Wallpaper is hung!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 24 Jun 2010 12:34 On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:52:07 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: >tony cooper wrote: >> Bowser wrote: >> >>> Come and get it, some new wallpaper for your wide screen monitor: >>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/wallpaper >> >> There are only a few submissions that I feel would make good >> wallpaper. Good photographs...several. But, the wallpaper should be >> - in my opinion - an image that allows an arrangement of icons that >> are clearly visible and do not impinge of the central point of the >> subject. > >Tony, I'd recommend to try some other ones on your desktop, you might be >surprised. I loaded up many possibilities as actual wallpaper during the >mandate period and ended up with what I thought would be awful but it >works nicely - for me - for a while anyways... tastes, styles, needs & >moods will vary. I tested my own submission as wallpaper. I was able to place my icons on one side and they were viewable against the sky. They didn't interfere with the main subject - the jumpers - at all. That's not to say that my composition is better or that my photo is interesting. But, it does work for wallpaper and the was the purpose of the exercise. As I've said, I prefer a plain blue desktop with the icons in the "Fences" and a calendar http://tinnes.org.uk/desktopcalendar/index.php ) and the QuickNote add-on from Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/46/ I don't use my own submission. If I would, I'd create new icons to make the ones I use the most more noticeable. Some standard icons are too difficult to tell apart. I use some custom created icons now. On the shot...the day I went to the airport a class was having their first jump. This group requires a buddy jump for the first jump after a class. That's why the image has two jumpers. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: krishnananda on 24 Jun 2010 13:09 In article <c6d7c74c-5933-40dd-9082-c115ac91ec18(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Vance <vance.lear(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 3:17�am, sobriquet <dohduh...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: <Usual Bollox Snipped> > > Sharing information is a human right, nazi cockroach. > > > > Check article 19 of the UDHR that concerns the expression and > > imparting of information: > > > > http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > From the self same UDHR, which you selectively choose to interpret and > apply only in part: > > Article 27. > �(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life > of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific > advancement and its benefits. > �(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and > material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic > production of which he is the author. > > Subsection (2), specifically and without ambiguity, asserts the rights > of an individual creating scientific, literary or artistic works. In > any broad declaration of principles, those principles which are most > clearly specified, are most narrowed and focused, take precedence and > subsume articles and their subsections to which they may be related. > <Good stuff snipped> Let's finally put this to rest. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, usually known as the Berne Convention, is an international agreement governing copyright, which was first accepted in Berne, Switzerland in 1886. There are 161 countries (out of 195 countries in the entire world) which are signatories to the Berne COnvention, INCLUDING The Netherlands where Anti-Copyright-Boy pretends otherwise. The so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" has EXACTLY ZERO SIGNATORY NATIONS: Q: Is the Declaration upheld universally. How is the Declaration enforced? A: Originally the Universal Declaration was conceived as a statement of objectives to be pursued by Governments, and therefore it is not part of binding international law. Q: Who are the signatories of the Declaration? A: Since the Declaration is not legally binding technically, there are no signatories to the Declaration. Instead, the Declaration was ratified through a proclamation by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948 with a count of 48 votes to none with only 8 abstentions. This was considered a triumph as the vote unified very diverse, even conflicting political regimes. END OF STORY. If "Sobriquent" wants to believe that he personally is not bound by copyright law and international treaty, that's all well and good. That's his delusional thinking and we can all hope he starts taking his anti-psychotic medications again soon. The rest of us can now proceed knowing that our copyright protections were guaranteed internationally 124 years ago.
From: sobriquet on 24 Jun 2010 13:18 On 24 jun, 19:09, krishnananda <kris...(a)divine-life.in.invalid> wrote: >[.. babbling ..] Your copyright protections are a pipe dream. If you want to get a clue about the reality of the current situation, have a look at thepiratebay.org and you can see that people happily enjoy their human right to share and exchange information freely. I've shared gigabytes of both amateur and professional photography, literally over 100.000 pictures and there has never been a single complaint from my ISP for doing so. So your copyright claims are pretty hilarious and entertaining.
From: Vance on 25 Jun 2010 02:21 On Jun 24, 8:53 pm, BFD <b...(a)zipnullnada.org> wrote: [Snipped] > > Vance is even more of a hypocrite than you can imagine. He's presently > undergoing legal investigation for theft of others' images at this very > moment, in countries were he can be convicted for doing so. Images taken > from postings right in these newsgroups. He then posted them on his own > chosen image hosting sites (Google's Picasa) who take copyright violations > on their own sites very seriously. Often pursuing fines in excess of > $100,000 for each instance. Each image he's taken from others and then > posted has clear wording on each image page that states that he now owns > them. Clearly in violation of all copyright laws in the country in which > he, and those he's violated, presently reside. Delusional? That's what the smart money would bet. Here, let me help you out: http://www.google.com/sites_dmca.html Also from the Google site: "To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a written communication (by fax or regular mail not by email, except by prior agreement) that sets forth the items specified below. Please note that you will be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys fees) if you materially misrepresent that a product or activity is infringing your copyrights. Indeed, in a recent case (please see http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/ for more information), a company that sent an infringement notification seeking removal of online materials that were protected by the fair use doctrine was ordered to pay such costs and attorneys fees. The company agreed to pay over $100,000. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether material available online infringes your copyright, we suggest that you first contact an attorney." In case you missed the reference: http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/ I can't be more helpful to you until I see some conrete legal action on your part. Lieing does not constitute concrete legal action. In the meantime, I'll tear up any photo you lie about as it pleases me, in the way it pleases me and at my leisure. I'm very comfotable with the legal ground I stand on and absolutely sure of the legal quicksand you're standing in. Have a great day and feel free to let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. Unfortunately, your lack of talent and creativity is something that you will just have to live with. I would help if I could. Vance
From: Ray Fischer on 25 Jun 2010 03:10
sobriquet <dohduhdah(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> Stealing isn't a human right, thief. > >Sharing information is a human right, That's a lie, thief. >Check article 19 of the UDHR that concerns the expression and >imparting of information: > >http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a19 That refers to OPINIONS and EXPRESSION, thief. Did you even read it? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |