| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/8/10-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:43956 Activity:nil |
8/10 http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/10/uk.terror/index.html How to take advantage of a terrorist plot to stay in power for one more year. \_ Triggered by an ipod? How would that work? I didn't think ipods had any wireless capability. \_ Although most cell phone triggers in Iraq are activated by calling the phone, you can also rig something up such that the trigger will activate when the cell phone alarm goes up. trigger will activate when the cell phone alarm goes off. Similarly, you can rig anything with an alarm to act as your trigger to a real detonator, which is probably attached to a 9V battery. \_ Right. And Israel was really behind 9/11 and the moon landing really happened on a Hollywood soundstage. \_ Red stater fascist. \_ I'm not saying it was orchestrated by those who want to stay in power. I'm saying is that it's being taken advantage of politically by those in power. \_ You mean they weren't?!?! -proud American \_ I am in power. AND I KICK ASS!!! --The Man |
| 2006/8/10-14 [Consumer/Camera] UID:43957 Activity:moderate |
8/10 Categories and examples of photo fraud. Best I've seen so far:
http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud
\_ I agree photo manip is bad, but it seems really minor.
I'll just make up a scale, it seems like the horrific
bombing of civilians (yes I am well aware Hezbollah
sticks their operations deliberately in densely packed
civilian apt buildings), is 5 percent worse in the
doctored photographs.
\_ That's not the point. Regardless of who is right or wrong,
an organ that is supposed to report as impartial a picture as
possible is distributing pretty bad misinformation that
can be misinterpreted as propaganda. All the "dude, you trust
the news?" stupidity aside, I expect outfits like Reuters to
use a minimal amount of good judgment when providing
news photos. -John
\_ http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2006/08/09/080906-950x315-badreporter.gif
\_ I'm not Hezbollah supporter. I think Israel has the right to
defend itself. I think Israel fucked up majorly by not
making a fuss when Iran/Hezbollah moved all those rockets
into Lebanon. I think they fucked up again when they
wildly overreacted to the kidnapping of the 2 soldiers,
and showing the world that their amazing military is not
quite as unbeatable as they have led the world to believe.
\_ link:tinyurl.com/jtpxk (sfgate.com)
\_ http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20060806godzillarutoh9.jpg
\_ http://tinyurl.com/gg94m (img145.imageshack.us)
\- do you consider a POSED photograph [like the Iwo Jima
Flag one] to be the moral equiv of manipulation if it
isnt disclosed that it is posed? i think there is something
to be said for asthetic and editorial manipulation ...
aesthetic might disqulaify you from winning an award,
but i really didnt see the big deal with the photoshopped
smoke one [i think the employer has a right to be pissed
off because that wasnt disclosed, but i dont think there
is much of a "bigger picture" issue, so to speak ... in
the case of the smoke one, i dont see what the *public*
outrage is about.]. --psb, combat photographer
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/PSB_MISC/PSB_Nikon-Muj1.jpg
\_ There is a small but important semantic difference. The
Iwo pic is a "hey, great, look at us" shot. The dead
baby ones are "grr, what injustice, get angry!" shots.
I'd rather compare the staged pics in effect to the
naked running girl or dying republican soldier than the
Iwo flag pics. As to your question about cropping and
other cosmetic edits, IMHO it becomes inacceptable when
the staging/edit is clearly designed to provoke a
certain emotional response in the viewer--at that point
it becomes propaganda. Cosmetic edits just sort of
cheapen the aesthetic effect of any picture purporting
to convey a "this is authentic" message. -John
\_ The public is rightfully outraged because the public
rightfully gets pissed off when fed lies, distortions
and propaganda. It is bad enough when the headlines are
misleading, don't match the articles or are just
outright lies but pictures are held to a higher standard
because there is limited ability to fake things with
pictures without photoshop compared to text. The
written word is subject to personal experience,
interpretation, various biases intentional and not, and
ability to write clearly and concisely. A picture can
be cropped, the brightness or colors can be changed a
bit, that's understood. But the objects and people
should be real, not complete fabrications from photoshop
or razor and glue. The written word can be analysed,
compared to other sources and past work of the author.
The author's history is also subject to debate and
analysis. A picture is a moment in time and often it is
the only record of an event with little else to compare
against. When we can't believe our own eyes, what can
we believe? I don't understand how this isn't obvious
to you. I have too much respect for you to
automatically assume the negative regarding your
position on this. Can you please elaborate on your
thoughts regarding faked photos?
