Did CC even exist back then? I guess not, since it was formed over a decade after she released her photos. But for the record, let's say someone publishes a hard copy of CC'ed short stories. Are they not allowed to charge for it? For some reason it doesn't surprise people that companies are selling GNU licensed software (although you can largely get the same stuff for free) because they made a nice package out of it.
It's a lot more tricky than that, and I think people should refrain from following the big-company-bad, artist-good mantra when we don't know all the details. For example, if I create a painting and "donate" it to the public domain, if someone takes a picture of it they absolutely have a right to license the use of that picture of it. You're free to go take your own picture of the painting, or pay for someone else's picture of it... or even possibly get it for free from somewhere else.
In this case, while I certainly don't know all the details either, these had to have been physical pictures (based on the year she released them to the public domain - a year before digital cameras were sold commercially). The way I see it, if she used a digital version of the image that Getty created, it's a far different story than if she scanned in her own physical copy. I know it sucks that someone would want you to pay for something they wouldn't even have if you hadn't given it to them... it's sucks, but there's not much legal standing to complain. Without more information, I don't think any of us should be demonizing anybody at this point.
IANAL but I think there's more to this story that we're not hearing; there's a lot of things we simply don't know and I think it looks foolish to draw conclusions about it without knowing the details. She released the images to the public domain in 1988. How many photographers were using digital cameras in 1988? Let's say none, since the first commercially available digital camera didn't come out until 1989. Anyway, that means Getty probably scanned in and cataloged all of those thousands of images she "donated" to the public. They provide a service, they provide access to millions of searchable images (not something you can do for free). Was Carol using one of those images that Getty digitized? Did she get it from them, or from someone who got it from them? There's too much we don't really know about it. If she digitized it herself from her own pictures or negatives, then Getty was completely in the wrong, here, but we don't know.
How do you know that? I read the article - she passed the images into public domain in 1988; I highly doubt they were digital at that time, so someone took the time to digitize and catalog them. How did she get a digital copy? She could have done it herself, sure, but do you know that? Neither do I. How do we know she doesn't use the service at all? How do we know she didn't pull them from Getty? I think we're missing too much information here to slam one side or the other. As far as you know, she pulled it from Getty (or from somewhere that used Getty) and put it on her website - the digitized version might very well be subject to copyright by the entity that did the work. If she scanned it herself, or had a service digitize it from a negative, I'd agree with her side of the story... but we don't know.
Getty is a service - they are storing and providing the images, making them search-able and easy to find and use, and that's at least part of what people are paying for. It's like the GNU license - people can still charge for packaging it up and selling you the media. So the question I have is if she used the service to get the images. The pictures dated to 1988, so I think we can assume they weren't digital from the get-go, and that Getty perhaps did some work to digitize them.
If that's not the case, I absolutely agree that Getty is wrong and the court screwed up (and I also believe this may be the case because the "threatening" letter specifically mentioned copyright claims.... Getty can no more claim copyright than she can.
I have to hope using Chromecast to cast your phone's screen to the TV has helped a few people understand why they should do video in landscape... but I think I'm overly optimistic about people "realizing" things.
Am I the only one with the self control to ignore text messages while I'm driving? What do you need a special "mode" for?
There's this fallacy that people have that they think just because they've managed to not get in an accident yet that it means they are somehow capable of the distractions where others aren't. Specifically, while having your map application and music playing (especially with integrated steering wheel controls), or answering the phone hands free might be fine - reading text messages (again, unless your phone/car read them to you without you having to look) is terrible - as is responding to them. Just because you've manage so far doesn't mean you aren't driving dangerously.
That's OK in some areas, but not in a city with 5 lanes of one way traffic.... but yes, you don't just assume drivers will give you the right of way that they should; you'll live far longer assuming they won't.
Yes - I agree completely, with some apps. Pokemon Go not being one of them... but navigation and music and the normal things you might otherwise have going on your phone while you're driving should just default to your usual choices and just go without further asking you anything at all. That would be the safest (other than not using the phone at all - but that's not going to happen).
