My drafting teacher in High School damn near beat that into us. He would give drawings an F+ that were otherwise perfect if they had bad printing on them. We learned it, like it or not.
What does writing in cursive have to do with power outages or blackouts? Do power outages cripple your hands? You can't write using standard hand writing? I find this cursive-worship a lot of people have to be completely arbitrary and silly. Do you hunt and kill and butcher all of your own food? Do you make and can all of your own fruits and vegetables and preserves? Do you skin and tan your own leather clothing? Do you use kerosene lamps? Do you own a horse instead of a car for transportation?
While you call this important body of knowledge valueless, I do not and can do the things you describe. So therefor when and if the balloon goes up, my family will eat and be clothed while yours will starve and die naked in the cold. What a pitty.
Hmmm I wonder what my original, in the box it was purchased in, IBM PC 8088 w/64K of ram, two 360k floppies, IBM green screen monitor ( also in the box it came in ) with all packing materials and documentation would be worth?
And it still boots ROM Basic! ( I took it out put it on the bench and fired it up:: Motivated by a/. article:: and the machine actualy booted!
Well it is this whole web paradigm. We keep trying to make an application environment out of a presentation markup language with kludges like Ajax and the like and it does not really work well, at least in my opinion.
I like the idea of the split because it allows me to put an application shell, that does not change any more then say, browser versions to do what is very very poorly done now with a web browser.
Take for instance the current HTML & CSS box model. It requires a div with all sorts of markup for things like floating, width, height and some content within the div. Bu because html is a presentation language that is supposed flow into and around other elements present itself cleanly even while the browser window resizes and the like, you then have to start working with absolute or relative positioning and then all the craziness if you change the border / margin / padding and then everything starts scrolling all over the place.
I would much rather create applications in a specific environment that would do something like:
MyBox = box.new([a set of basic parameters]) and those parameters would be the basic size and location and colors and such. Now you can use the object model and then something like RecEmail = MyBox.checkBox.add([set of parameters]) and so forth and so on.
Those calls would then be simple calls to the OS to make the same components in the native GUI. The nice part about this is that the application shell can be hard sandboxed and hard rooted to a specific section of the local machine. The other part would have to have a scripting language all its own for things like RecEMail.OnClick = MyBox.Background = "red" ; or something like that.
This is the model wherein the browser becomes an application execution environment. The box model is created as a function, menus are a function all the primitives for applications, grids, drop downs, pick lists become a function that is executed natively with the UI tools of the native GUI that exists in windows, linux, osx etc. There is no trying to flow things around with style sheets, div within div within div surrounded by yet another div. All GUI's have addressable screens and the objects created thereis stay where you put them now matter what happens to the application window that the as set up by the browser does. This is the same as the MDI model, it works, it just needs to be replicated.
The HTML Model:
This is the web as it currently exists, with all the strangeness and wonder that it is, HTML, style sheets and the like to allow text to flow smoothly, images to be included, but even this still needs work. the float:center tag needs to be implemented so text can flow evenly around a fixed image. Things likes snaking columns need to be realized in a simple for so that a tag like < column type="snake" width="30 pct" > [content] </column>. HTML has a long way to go before it truly meetd the needs of on-line publishing.
Hmmm I do have a bit of a problem with the other part though
If I have a thing that I made, and I miss-place it, leave it on a park bench accidentally, does that mean that it is no longer mine? It is no longer in my physical custody, but does that make it any less mine?
I think what this comes down to is that you recognize a physical thing as property that belongs to you until you officially transfer it to someone else and yet you don't want to recognize something created that does not have a physicality as property.
So the following questions come to mind:
1. If a persons takes a raw material ( and that raw material happens to be wood, steel, ice, whatever), and makes something of it is it their property?
3. if another person take a raw material ( in this case words ) and makes something of it, how is that different from the former?
I don't believe anyone should own intellectual "property" at all, but you should have a limited time monopoly on its commercial distribution.
I think this is a tangle of words. What label should we use? You don't like the word "property" and thats fine. So what word shall we use to describe the ability to have absolute and legal control over a novel or sequence of musical notes, etc. that a person has created?