\_ Are Ansel Adams' photos "faked" because he
extensively modified them (invented a new system
to do so) between negative and print? A photograph
can never capture what the photographer was seeing,
and we view photographs differently than we view
real objects, so the emotional impact is different.
I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing
a teddy bear in the rubble of a destroyed building
and positioning it so it photographs better;
the photographer is trying to convey is the feeling
the photographer is trying to convey the feeling
of being there, not the precise location of a
particular teddy bear. -tom
\_ Actually, unless the teddy photographer is taking
the photo for its pure artistic value, he shouldn't
touch it. There is a huge difference between Ansel
Adams photos and, say, Robert Capa war photos in
terms of the message they convey. With an AA
pic, the editing is part of the overall artistic
presentation, while a war photo is supposed to
show things as they are, period. Anything more
is questionable at best. -John
\_ I acknowledge the difference between Adams
and a photojournalist, but I don't think a
photojournalist must never touch anything.
Again, the purpose of photojournalism is
to capture what it was like to be there,
not to minutely document a particular event.
If composing a photo can improve the
journalist's ability to make the photo
convey an impression, I don't think it's wrong
to do so. Bringing your own teddy bear would
be wrong. Cloning in more smoke to make it
look worse than it was is wrong. But
touching things is not inherently wrong. -tom
\_ The problem is, where do you draw the line?
I'd rather argue that for anything that
purports to be news, no editing is ok. -John
\_ As with any profession, ethics are not
black and white; there isn't a line,
there's a fuzzy zone. I'd say cloning
in more smoke is unethical, but
repositioning an object is generally
not, unless the repositioning
fundamentally changes the image
you're shooting. -tom
\_ Ethics are fuzzy? Photo journalism
in a hotly contested war zone should
not require any special effort to get
it ethically right. Don't touch
things, don't photoshop pics, don't
avoid taking certain photos because
they'd make 'your' side look bad.
Point camera, shoot, send photos to
editor to decide which to use. It
takes a lot more effort to screw up
war photos than just to take ethically
clean shots. I've got no problem
cropping extraneous items, shrinking
or enlarging the entire photo to fit
on a page, etc. But any 3rd grader
can figure out that using photoshop
to fundamentally alter a photo is not
ethical.
\_ uh, yes, which is why I said using
photoshop to fundamentally alter
a photo is not ethical. -tom
\- why do some of you keep on about
photoshop? it seems clear to me
cropping can far more
dramatically alter the interp
of a picture than "adding smoke"
might. hey, in fact photo
composition is basically
cropping ... so again there
are the issue between the
photgrapher and whomever
he has a "contract" with ...
whether that is an media org,
a teacher, a contest, a
prvate indiv ... in that case
narrow technical questions,
but for photgraphers who have
an "audience" rather than a
partner, the class of ethical
Qs are different ... and to
talk about these, i think you
need to focus on abstract
issue like "intention" ...
rather than techniques. when
somebody decieives with
statistics, we dont "focus on"
what statisitical techniques
the mislead us with [e.g. small
sample size, vs biased sample,
or rejecting/smoothing outliers]
when we are having a moral
rather technical criticism.
here is an interesting example
of an "cropping matters" ...
a photjournalist took a number
of friendly looking russian boys
in the age 10-15 range. there
were also a couple of pix of
similarly aged nice looking
russian girls ... the natural
reaction was "oh there is the
next generation of kids coming
up in hard time in russia" ...
it turned out the kids were all
at a children's prison and were
murderer and rapists ... and the
girls were accessories to their
boyfriends. now if he had passed
them off as "nice kids" it seems
that would have been kinda leem.
but i can understand cropping
out the sign, so you initial
reaction is "what nice kids"
but when you read the caption,
or go hear the talk, you go
"holy shit ... dont judge a
book by its cover". the reaction
is massively different. there
are lots of other example i can
give you were this "mental
revision" based on what is in/
not in the pix makes a far
stronger impression than a more
"clinical photographic approach".
it's like "irony" is not lying.
even though you may be saying
the opposite of the truth. --psb
\_ Here is what I said above
about cropping, "I've got no
problem cropping extraneous
items, shrinking or enlarging
the entire photo to fit on a
page, etc." So in the case of
your Russian photo, dropping
the sign through cropping is
just as bad as PS'ing it out
as it is an important part of
who the kids are. If they
cropped out some random tree
that would be ok. Again:
cropping extraneous items is
ok, cropping something that
is meaningful is not, and
PS'ing more than to change
the entire photo size for
print or similar mechanical
changes required for technical
reasons is *never* ok for a
journalism photo. Do whatever
you'd like with art, personal
stuff, entertainment or just
about anything else that isn't
expected to be absolutely
true in all senses of true.
And while we're here, no I'm
not ok with moving a teddy
bear in a war zone either.
That's called staging and is
dishonest. This stuff just
isn't that hard to figure out.
\_ It's not called staging,
it's called photography.
-tom
\- i think posing the
teddybear is cheep
because without
disclosure you assume
the photographer
"found it" and it is
definitely harder
to "find" a shot
than to produce one...
it undermines the
notion of "THE DECI-
SIVE MOMENT" [ref:
Henri Cartier Breson,
google for some of
his equisitely timed
shots ... wouldnt you
feel ripped off if
they were staged?]
"i could camp on this
mountain 3 more days
until the moon is
full and the weather
is fine or i can
photoshop it in" ...
i think that's pretty
comparable to moving
the teddy bear or
getting the little
third world kid to
assume the cute pose
via an interpreter and
a bribe ... because
usually this isnt
disclosed and the
implication is it is
spontaneous. [of
course in the case
of a portrait, it is
closer to anything
goes]. however, again
it's hard to draw
bright lines ... if
general macaurthur
waited for the
photgrapher to get
set up before he
waded ashore, is that
"staging" what if
the general did it
of his own volition
instead of being
"directed" etc.
a team i do some
trekking and climbing
with has a lot of
photgraphers and i
think they are almost
all pretty sleazy
about posing things
or crossing lines
[we were thrown out
of a buddhist mon-
estary once], so i'm
kinda cynical about
what a lot of photo-
graphers will do.--psb
graphers will do.
unposed stuff is really
really hard to get
right ... like this
is an ok picture, but
it could have been way
better if it was
posed:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/ANNAPURNA_01/DhanerKhete-girl.jpg
it's the stuff HCB
did without posing
[or shooting on
continuous] that makes
him so amazing.
\_ Moving the teddy
bear is a little
cheesy, I'll
agree, but it's
not far from
fairly typical
photographic
setup. What if
he didn't move
the teddy, but
there were a piece
of wood sticking up
blocking a clean
shot in the
direction the
photographer wanted
to frame it, I
think most photogs
would have little
problem moving the
stick. The key
point is that
photography is
all about choosing
a perspective and
trying to make
an emotional
impact; anyone who
says "just point
camera, shoot, and
send photos to the
editor" knows
nothing about
photography. -tom
\- the teddy bear
and mickey mouse
pictures are just
so cloying ... i
just assume they
are staged. the
only question i
have is "did the
photographer
bring it along
like a prop".
as a premed-
itated prop?
i wouldnt be
surprised. maybe
if i get a chance
i'll put up
some pix and
people can try
and guess which
are posed. it's
REALLY interest-
ing to get the
backstory to
some pix [like
the russian
kids one].
\- Note: there is a difference between
news-photo journalism and what you might
call the photo essay or feature ... that's
not so much covering an event but doing more
of an indepth thing. so it isnt at all
intending to be neutral any more than
painters portrait is suppose to tend
to a photograph ... those are artistic
works but can have poltical and editorial
content. american examples include that
DLANGE person or EUGENE SMITH [that guy
was crazy], but also famous studies like
WERNER BISHOF in south american and
GEORGE RODGER "Humanity and Inhumanity".
