So photographer David Slater wants Wikipedia to remove a monkey selfie that was taken with his camera. As you can see from this screen shot, Wikipedia says no: the monkey pressed the shutter so it owns the copyright.
We got NPR’s in-house legal counsel, Ashley Messenger, to weigh in. She said:
Traditional interpretation of copyright law is that the person who captured the image owns the copyright. That would be the monkey. The photographer’s best argument is that the monkey took the photo at his direction and therefore it’s work for hire. But that’s not a great argument because it’s not clear the monkey had the intent to work at the direction of the photographer nor is it clear there was “consideration” (value) exchanged for the work. So… It’s definitely an interesting question! Or the photographer could argue that leaving the camera to see what would happen is his work an therefore the monkey’s capture of the image was really the photographer’s art, but that would be a novel approach, to my knowledge.
For the first time ever, NASA is making tons of images, from the first American missions to space to shots from the International Space Station, available to everyone via a massive database called the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth.
The photographs are the most detailed shots ever taken of our planet, and, when examined together, can help scientists get a better sense of Earth’s overall health. While night photographs highlight our most-developed cities, daytime shots show patterns of air pollution and underwater blooms of algae. By studying patterns of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the levels of light pollution emitted from densely-packed cities, scientists can use these images to monitor global energy use, spot harmful soil erosion and water depletion and locate wildlife in danger of habitat destruction.
The case is made in the article that most of a users app downloads probably come in the first few months. This will start pushing large companies to pay to get their apps preinstalled on phones. This will lead to the same problem for Android phones as PCs have with all of the crapwear.
From what I’ve seen already carriers and manufacturers are already perpetuating this. From all the phones I’ve had, my Google Play store has over 20 apps in it from device manufactures and carriers, many of which are duplicative to apps that come from Google. The iPhone, like their Mac counter parts, don’t have this problem, but does have their own useless apps you can’t remove.
This will be a big problem for Android phones.
I called out to some as they left, ‘Can’t you even listen to ideas you disagree with? In Oxford, of all places, you should be open-minded enough to hear alternative views’. But no. They said I needed an open mind. This really got to me, raising painful memories of my early research on psychics and clairvoyants who said, ‘You just don’t have an open mind,’ when my careful experiments showed no psychic powers. By the time I moved on to showing Internet memes and viral videos more than half the audience was gone.
(for Loren Eiseley)
Big Bang breaches the
rushes into the vacuum.
Barred owl’s incantation
bruises dew gathering on grass.
The Pleiades come into focus
when looked at askance.
Words: elemental, essential,
nothing about things,
their own Milky Way.
When language falls away,…
microscopic bone marrow transplant — hematopoietic stem cells (the immortal source of both red and white blood cells) poised in a syringe for transplant
colored SEM composite image
credit: Steve Gschmeissner
Children and adolescents with autism have a surplus of synapses in the brain, and this excess is due to a slowdown in a normal brain “pruning” process during development, according to a study by neuroscientists at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC). Because synapses are the points where neurons connect and communicate with each other, the excessive synapses may have profound effects on how the brain functions. The study was published in the August 21 online issue of the journal Neuron.
Guomei Tang, Kathryn Gudsnuk, Sheng-Han Kuo, Marisa L. Cotrina, Gorazd Rosoklija, Alexander Sosunov, Mark S. Sonders, Ellen Kanter, Candace Castagna, Ai Yamamoto, Zhenyu Yue, Ottavio Arancio, Bradley S. Peterson, Frances Champagne, Andrew J. Dwork, James Goldman, David Sulzer. Loss of mTOR-Dependent Macroautophagy Causes Autistic-like Synaptic Pruning Deficits. Neuron, 2014; DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.07.040
In a study of brains from children with autism, researchers found that autistic brains did not undergo normal pruning during childhood and adolescence. The images show representative neurons from autistic (left) and control (right) brains; the spines on the neurons indicate the location of synapses. Credit: Guomei Tang, PhD and Mark S. Sonders, PhD/Columbia University Medical Center
Most recurrent words on Wikipedia, excluding : “Country”, linking words, demonyms and “government”.
lickystickypickyshe:Avocados are toxic to almost all animals (including cats and dogs). Humans are a rare exception. It is the only fruit to contain persin, a fatty acid, which, when eaten by animals causes vomiting, diarrhea, and other nasty symptoms. Consumption of large quantities can cause death within twelve hours.