I think it's a great idea for pretty much every app - but when I click on a predefined destination in my navigation app, instead of just going straight to navigation it asks if I'm the passenger.... making me even more distracted, because now I have to answer questions (and lie that I'm the passenger). Or if you start up your music or news apps, they should just start playing the audio instead of nagging you... that would cause LESS distraction. So it's actually very rare - maybe a half dozen times I've had a problem with my navigation app because of this (because if I wasn't already using it, I'd only switch it on during stop and go traffic anyway, to try to find an alternate). But still - some apps should just go to their default if they think you might be driving instead of asking more distracting questions.
I often wish I went into psychology because of things like that. I know you are right, I know it's true - it just doesn't happen to me, and I find it fascinating and want to understand what people's damage is. It actually started over 20 years ago, before everyone had cellphones... my idiot roommate would get home from work and immediately pick up the phone and start calling people and having absolutely pointless conversations with people he'd be seeing within a few days anyway, if not not later that day.
Of course, I've also thought I'd like to be an architect, too, so... whatever.
I would ignore calls before I had bluetooth integration (hands and eyes free). My new car has a steering wheel button to answer the phone, I don't even have to glance at it. I also think I'm one of the few people who has the self control to completely ignore text messages while I'm driving. I think the phone is a great addition to my commute - IHeartRadio, or Pandora; much better than the morning talk shows that are 40% commercials. Waze is a million times better than getting a brief traffic report every 5 to 10 minutes that doesn't even necessarily cover where I'm driving. But the issue is starting these things up BEFORE you start driving.
True - the nagging can actually make it worse. Touch on the pre-entered name of the location I want to go to, and the phone, realizing it was moving in a manner that it could only be in a car on the road, it asks if you're NOT the driver. Instead it should go immediately to directions.
Agreed... I mentioned it in other replies, but you phrased it a lot better.... and it's also great if you want to highlight or annotate something.
Interesting points, but I don't think anyone is belittling printing proofs, or decorations... someday we might all have digital walls to decorate digitally, but that day is not today. It will be neat, like in the movies, to tell your wall you want to be at the beach, or see a sunset, or whatever. Cool. But not today.
As far as school goes, it's a good point - even in college, you may not be able to expect everyone to bring a laptop to class. Sure, for some schools it's required, for some courses it only makes sense, but for a lot - especially less expensive junior colleges, it's not practical. In high school, my kids aren't even allowed to use their tablets - even though some of the text books are available online (so they lug around huge 50lb backpacks). They have to buy a $150 calculator for physics and calculus instead of getting a $10 app on their tablets. It's ridiculous. I guess the notion is they can use it to cheat on tests... they are given assignments over the web, but sometimes the teacher doesn't put it online until like 7 or 8pm - my kids have activities, they do their homework right after school and then are free to other things... unless the idiot teacher doesn't put things online early enough. They get up at 5:00am for high school - if a teacher puts a 3 hour assignment online at 8pm, it's really crappy. If they had to hand out the assignment in class, it wouldn't happen. Ideally, they'd put it online the morning of the class the work is based on - then kids might even be able to do something during lunch or study hall.
A+. I do think that, as time goes on it will get easier - but my company isn't going to buy everybody iPads with the necessary programs to be able to take notes digitally as easy as it is in a notebook. It's still easier for me to print a meeting agenda and then annotate it during the meeting. It's just easier. Printed manuals were better, especially programming APIs and software manuals, but now it's not as inconvenient if you have multiple monitors... but then when I take my laptop out of the "dock" and only have the one screen, it still sucks. Things improve over time, but paper is still easier sometimes.
Agree completely.... I might add that, before smart phones, people had these electronic address books that were practically pointless, for example. Nowadays the phone is your address book - so yes, things evolve, but it was still during the big push to paperless that people started using them, and it just made things less convenient and take longer to look someone up. Now you tell your phone "call Joe" and it just does it - great. But some things are still just easier on paper, especially when taking notes and being able to diagram and annotate and draw arrows between parts...
I'm almost 50 and you're wrong - like a previous poster mentioned, with several monitors on my desk nowadays I print far less than I used to. It depends on the kind of document, though. My father is over 80 and still runs an accounting practice, and a few years ago switched to electronic delivery of protected PDFs. So it's the individuals, not the age.