A somewhat remote aqaiantance is a
professional photog who does both of these
and he was telling me for the feature
works they very carefull pick a printer
[his developer summonned him to paris for
an interview to decide whether he'd do
the printing for the book], so as you might
imagine, the manipulation was well beyond
some marginal tweaks but was a parnership
like a team writing a score and lyrics ...
we dont "blame" mozart for not writing the
words to marriage of figaro.
the point is "altering a photograph"
isnt a sin. if there is a sin, it is
something downstream ... either misleading
the viewer about something outside the
photograph [faking a mass grave ...
probably the worst offense], misleading
the viewer about something about the
photograph [i was there when the rainbow
it the potala palace with the full moon
in back ... when you photshopped in the
moon], or it can simply be cheating in a
contest ... e.g. you are entering a
non-digital contest and you photoshop
in a moon then reprint it to slide or
you change a boring black umbrealla to
a brilliant red one etc. so again, in
the photshopped smoke case, i can understand
why AP or reuters was pissed ... his offense
was "lying" or "cheating". but something
like the "darken OJ on the mag cover to
make him seem evil" is a different
matter and the public does have a bigger
stake in that one ... well except for
the fact that OJ is evil. i think he's
still looking for the racist photoshopper.
\_ Iwo Jima wasn't staged
http://www.paulrother.com/IwoJima/JR50YearsLater.html
\- hmm, fair point. maybe it is better to say: the
actual narrative and the legend have diverged.
[like it being the second flag raising etc] ...
i guess this gets into a discussion about what
staged means. like the picture of macarthur
disembarking ... is there a difference between
his being told which way to walk, or just waiting
for the photographer to get in position or reenacting
it 3-4 times to get the best pix etc. the capa
death of a soldier also has controversy attached
to it. but these are the interesting questions ...
more than was the smoke shape changed or a moon
photoshopped in [again, w.r.t to the editorial
pale, not the aesthetic]. is cropping cheating?
how about dodge-n-burn? ... or those analog techniqies
are ok?
\_ Why is everyone so up in arms about photo fraud? People have
been doing this with pornographically doctored photos of
celebrities and models since the inception of the internet, and
it's not a big deal. -Paris Hilton
\_ How is that celibacy thing going? 1 week and counting ...
\- so are people OUTRAGED by interviews that are rehearsed?
[e.g. where the questions are asked ahead of time, the
person has time to think of the answers, and then then it
is filmed]. BTW, there is a DOCUMETNARY called WAR PHTOGRAPHER
about JAMES NACHTWEY, who i think is the best photojouranlist
in the world now ... a lot of photjournalists also hold in
in awe. i thought i was worth seeing. his pix are
unforgettable. http://http://www.jamesnachtwey.com |
| 2006/8/10-14 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:43958 Activity:nil |
8/10 Martinez murder, the weirdest part is the todo list
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/08/MNG3IKD9Q45.DTL
\_ Nicole Brown Simpson's "real killers" strike again. -Mark Fuhrman |
| 2006/8/10-14 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:43959 Activity:nil |
8/10 \_ I'm not Hezbollah supporter. I think Israel has the right to
defend itself. I think Israel fucked up majorly by not
making a fuss when Iran/Hezbollah moved all those rockets
into Lebanon. I think they fucked up again when they
wildly overreacted to the kidnapping of the 2 soldiers,
and showing the world that their amazing military is not
quite as unbeatable as they have led the world to believe.
\_ Um, you mean when Hizbullah invaded their country, killed 8
soldiers and kidnapped 2? And the fact that Hizbullah has been
shooting rockets at Israel for years? For your convenience, I've
created a new thread for your unrelated rant.
\_ Also, the Israeli military is operating with restraint.
They really aren't 'at war' with Lebanon. It's like
saying that the US military is weak because we cannot
defeat insurgents in Iraq. Of course we could, if we
didn't care about the consequences.
\_ Amusing letter to the editor in the cron today, mentioning
how israel uses bomb shelters to protect their civilians,
while hezbolla uses its civilians to protect their rocket
launchers. I find it disturbing that they ("hezbollah")
consider this a 'reasonable' tactic to use,
and more so that it is proving effective at all. This
only speaks for even more pain to the 'civilians' in
future wars.
\_ I find it amusing that "defend yourself" now includes invading
other countries, bombing their civilians, capturing their heads
of state, and holding captives without trial or charges for
years. AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!! -T.E.A.M. America World Police
\_ This is so fucked up beyond comprehension. The Japanese
excuse for invading China to look for 2 missing soldiers
pales in comparison. I am just utterly appalled by the "one
Israeli is more important than 100 Lebanon" attitude.