As to your comment. "Ownership" yes it is a hard term to get your head around when you are taking about something that is (in these days) nothing but a string of bites, which in an electronic twist of the moment can be made as ethereal as a cloud on a summer day.
I think the notion takes it's origin from parchment or perhaps papyrus or even clay tablets since those were "things" that contained the information.
In this day an age what term should then be used to describe a sequence of letters and or numbers that I string together that are unique in content, form and or function?
Do I "own" the sequence of instructions I wrote 20 years ago to handle the A-D conversion of sound waves picked of by a microphone?
Perhaps new terms need to be established, I don't know, but your comment suggest such. What are your thoughts?
Thank you for that response. All of those are what I summed up as the "many many difficult questions" that will need answering before any meaningful reform can be undertaken.
Your argument is emotional, and I am not arguing the merits of DRM, so therefor I will not engage at the level..
The point is that there are content creators/owners that do not want the content that they created distributed without the fee for that content being paid to them or their authorized agent.
In the digital age when content, even content obtained legitimately, can be distributed world wide on a mass basis within hours and in some cases minutes both against the content creator/owners wishes and in violations of the protections currently in place what recourse to content creators/owners have?
Your argument that there are content creators that sell their content without any sort of digital rights management, implies that you believe that all content creators should do so. I submit that it is the choice of the content creator/owner to make that decision for themselves and as such it is your choice to purchase or not as both of you have that fundamental right.
I also submit that we, the DMR'd ( if you will ) are the original creators of DRM since those content creators were forced to attempt to control the distribution of their content when those of us with digital means undertook to distribute their content without their agreement, to the world en-mass. In this regard we are truly hoisted on our own petard.
Well, if you do that, what is the author's incentive to create anything?
What DRM et. all, is really about, is about ensuring the content creator/owner gets paid whatever the market will bare, for the content, in whatever form it is published, for the lifetime of the protection.
You can argue that the protection should be limited and the consensus seems to fall into about 16 years and after that the protection is removed ( or possibly renewable once ) and then the work moves into the public domain.
The People first, the creators second, the owners third.
Copyright exists because society consents to existence, not for the gratification of the author, but to entice the authors to create for its benefit. Society comes first, then the creator. Perpetual copyright is an abomination, as the society doesn't benefit.
Can you please expand on exactly what protections the "The People" require in this context?
drivel, but I have yet to see a comprehensive solution offered up by anyone that covers everyone fairly
Who are the people that need protecting?
Content creators. Yes those people who actually write a book, play, music, software application, movie script, etc.
Content owners. Yes those people whom have purchased the rights, first north american, first world wide, all rights, some rights, or whatever the agreement is that was made with the original content owner
How long do they deserve this protection for? 1 Year, 1000 years? And should that protection be different for content creators then content owners ( except when they are the same entity) ?
Should this protection be and estate protection, in other words, is it inheritable? Could I as a content creator / owner leave that protection in my will to my heirs? If so how long should that protection last, or should it? Would that same estate protection be enjoyed by content owners?
What agreements should be legal? Should it be legal for a person, as an employee of a company who pays them a salary to create a specific content, to be bound by an agreement of employment to assign all protection to that company? And if so, does that company fall under the definition of creator, owner or both of that content?
There are many difficult questions to be answered before a sweeping grand reform of protections granted under the term copyright can even be attempted.
Has been lost over the centuries to the point that they are now simply degree mills with some research om the side.
The concept of a "Community of teachers and scholars" still exists yes, but only to the extent that it provides a basis for funding for the institution as a whole.
At one point the purpose of a university education was to produce a graduate with a well rounded education, someone versed in the humanities, sciences, mathematics, able to discuss Plato or Galileo with a broad understanding of both.
Try discussing Plato with your typical graduate with a BS or MS in computer science and what you will most likely get are blank dull cow like eyes.
Many would argue that the lack of a "classical education" in a CS grad is meaningless, but I would disagree since in a "classical education" there is much to be derived to address many problems in life as well as work.
