The laughability of this depends entirely on what you are using the word "safe" to refer too.

For the average consumer, their photos are "safe"r from accidental loss in most cloud storage tools than they are on a hard drive.

If you're discussing the potential for having your photos stolen, that's an entirely different matter.

The notion that I should budget "extra" for using Apple products is actually almost comical, in a world where Adobe has moved to a cloud model and eliminated the concept of software ownership from its business.

Cloud apps make sense in scenarios with shared workflows and collaborative users. A single user application like Aperture/Lightroom...no.

> desktop support will be by to remove the host.

I believe the accurate term would be "parasite." The "host" would be the network, no?

...pretty clearly has his life all figured out. Dude's got 12 machines!

also: no one on slashdot ever "hate[s] to be snarky." Ever.

They certainly had a presence. I used to see booths and hardware at tech related events and conventions, though they were usually smaller ones.

I always figured this for a temporary project: it was a concept laptop that made many many compromises to achieve a price goal. Pretty cool in that respect. That price goal is now being met (or nearly met) by other products ranging from crappy tablets to crappy chromebooks.

Shame to see it go because it also had the philanthropic mission angle that I suspect is not done.

You really should re-read that. Pro-tip while doing that: I run a photography business.

They've acknowledge this. This is the business risk they're taking. Mod this down.

No problem man. Anytime.

To start, your point is true, though ridiculously semantic. If I buy a lifetime exclusive licence for use from Getty, what's the difference between that an "buying" the image. Are you planning on giving Getty your credit card number so that you can have the images on your hard drive and never look at them?

To the people who are using Getty, they are "buying images." Yes, the purchase comes with conditions.

Second, the images are usable--they just didn't fit your use case. Have you got any data to back up that people find images so they can only use part of it?

Yes, there's a use case for that but it's not 100%. For what it's worth, every one of my photos that's been stolen has been stolen in full and reposted without more than being resized...but that's not data either--it's just an example.

I'm quite sure that the embedding tool will change/evolve/improve over time based on mutual desire...keeping in mind that you're not paying for it, so your desires are probably a relatively low priority.

Getty: "Here, take these high quality images and use them for free"
Santajon: "I don't want that image. I want to crop it, and I'd like to apply an artificial aging filter to it so I can look like a douchebag."
Getty: "That's not the image we're offering...for free. If you buy the image, you'll have a file that you can use however you'd like."
Santajon: "Why would I buy an image...photography is free."

That conversation doesn't end well for anybody except Santajon.

Take the free image that's offered or take your own damn picture and use it. The fact that you have to pay to use someone else's product is not a valid complaint.

There's gold in there.

> LEDs are the most poluting in manufacturing.

Since you're typing this on a COMPUTER I'll resist the temptation to laugh. Manufacturing computers isn't polluting at all of course. (Look up the fines levied against silicon fabricators...)

Your comment in this case isn't incorrect but you're ignoring the fact that LED bulb manufacturing is young and there will be process improvements.

While I really appreciate your efforts to make all Canadians look like idiots, I'd rather rather you just identify yourself at from "quebec" rather than Canada.

The solstince was June 21st, 2013. In Montreal the sun rose at 5:06 a.m. that day and set at 8:47 p.m.. Your times might be accurate for some location dramatically farther north, but you can't arbitrarily add two hours of daylight in Montreal without me calling bullshit.

Your argument that "people will come to Canada for bulbs" might wash in the limited number of border communities but in the U.S. most of those have a limited population. Buffalo is a substantial drive from the Border; Seattle is a three hour drive. If you really believe that people are going to drive three hours to smuggle light bulbs over a border well, tabernac...have another beer my friend.

The amount of heat generated from your lightbulbs is doing *nothing* to contribute significantly to heating your living space. Here's a test--and since you have such long days of sunlight it should be easy. Live a month with no lightbulbs on and see what the change in consumption for your electric heat is.

The fact that Quebec has an abundance of hydroelectric power does not justify using all of that power for the sake of it. Hydroelectric power is relatively non-polluting but does entail significant environmental displacement and damage. Reducing energy consumption can lead to a reduction in demand for land and power generating facilities, preserving habitat.

I'm not sure how you get to this logical leap: "And finally, my LCD tv produces much heat. The USA should make LCD tvs and monitors illegal..." Your old CRT TV used to generate quite a bit of heat as well. LEDs will replace them over the long term as well.

That argument also sounds a bit like the OPEC countries saying "why bother making smaller fuel efficient engines? UAE has plenty of oil to refine." It's short sighted, narrow and ignorant.

What's the logical path you take from "installing keyloggers on [your] machine" to "comporimis[ing your] hardware?"

A keylogger does nothing to compromise your hardware. It's pure software and has nothing to do with hardware. It's not, in point of fact, even interfacing with hardware: that's happening at the OS level, and the key logging software is picking up the keystrokes.