Basically, "We will kill ten thousand Lebanons if necessary
to get our 2 soldiers back!" All while using weapons we
supply that are coming out of my tax dollar! And you people
wonder why 911 happens. With the way the Bush Regime is
solving "problems" around the world, you can be sure that
an attack like 911 is GUARANTEED to happen again. More
people in the world hate the US now than ever before. I
hope this is the "safety" you Bush supports wanted. You can
quote me, on this day, in the Berkeley MOTD, that an attack
like 911 will likely happen within 5 years, and almost 100%
certain will happen within 10 years.
\_ Haha. The point is the Lebanese gov't isn't providing
security. It's not really about the 2 soldiers themselves.
By the way , residents of Lebanon aren't called "Lebanons".
Hahah!
\_ So what was the reason for all the other terrorist acts going
back before Bush? What did Clinton to that forced them to
attack the WTC the first time? What did Israel do that forced
the cross-border killing of 6? soldiers and the capture of 2
others? Israel has been at peace with Lebanon for 6 years.
Anyway, you're missing the big picture. These people aren't
pissed off about some land or historical event. They want all
the land from the west bank of the Jordan River to the sea
(hint: that's where Israel is) and they want all the land that
was ever Muslim controlled, such as most of Spain. And then
they want the rest of the planet as well. They make no bones
about the fact that their ultimate goal is sharia law across
the entire globe. You can't compromise with people who want you
dead and use their own civilians as PR shields. Israel's real
mistake was using air power trying to take out missiles in some
sort of limited war instead of using the army and cleaning out
the whole country in a dirtier but more complete war. Cease
fire just means Hezbollah will have time to rearm and do it
again in 3-5 years with better weapons. At what point is it
morally acceptable to drain the swamp and kill Hezbollah? For
you, I suspect never. Tell me I'm wrong.
\_ "These people" used to number in the single digit thousands.
Due to your stupidity, you have made millions of them.
Tell me I'm wrong.
\_ If you actually responded to anything I said I'd reply. |
| 2006/8/10-14 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43960 Activity:nil |
8/10 Boycott BP gas stations! BP has shown themselves to be a bad
company. They spilled 200k barrels of oil on Alaska earlier this
year, and now we discover they've allowed the Alaska pipeline to
corrode to the point where it must be shut down, cutting 8%
of production nationwide and helping spike gasoline prices.
Meanwhile their profits are up 22%.
I think they deserve a boycott. --PeterM
\_ Have you ever spent one dollar at an Exxon since the spill? If so,
you lack any credibility. On the scale of evil, it's not clear
that BP is willfully harming people's lives, while Exxon still is(
by continuing to spend vast sums on legal fees to fight paying
what they owe to fishermen). As pointed out below, BP is at least
making a show of working on developing alternative forms of
energy production, while Exxon is busy fuding smokescreen campaigns
to distort the truth about global climate change. I think a boycott
is way to severe for BP's mistakes, but i think Exxon, as a company,
deserves to die, and its executives deserve to be stripped of their
wealth and sent to a work camp for the rest of their lives.
\_ Boycotts are useless unless you inform the 47% of the Americans
who don't use the internet, drive SUVs, and voted for Bush.
\_ If the other 53% pay attention we can kill their 22% profit
increase. That's billions. It'll do some good. Further,
it'll put other oil companies on notice.
\_ so we boycott them, they don't sell that oil for a while, the
price of oil goes up (due to either to the increased scarcity
or the fact taht it just goes up over time anyway), they sell the
oil later date at higher prices. Increased Profit! I dont see the
punishment here.
\_ Better buy it all now, then. -John
\_ Is BP still a British company?
\_ Be proud. Buy American. -proud American
\_ On the other hand, their actions will increase the price of oil,
spurring demand for and investment in alternative fuels.
Coincidentally (I hope), BP is one of the larger companies working
on alternative energy sources (e.g. solar). Why screw the pooch?
--dbushong
\_ The number of consumers who care about issues like this is dwarfed
by the number of consumers who care more about price and
convenience.
\_ U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!! U-S-A!!! -T.E.A.M. America WOrld Police |
| 2006/8/10-14 [Computer/SW/RevisionControl] UID:43961 Activity:nil |
8/10 Perforce question. When submitting files, is there a way to tell
Perforce to verify that the files are actually different before
allowing them to be submitted? ClearCase does this automatically.
Thanks.
\_ I right-click my pending changelist and select "Revert if unchanged"
Everything that remains has diffs. This also makes it easy to
to catch myself before I submit a modification I didn't intend.