Of those of you in a CS pipline at any collage, what courses are you required to take outside of that course of study? More then likely it is very little. When you graduate, you may know a great deal about CS but what would you know of philosophy, botany, pick any other "worldly subject"?
I for one would like to see trade schools in computer programming, electronics etc. for subjects that have for to long been considered the private domain of the collage/university and have them recognized as valuable sources for skilled professionals in those fields.
Don't blow Drupal's trumpet to very loudly. I have a drupal site that fell into my lap and it has been an abosulte PITA. Their "API" is horrible. Building a modules for that beast is NOT trivial and involves so much that is completely undocumented. Even using other modules that "work" and trying to reverse engineer those to begin to understand their API is just as time consuming and difficult.
My guess is that most of these CMS systems started out as nice little projects that got popular, and now suffer so very badly from legacy from version to version.
Drupal does have a very well thought out module install structure, but trying to build anything form based in it is just atrocious.
The other problem is the theming. Modules can be broken by theme changes. A great example is the WebFileManager. Unless it is run in one of the "classic" themes it just breaks. Sad, because WebFM is a very nice module.
How about using WORDS instead of bytes? lets see, uhmm FFFF.FFFF.FFFF.FFFF is about 1.8^19 or 180,000,000,000,000,000,000 hosts so I think 450.450.450.440:80 would work just fine since I don't think my toaster or my refrigerator or my car needs an IP address.
Is 2002::1::2
a) 2002:0:0:0:0:1:0:2
b) 2002:0:1:0:0:0:0:2
c) 2002:0:0:1:0:0:0:2 ... ?
See above
This is an issue with CIFS. Take it up with MSFT.
Alternatively, you could enter your systems into DNS and never worry about their IP addresses again. IIRC, if you're a member of a domain, then your machine's hostname is automatically entered into DNS.
Well I dislike MicroSoft for many,many reasons, but considering about 80% to 90% of the wolds desktops run WINDOWS well hell FUCK those People they were stupid mutha fuckahs for buying a computer with windows on it to begin with and as we all know UNC paths are just bad bad bad! As to having my machine automatically entered into some DNS server that may or may not get tooled... uhm thanks but no thanks and besides hey, we can raise the load on the DNS system exponentially, no problem right?
All link-local addresses on my Linux system get a route that's associated with the loopback interface, and no others. Should the system have associated a link-local address with the interface that it's been generated for? I think so. But, I haven't read the documentation that dictates how routes for link-local addresses are to be created.
All because some pencil necks could not figure out that a word holds more information then a byte. Uhm, yeah that's the ticket!
I gotta say the group that came up with this abortion for and address specification are a collective group of ASSHATS
Ohhh you mean you want to go to a specific port? Well don't forget to put your address in [] brakets!
Ohh if there are consecutive zero's [0] you can just put two colons next to each other, BUT you can only do that ONCE, because otherwise it might be ambiguous.
And oh BY the way, remember UNC paths? Guess what you cant put colons in those! But hey, we have a fix for that uhmmm yeah just go to ipv6-literal.net
Need link local?? Ok, I guess we gotta throw some percent (%) signs in there too!
The bottom line is the asshats who created this spec might be smart, but damn they are clueless.
You can be as anonymous at Burning Man as you want to be, you don't want them to know your name or anything else about you? Pay cash for your tickets, go through the gate and get your ticket torn, no one will ask your name, no one will ask for identification (unless you are obviously a minor), you can drive into the event, find a camping spot and set up your rig, It takes a lot to get on the organizations radar. Some examples: Come to the event to sell drugs and that will get you at minimum tossed from the event, and at worst a very long prison sentence in Nevada where even marijuana is still a felony. Other then the cardinal rule of Do not interfere with anyones immediate experience it is pretty much wide open, hell you can drink/drug yourself into a stupor, be passed out naked in the blazing sun and the event will haul your ass to the med tent, get you buffed up and sent back out into the event to do it again, rinse and repeat.
At some point you have to trust those that manage and produce this event.
