newishuser

TLDR: Nothing has changed. They still want to sell your photos. You have to grant them "a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license".

The operative portion being sub-licensable.

Meh

That one is well beyond the requirements for html5 gaming and is for desktops when most people these days are using laptops or tablets.

As a non lawyer who likes to pretend he knows what he's talking about, I say: "Lovely, now let's get that in writing."

Not only that but the prizes are pretty lackluster. Grand prize gets an all expenses paid trip to SF, which is awesome, but everyone else gets one of these hunky beasts http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130... . Which has no place in my laptop and is ironically pretty useless for html5 games.

I don't agree. I think prohibition can coincide with a cultural perception that creates the illusion that the prohibition is effective, but in my opinion it's the culture itself not the prohibition.

Nothing can truly be prohibited. Especially things culture demands. What you're talking about is regulation anyway. There is a deference between prohibition and regulation. Take prescription drugs for example.

People absolutely would campaign to legalize Vancomycin if there was a cultural perception in favor of it's benefits.

Prohibition is never a solution to anything. What we need is a cultural shift of some sort that involves identifying people in situations that lead to increased risk of later in life criminal activity and providing them the tools they need to escape that fate. This is more complicated than just thinking critically about gun control.

The goal isn't to create a perfect, utopian, society. It's to target certain statistics for reduction. It's hard to get elected on a platform that has a 10 year wait for results.

This seems clearly more as a tongue in cheek way of telling Yahoo! how important the flickr API is than a genuine petition of the US Government.

Ha, and from the computer science department no less. The new logo to me looks like a buffering pull tab with a butt crack.

The link bait was mentioning HN's 2 favorite editors. Especially since we've discussed brackets several times before: http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/submissions&q=bra...

If they don't share your vision and aren't getting paid you're not going to keep them around for long. People are often eager to help their friends but then regret what they've gotten themselves into when the task becomes too large.

You either need to find people as passionate about your idea as you, or offer them some compensation that they care about. There's no easy way to get good work out of people for free other than telling them they get college credit for it or that it's the only way to advance their career.

We don't need to be able to hail yellow cabs with an app, we need to be able to hail black cars with an app. Cabs aren't going to come to BK because they got a text message, they all swarm around Manhattan looking for short fares, but black car services are local and could benefit from easier dispatch and payment.

If you ask me this is the TLC anticipating public demand for the app and stepping in the way of it actually being useful under the guise of playing along.

Are you offering them compensation for their work?

Paying flickr user here. Flickr is perfect and that's it's problem. I don't need social integration, I don't need filters, I don't need multi-platform sharing. I need an automatic resizer and reliable CDN and flickr is a remarkable both of those.

Flickr is not dead nor is it on life support, it's just not interesting. But just because something's not interesting doesn't mean it's not exceptionally useful. Flickr's search is best in show, it's CDN is always fast and reliable and API is comprehensive.

A massive user-base and obnoxious valuation don't make something important, sometimes just being useful, even if underutilized, is good enough.

edit: it also contains many amazing collections that are easily browsable, searchable, and aren't under threat of disappearing from the internet 'cos of a passing fad.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/sets/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/sets/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/sets/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalarchives/sets/

Why would anyone trust that statistics released by Goldman Sachs weren't designed to manipulate the market in their favour?