\_ Cool! Thanks!
\_ Cool! Thanks! -- OP
\_ This is 'p4 revert -a' from the command line. -gm
\_ Even better. Thanks. --- OP |
| 2006/8/10-14 [Uncategorized] UID:43962 Activity:nil |
8/10 When I hear neo-cons talk about the link between Iraq and
terrorists, I feel like I'm listening to a conversation like this:
link:tinyurl.com/ou59p (dilbert) |
| 2006/8/10-14 [Consumer/Camera] UID:43963 Activity:nil |
8/10 Nikon announces D80.
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25412
\- $1000 for a d70 with 10mp and SD instead of CF. is that a
fair summary? anything qualitatively better aside from
more pixels ... i'd think for most people d70 would be
enough pixels ... and without good quality lenses, i dunno
if you really get a lot more "digital zoom" potential.
i suppose the only thing i am really interested in is fullframe.
i think "feature" like "it is smaller than a d70" is actally
not good. dont like small. there are some interface disagreements
i have with the d70. if those are fixed, that would be a win.
\_ Not only that, the 1/200sec sync speed is slower than the
1/500sec of the N70s and the N50. -- OP
1/500sec of the D70s and the D50. -- OP
\_ I imagine not having to move the curtains so fast
helps with long-term reliability. It's certainly not
as efficient as singular flash, but there's always
the high-speed-sync (continuous high-speed pulses
covering the entire time shutter is (partially)
open). I don't know about Nikon, but Canon flashes
can do high-speed-sync.
\_ Nikon flashes have high-speed-sync too, but it doesn't help
if the reason you want high shutter sync speed is to
overpower the ambient light (e.g. the sun).
\_ And slower than the 1/250s of the all-mechanical FM2n too.
\_ but it has iso 100 (d70 only supports >= iso200 ) which
compensates for the slower sync speed. and a better
focusing system (same as that of the d200).
\_ It also has a better viewfinder. More pixels with no
drawback other than file size is a win too. 6 vs. 10
is noticeable. You could make larger prints. Not that
I'd necessarily run out and buy this if I had a D70.
Actually Sony's version seems better with anti-dust
and CCD antishake for similar dough.
\- one thing i really do miss in the "second rate"
nikons [i still mean good camera ... N90, D70 etc,
just not F4, F5, D1 etc] is the view finder area
ratio is signifcantly lower in my opinion ... and
i think it affects composion in tight cases.
there still seems something just not right with
digital. for example i shot some associates with
N90+TMax and loved a large fraction of the pix,
people asked for prints, they printed them out and
gave them as presents. I then shot 5 times as many
pix in similar environment [zeitgeist beer garden
etc] with D1x, D70 and though most of the pix came
out ass. i'm wondering is it is still some micro
lag in the digital pipeline that separate the great
facial expression and the "half open mouth" or "head
at slightly the wrong angle" etc look. i know some
other people shoot perfectly good pix with digitals
by i cant figure out exactly what i'm doing wrong.
this is separate from my opinion that a lot of digital
pix look too sharp to the point of being clinical
for me.
\_ How does a lower ISO compensate for a slower sync speed?
Are you sure about that? |
| 2006/8/10-14 [Reference/BayArea] UID:43964 Activity:kinda low |
8/10 I have a friend who is a male CS grad student looking for a sublet
from 08/17-09/14 in Berkeley, Oakland, or San Francisco. Let me
know if you know of anything. Thanks. --srgordon
\_ Try this new, funky site called http://craigslist.org. --computer genius
\_ cthis person may be looking on CL ... this is
\_ This person may be looking on CL ... this is
quite reasonable to ask on sloda. You have been
classified as: sub-genius
\_ Here is your pipe. Hail, Bob!
\_ Huh huh. He said "pipe." Huh huh. -beavis |
| 2006/8/10-14 [Uncategorized] UID:43965 Activity:nil |
8/10 What is a good wiki engine to use for internal corporate use? I played
with mediawiki but the access controls are horrid. Tikiwiki seems nice
but maybe a bit heavy duty. Midgard wouldn't even compile...
\_ All your base are belong to Plone.
http://plone.org
\_ Have you looked at dokuwiki? I'm quite fond of it. -dans
\_ The one built into Trac isn't bad, but you may not care for all of
the SVN browser/ticket system integration. |