I personally know most of the LLC members, I have drank with them, broke bread with them, Sheltered with them, argued with them. Some of them I like, some of them I don't particularly like. Some of them tend to make their own rules even when it has the distinct possibility of being detrimental to the event; however, these are the people that put this event on year after year and like I said, I may not care for some of them, they have never, to my knowledge, never, ever issued a take down notice to any participants web site. They have gone after and vigorously so, those who would take from the event to further their riches at the expense of both the spirit and intent of the event.
And yes I have been the camera police ( Black Rock Ranger from 1998 to 2002), and I have insisted that some people get a press pass for their gear, it is simple, there is no fee, you just have to register and abide by the rules.
What about the books about Burning Man you might ask? All are done with participants knowledge not by some asshat with a huge zoom lens sneaking around the event to take pictures of someone taking a shower in their camp or just being themselves but also happening to be unclothed.
In short, yes they have the legal power to enjoin you from publishing the photo's you take, but is has never been abused, not in almost twenty years. Until they do misuse or abuse that, they get a pass from me.
First of all the photo policy is rarely, if ever used. When it is, it is because some asshole went to the event with primary intent of taking pictures of nude people so they can sell them. That we don't tolerate, period, end of discussion. You don't like it, don't by a ticket.
Ticket prices? Ever wonder it costs to pay for porta-potties for +-50,000 people and have them serviced twice a day? Go here and read the afterburn reports, they contain a full accounting of what it costs to put this event on. Give you a hint, it is over 1 million dollars just so people can take a shit.
And yes, I attended the even for 5 years running, and I worked for the event, so yes I know of what I speak.
You should try flying a "Flight Simulator" and then flying a real airplane.
Oh and yes, I am a pilot. No camera can replace peripheral vision, No camera can replace a pair of eyes that live by the cardinal rule of VFR flight, "See and Avoid" and no camera can replace a hand shaping the eyes "just so" to see the glint of another planes wing in the sunset.
.
Drones, great for war zones bad for civilian air space
C was designed to be a very small and compact language with the most minimal amount of sugarl. It is lean, mean and it just works
C++ never, and I mean never got the object model right. The closest anyone has ever come to getting the object model right was Borland OO Pascal and even then they fucked it up in later versions.
While it is quite nice to encapsulate a lot of functionality and behavior into one call it is certainly not the end all be all of language paradigms.
I cant think of one thing that C++ has that I would miss if it disappeared from the face of the earth 5 minutes from now.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmmm do I know you?
My drafting teacher in High School damn near beat that into us. He would give drawings an F+ that were otherwise perfect if they had bad printing on them. We learned it, like it or not.
He was a great teacher!
What does writing in cursive have to do with power outages or blackouts? Do power outages cripple your hands? You can't write using standard hand writing? I find this cursive-worship a lot of people have to be completely arbitrary and silly. Do you hunt and kill and butcher all of your own food? Do you make and can all of your own fruits and vegetables and preserves? Do you skin and tan your own leather clothing? Do you use kerosene lamps? Do you own a horse instead of a car for transportation?
While you call this important body of knowledge valueless, I do not and can do the things you describe. So therefor when and if the balloon goes up, my family will eat and be clothed while yours will starve and die naked in the cold. What a pitty.
Nicole P. Stott - Uhm, oh yes indeed.
FULLY qualified, smart, intelligent and yet still Saaaamokin!
Hmmm I wonder what my original, in the box it was purchased in, IBM PC 8088 w/64K of ram, two 360k floppies, IBM green screen monitor ( also in the box it came in ) with all packing materials and documentation would be worth?
And it still boots ROM Basic! ( I took it out put it on the bench and fired it up :: Motivated by a /. article :: and the machine actualy booted!
LOL! Good question...
Well it is this whole web paradigm. We keep trying to make an application environment out of a presentation markup language with kludges like Ajax and the like and it does not really work well, at least in my opinion.
I like the idea of the split because it allows me to put an application shell, that does not change any more then say, browser versions to do what is very very poorly done now with a web browser.