Avocados are berries (fleshy fruits coming from a single ovary). Interestingly, this broad definition of a berry means that bananas, pumpkin, tomatoes, watermelon, and coffee are also berries (you can tell that to the next person who tries to argue that tomatoes are vegetables). Curiously this also excludes strawberries as berries.
Eighty percent of modern avocados originate from one “mother” tree which was patented by mailman Rudolph Hass from California in 1935. The tree survived until 2002 when it died of root rot. Unfortunately Hass only made $5,000 in his lifetime from his patent on the tree because his partner sold cultivars to anyone who wanted to buy them. Subsequently Hass spent the remainder of his life working for the California Mail Service.
Avocado also has an interesting characteristic: it is the only berry with no living animal large enough to spread it through consumption and release as dung. This has led scientists to believe that it co-evolved with prehistoric megafauna that were large enough to eat the fruit whole. The megafauna went extinct but the avocado remained as an unusual monument to an unknown dinosaur.
Stephen Harper’s petro-Tories have a well-earned reputation for suppressing inconvenient environmental science, but they attained new Stalinist lows when their ministers prohibited Canadian Ice Services from disclosing their government-funded research on the rapid loss of Arctic ice.
(scary background music…)
The original French cast singing A la volonté du Peuple (Do You Hear the people sing?) from the Original French Concept Album
In the community of photographers online, it has become somewhat impossible to discuss film, or to identify images as having been shot on film, without it becoming something of a political statement. The inexorable advance of digital technology and the ubiquity of digital images causes most photographers to wonder why anyone would still bother to shoot film, given the technical superiority of digital as a recording medium in almost all quantifiable qualities. Those of us who shoot film do so with a nagging sense that we work in the twilight of the medium we love, as cherished cameras and film stocks and papers are discontinued to make room for the next generation of mirrorless imaging devices. We post images to forums with an air of defiance and bravado, often referencing our rejection of digital cameras in language thick with our imagined moral superiority. Meanwhile, those digital photographers who have inherited the insecurity that has always been a part of the photographic medium find any deviation from the digital norm as a rejection of their chosen mode of expression, undermining the validity of their own work. Thus it is not enough for many digital photographers to forsake film: they must discredit film entirely as an antiquated and useless footnote in the history of image-making.Of course, this all occurs in the context of online forums and social networks, and typically the most talented photographers simply march on with whatever their chosen medium, ignoring the tempest-in-a-teapot that is online argument. It is unfortunate, though, that this insecurity and defensiveness I describe often infects otherwise useful and vibrant photographic communities. So with that preface, I thought I would offer my reasoning behind returning to film for much of my own image-making. And for my part, I hope I do nothing to disrespect the tremendous work others produce with digital equipment.A few months ago I returned from a trip to Arizona, and found myself profoundly dissatisfied with most of the images that I’d produced. This dissatisfaction was not with the technical quality of my equipment: my Canon 5D Mark III and “L” lenses leave precious little to be desired in terms of ability to produce excellent images. My dissatisfaction occurred because my work felt dull and lifeless, and I felt that any real perspective I might have developed was absent from the frames. In comparison, I much preferred images I’d made a few years before using a technically “inferior” Leica rangefinder and black & white film. And make no mistake: 35mm film lags behind digital in resolution, flexibility, low light performance, and every other category save a few esoteric and subjective qualities that the average person would be unable to notice. Further, a compelling argument could be made that it is rather easy to simulate the look of film using the remarkable plasticity of digital images.
