That you'd venture to say that doesn't magically make evidence to support your claim appear.
I've commissioned a stone mason to carve a backup of everything I have into solid blocks of granite. Since the type of information varies (text, photos, videos, etc) I've had the Mason translate everything to its raw binary state and carved in bit by bit (Ha! See what I did there!)
These are stored in my living room, which is causing some difficulty in negotiating living space--but I feel that it's worth the sacrifice.
Sure, he complains when I edit an existing document. He's hired an assistant just to keep my grocerylist.txt file up to date in the archive. I wanted to switch it to an XML structure, but I let him win that battle.
As a recovery strategy in the even of a fire my plan is to outsource the data entry to an Indian firm and take advantage of global time zones and cheap labour. I expect to be back up and running within 7.2 years in the even of a catastrophic event, if my calculations are correct. The best thing is I've eliminated all risk of media becoming obsolete: my last archive was on a Syquest Ez 135--never let it be said that I haven't learned my lesson!
If we're going to start speculating on the reasons that Hayden Christensen's career has "stalled" I think we should wait until Slashdot updates their storage capacity because there's gonna be a LOT of words exchanged on that one.
Short version: he's just a horrible actor who even dragged Natalie Portman down to his level.
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.