Take for instance the current HTML & CSS box model. It requires a div with all sorts of markup for things like floating, width, height and some content within the div. Bu because html is a presentation language that is supposed flow into and around other elements present itself cleanly even while the browser window resizes and the like, you then have to start working with absolute or relative positioning and then all the craziness if you change the border / margin / padding and then everything starts scrolling all over the place.
I would much rather create applications in a specific environment that would do something like:
MyBox = box.new([a set of basic parameters]) and those parameters would be the basic size and location and colors and such. Now you can use the object model and then something like RecEmail = MyBox.checkBox.add([set of parameters]) and so forth and so on.
Those calls would then be simple calls to the OS to make the same components in the native GUI. The nice part about this is that the application shell can be hard sandboxed and hard rooted to a specific section of the local machine. The other part would have to have a scripting language all its own for things like RecEMail.OnClick = MyBox.Background = "red" ; or something like that.
the web into two very distinct flavors:
I don't have a problem with it at all.
Hmmm I do have a bit of a problem with the other part though
If I have a thing that I made, and I miss-place it, leave it on a park bench accidentally, does that mean that it is no longer mine? It is no longer in my physical custody, but does that make it any less mine?
I think what this comes down to is that you recognize a physical thing as property that belongs to you until you officially transfer it to someone else and yet you don't want to recognize something created that does not have a physicality as property.
So the following questions come to mind:
1. If a persons takes a raw material ( and that raw material happens to be wood, steel, ice, whatever), and makes something of it is it their property?
3. if another person take a raw material ( in this case words ) and makes something of it, how is that different from the former?
Just pondering life as I know it...
I don't believe anyone should own intellectual "property" at all, but you should have a limited time monopoly on its commercial distribution.
I think this is a tangle of words. What label should we use? You don't like the word "property" and thats fine. So what word shall we use to describe the ability to have absolute and legal control over a novel or sequence of musical notes, etc. that a person has created?
Thanks for the clarification of "trolling"...
As to your comment. "Ownership" yes it is a hard term to get your head around when you are taking about something that is (in these days) nothing but a string of bites, which in an electronic twist of the moment can be made as ethereal as a cloud on a summer day.
I think the notion takes it's origin from parchment or perhaps papyrus or even clay tablets since those were "things" that contained the information.
In this day an age what term should then be used to describe a sequence of letters and or numbers that I string together that are unique in content, form and or function?
Do I "own" the sequence of instructions I wrote 20 years ago to handle the A-D conversion of sound waves picked of by a microphone?
Perhaps new terms need to be established, I don't know, but your comment suggest such. What are your thoughts?
Thank you for that response. All of those are what I summed up as the "many many difficult questions" that will need answering before any meaningful reform can be undertaken.
Your argument is emotional, and I am not arguing the merits of DRM, so therefor I will not engage at the level..
The point is that there are content creators/owners that do not want the content that they created distributed without the fee for that content being paid to them or their authorized agent.
In the digital age when content, even content obtained legitimately, can be distributed world wide on a mass basis within hours and in some cases minutes both against the content creator/owners wishes and in violations of the protections currently in place what recourse to content creators/owners have?
Your argument that there are content creators that sell their content without any sort of digital rights management, implies that you believe that all content creators should do so. I submit that it is the choice of the content creator/owner to make that decision for themselves and as such it is your choice to purchase or not as both of you have that fundamental right.
I also submit that we, the DMR'd ( if you will ) are the original creators of DRM since those content creators were forced to attempt to control the distribution of their content when those of us with digital means undertook to distribute their content without their agreement, to the world en-mass. In this regard we are truly hoisted on our own petard.
Well, if you do that, what is the author's incentive to create anything?
What DRM et. all, is really about, is about ensuring the content creator/owner gets paid whatever the market will bare, for the content, in whatever form it is published, for the lifetime of the protection.
You can argue that the protection should be limited and the consensus seems to fall into about 16 years and after that the protection is removed ( or possibly renewable once ) and then the work moves into the public domain.
The People first, the creators second, the owners third.
Copyright exists because society consents to existence, not for the gratification of the author, but to entice the authors to create for its benefit. Society comes first, then the creator. Perpetual copyright is an abomination, as the society doesn't benefit.