What film offers me is a different process. I shoot differently when I’m working with a film camera. First, there are a vast and diverse array of film cameras available, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. Until recently, only DSLRs offered outstanding image quality and photographic options in the digital arena, while the world of film offered multiple formats from portable cameras making smaller negatives to giant sheet film cameras that are still unrivaled by anything in the digital world. The world of film is a world of waist-level viewfinders, rangefinders, and view cameras in addition to straightforward pentaprism SLRs. These cameras are often relics of a time when things were made of leather and metal, rather than plastic and vinyl: they possess a tactile presence and visceral feedback with solid “chunks” of mechanical parts rather than recorded shutter sounds with adjustable volume. Of course, most of this has nothing to do with the actual image recorded, but it changes how I feel when I take a picture. In the end, it is ME and not the equipment that is the limiting factor in the quality of my work, and thus equipment that I enjoy and makes me feel good is going to go much further in producing better images than the nth degree of technical quality. Film cameras force me to commit to an image. The discipline of shooting film is knowing that I pay a price for every frame, and have only so many frames on a roll. Perhaps some people have the iron discipline to shoot digital with the same focus and discernment as a film camera, but I know that is not me. I shoot digital cameras the same way I play poker when no real money is on the table. And when I shoot digital I find myself unable to resist the siren call of that LCD on back of the camera: the modern photographer’s security blanket. I shoot a digital camera with one eye always looking backward at what I’ve just done, worrying at it and wondering if I can perfect it by shifting just a tiny bit. With a film camera, what is done is done and I find myself propelled to the next frame, undistracted by my desperation to know if I “got it.”When I consider my film images, I am struck by the physicality of film. The negative that I exposed was physically present at the time of capture, and my film images are produced with the end-goal of prints. A silver gelatin print is an artifact and a piece of craftsmanship. It is hand-made in a manner that digital prints struggle to replicate. A darkroom print may be manipulated or retouched, but only with great effort and skill… a darkroom print carries with it the promise that no short-cuts were taken. A darkroom print feels “authentic” to me, and this matters to me for the same reasons that I prefer mechanical watches and antiques with real history behind them. Perhaps I delude myself when I imagine that I can “feel” authenticity, but the illusion is convincing enough to enhance my enjoyment of the thing.And finally, perhaps there is a romance in the Hemmingway-esque fight to keep a tradition and a craft and a medium alive. While I hope and believe that film will always keep a small niche in the broader world of image-making, those of us who love film know we have given our heart to something that will never be as it once was, fragile, ephemeral, and fading. Perhaps we hope that the star-crossed quality of our relationship with our medium will infuse our images with romance. There are worse qualities for an artist than being a hopeless romantic.
The problem is that white people see racism as conscious hate, when racism is bigger than that. Racism is a complex system of social and political levers and pulleys set up generations ago to continue working on the behalf of whites at other people’s expense, whether whites know/like it or not. Racism is an insidious cultural disease. It is so insidious that it doesn’t care if you are a white person who likes black people; it’s still going to find a way to infect how you deal with people who don’t look like you. Yes, racism looks like hate, but hate is just one manifestation. Privilege is another. Access is another. Ignorance is another. Apathy is another. And so on. So while I agree with people who say no one is born racist, it remains a powerful system that we’re immediately born into. It’s like being born into air: you take it in as soon as you breathe. It’s not a cold that you can get over. There is no anti-racist certification class. It’s a set of socioeconomic traps and cultural values that are fired up every time we interact with the world. It is a thing you have to keep scooping out of the boat of your life to keep from drowning in it. I know it’s hard work, but it’s the price you pay for owning everything.
Scott Wood (X)
Every programmer has firsthand experience of accidentally deleting something important. Our folklore as programmers is filled with stories of lost data, failed backups, inadvertently clobbering some vital piece of information, undoing months of work with a single keystroke. We learn to be afraid. And because we live in a time when storage grows ever cheaper, we learn to save everything, log everything, and keep it forever. You never know what will come in useful. Deleting is dangerous. There are no horror stories—yet—about keeping too much data for too long.