Can you please expand on exactly what protections the "The People" require in this context?
drivel, but I have yet to see a comprehensive solution offered up by anyone that covers everyone fairly
Who are the people that need protecting?
How long do they deserve this protection for? 1 Year, 1000 years? And should that protection be different for content creators then content owners ( except when they are the same entity) ?
Should this protection be and estate protection, in other words, is it inheritable? Could I as a content creator / owner leave that protection in my will to my heirs? If so how long should that protection last, or should it? Would that same estate protection be enjoyed by content owners?
What agreements should be legal? Should it be legal for a person, as an employee of a company who pays them a salary to create a specific content, to be bound by an agreement of employment to assign all protection to that company? And if so, does that company fall under the definition of creator, owner or both of that content?
There are many difficult questions to be answered before a sweeping grand reform of protections granted under the term copyright can even be attempted.
I await your collective responses with curiosity.
Has been lost over the centuries to the point that they are now simply degree mills with some research om the side.
The concept of a "Community of teachers and scholars" still exists yes, but only to the extent that it provides a basis for funding for the institution as a whole.
At one point the purpose of a university education was to produce a graduate with a well rounded education, someone versed in the humanities, sciences, mathematics, able to discuss Plato or Galileo with a broad understanding of both.
Try discussing Plato with your typical graduate with a BS or MS in computer science and what you will most likely get are blank dull cow like eyes.
Many would argue that the lack of a "classical education" in a CS grad is meaningless, but I would disagree since in a "classical education" there is much to be derived to address many problems in life as well as work.
Of those of you in a CS pipline at any collage, what courses are you required to take outside of that course of study? More then likely it is very little. When you graduate, you may know a great deal about CS but what would you know of philosophy, botany, pick any other "worldly subject"?
I for one would like to see trade schools in computer programming, electronics etc. for subjects that have for to long been considered the private domain of the collage/university and have them recognized as valuable sources for skilled professionals in those fields.
Don't blow Drupal's trumpet to very loudly. I have a drupal site that fell into my lap and it has been an abosulte PITA. Their "API" is horrible. Building a modules for that beast is NOT trivial and involves so much that is completely undocumented. Even using other modules that "work" and trying to reverse engineer those to begin to understand their API is just as time consuming and difficult.
My guess is that most of these CMS systems started out as nice little projects that got popular, and now suffer so very badly from legacy from version to version.
Drupal does have a very well thought out module install structure, but trying to build anything form based in it is just atrocious.
The other problem is the theming. Modules can be broken by theme changes. A great example is the WebFileManager. Unless it is run in one of the "classic" themes it just breaks. Sad, because WebFM is a very nice module.
How would you represent it?
How about using WORDS instead of bytes? lets see, uhmm FFFF.FFFF.FFFF.FFFF is about 1.8^19 or 180,000,000,000,000,000,000 hosts so I think 450.450.450.440:80 would work just fine since I don't think my toaster or my refrigerator or my car needs an IP address.
Is 2002::1::2
... ?
a) 2002:0:0:0:0:1:0:2
b) 2002:0:1:0:0:0:0:2
c) 2002:0:0:1:0:0:0:2
See above
This is an issue with CIFS. Take it up with MSFT.
Alternatively, you could enter your systems into DNS and never worry about their IP addresses again. IIRC, if you're a member of a domain, then your machine's hostname is automatically entered into DNS.
Well I dislike MicroSoft for many ,many reasons, but considering about 80% to 90% of the wolds desktops run WINDOWS well hell FUCK those People they were stupid mutha fuckahs for buying a computer with windows on it to begin with and as we all know UNC paths are just bad bad bad! As to having my machine automatically entered into some DNS server that may or may not get tooled... uhm thanks but no thanks and besides hey, we can raise the load on the DNS system exponentially, no problem right?
All link-local addresses on my Linux system get a route that's associated with the loopback interface, and no others. Should the system have associated a link-local address with the interface that it's been generated for? I think so. But, I haven't read the documentation that dictates how routes for link-local addresses are to be created.
All because some pencil necks could not figure out that a word holds more information then a byte. Uhm, yeah that's the ticket!
Well I am not ah-skeered of IPV6 but...
I gotta say the group that came up with this abortion for and address specification are a collective group of ASSHATS
Ohhh you mean you want to go to a specific port? Well don't forget to put your address in [] brakets!
Ohh if there are consecutive zero's [0] you can just put two colons next to each other, BUT you can only do that ONCE, because otherwise it might be ambiguous.
And oh BY the way, remember UNC paths? Guess what you cant put colons in those! But hey, we have a fix for that uhmmm yeah just go to ipv6-literal.net
Need link local?? Ok, I guess we gotta throw some percent (%) signs in there too!
The bottom line is the asshats who created this spec might be smart, but damn they are clueless.
You can be as anonymous at Burning Man as you want to be, you don't want them to know your name or anything else about you? Pay cash for your tickets, go through the gate and get your ticket torn, no one will ask your name, no one will ask for identification (unless you are obviously a minor), you can drive into the event, find a camping spot and set up your rig, It takes a lot to get on the organizations radar. Some examples: Come to the event to sell drugs and that will get you at minimum tossed from the event, and at worst a very long prison sentence in Nevada where even marijuana is still a felony. Other then the cardinal rule of Do not interfere with anyones immediate experience it is pretty much wide open, hell you can drink/drug yourself into a stupor, be passed out naked in the blazing sun and the event will haul your ass to the med tent, get you buffed up and sent back out into the event to do it again, rinse and repeat.
At some point you have to trust those that manage and produce this event.
I personally know most of the LLC members, I have drank with them, broke bread with them, Sheltered with them, argued with them. Some of them I like, some of them I don't particularly like. Some of them tend to make their own rules even when it has the distinct possibility of being detrimental to the event; however, these are the people that put this event on year after year and like I said, I may not care for some of them, they have never, to my knowledge, never, ever issued a take down notice to any participants web site. They have gone after and vigorously so, those who would take from the event to further their riches at the expense of both the spirit and intent of the event.
And yes I have been the camera police ( Black Rock Ranger from 1998 to 2002), and I have insisted that some people get a press pass for their gear, it is simple, there is no fee, you just have to register and abide by the rules.
What about the books about Burning Man you might ask? All are done with participants knowledge not by some asshat with a huge zoom lens sneaking around the event to take pictures of someone taking a shower in their camp or just being themselves but also happening to be unclothed.
In short, yes they have the legal power to enjoin you from publishing the photo's you take, but is has never been abused, not in almost twenty years. Until they do misuse or abuse that, they get a pass from me.
Such typical responses...
First of all the photo policy is rarely, if ever used. When it is, it is because some asshole went to the event with primary intent of taking pictures of nude people so they can sell them. That we don't tolerate, period, end of discussion. You don't like it, don't by a ticket.
Ticket prices? Ever wonder it costs to pay for porta-potties for +-50,000 people and have them serviced twice a day? Go here and read the afterburn reports, they contain a full accounting of what it costs to put this event on. Give you a hint, it is over 1 million dollars just so people can take a shit.
And yes, I attended the even for 5 years running, and I worked for the event, so yes I know of what I speak.
You should try flying a "Flight Simulator" and then flying a real airplane.
Oh and yes, I am a pilot. No camera can replace peripheral vision, No camera can replace a pair of eyes that live by the cardinal rule of VFR flight, "See and Avoid" and no camera can replace a hand shaping the eyes "just so" to see the glint of another planes wing in the sunset.
.
Drones, great for war zones bad for civilian air space
Hear! Hear!
C was designed to be a very small and compact language with the most minimal amount of sugarl. It is lean, mean and it just works
C++ never, and I mean never got the object model right. The closest anyone has ever come to getting the object model right was Borland OO Pascal and even then they fucked it up in later versions.
While it is quite nice to encapsulate a lot of functionality and behavior into one call it is certainly not the end all be all of language paradigms.
I cant think of one thing that C++ has that I would miss if it disappeared from the face of the earth 5 minutes from now.
domain names want to be free!!!