they also made it cross-platform in theory (though they never went through with it and actually rolled out.NET for other platforms)
Kinda like OOXML in that respect, in theory it's cross-platform and open, realistically it's the exact same shit that has been pulled by them for over a decade, but this time it looks friendly and might protect them from legal trouble.
It'll be cross-platform when it works on other platforms, not when it's an ISO standard, that goes for C#,.NET, OOXML and anything else.
They could also count it as "They download the song once and then uploaded it once again". Which is simpler to understand, and when worded that way it makes it sound like defendant committed two crimes.
Your logic is of course more correct, but since when does that matter to a jury of mostly randomly chosen people
Well not much people agree that this spyware (That's wht it is, not necessarilly a rootkit, but it's purpose is to spy on you) is morally acceptable. Maybe you do, but most people try to avoid spyware.
Most people also think it's not morally acceptable to say "What, you already installed the game 3(or 5) times, go buy another one."
So they could take all the videos down or be legally responsible for keeping 4,000 videos up after a claim was filed.
If even ONE of these videos was actually infringing, then they could be held at least partly responsible for the infringement by refusing to heed the takedown request.
Obviously 99% of these are just simple attempts to intimidate critics or make it harder to find anti-scientology opinions, but I'm sure at least 1 of the videos might in some way infringe on copyrighted material. After all, for a so-called "Church", this cult sure has a lot of copyrighted material, trademarks and patents they can use to sue and harrass.
Well thankfully he's considerate enough to touch himself at night and not during peak hours. As long as he touches himself while most casual users are offline, then both him and the casual users get the most out of their connection.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Ok, my first paragraph is completely wrong (not being sarcastic here btw).
But my point about Wireshark or the source still stands, Wireshark is easier of course, but the source would show you that under NO conditions does this info get sent, whereas Wireshark can only confirm that it doesn't get sent under the conditions you're currently using it
The drive works with all OSes, the film only with Windows most likely.
Much like when Argos says that a webcam/software set works with Linux, when actually only the webcam does. Although that's not usually a problem, sicne I don't expect the software to work, and the software is just something you get with the webcam, not the product itself, but this could be considered kinda deceitful
Being able to do it doesn't make it legal, but the "Fair Use" clauses in copyright say he's allowed to make a copy for personal use, ripping it without the DRM is fine, he should give the reason "DRM means I can't watch it with the video player I currently have installed." if asked, although technically he doesn't even need to say WHY he did it, just that it was only for his use.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Doesn't send what you upload to Google's servers, I can tell because I have a horribly low upload speed and if it sent everything you uploaded to Google, it would be half the speed, it's not.
Obviously that's purely anecdotal and I'm not even claiming to have done any proper tests, but for the paranoid there's wireshark, or looking at Chrome's source (and building yourself if you don't trust the binary they provide), anyone who's worried about Googling stealing their stuff, go check if they actually do it instead of bitching about theoretical situations
Of course to note is that they send what you type in the address bar to your default search engine for suggestions, but they don't hide this and it's simple to turn it off in the options. (I'm wondering if it sends this while the browser is in 'in cognito mode', I would assume it shouldn't, but not on Windows right now so can't check
They say they took some code from Firefox, but very, very little, they use Webkit for the rendering engine and designed everything else by themselves. A lead Firefox developer was also working on it AFAIK (probably where the Firefox source came from).
You obviously weren't clear enough, I don't see how Google not liking the address bar has any relevance to them moving it a tiny bit below where it currently is, or how you can claim that they are reinventing the wheel and have nothing better to do. (Obviously I consider the new VM and separate processes to be "better" than a slight change in UI, you might not)
I could understand if they removed the address bar or moved it somewhere inaccessible... But they moved it a tiny amount.
I use a lot more than 6 tabs, you're ignoring the part about the drop-down from the right side of the tab bar, I can have about 50 tabs open and still navigate easily through them, without wasting shitloads of space with a sidebar. When the horizontal bar isn't enough I use the drop down.
So how open is it? Will they be willing at allow these things to be made optional, accept patches to let people change the way Google Chrome works?
Well it will be fully open source, of course that could mean a lot of things, ranging from "You can see the code, report bugs or even fork it, but no-one outside google will ever be able to influence our official releases" to "You can see it, change it, report bugs, send patches and we will include the good ones"
Yay, I can now use up a lot of space at the side of the screen instead of a small amount at the top. There's a button on tyhe right of the tab bar to drop down a list of all tabs anyway which serves that purpose, without taking up huge amounts of space with a sidebar (Yeah you can close it I assume but more hassle than just using the drop-down)
They removed folders... To be replaced by labels, which can do everything folders can and more, and since email clients tend to treat them the same it's the EXACT same for client users, and the same except for the word "Label" instead of "Folder" on the web UI.
Of course you can't have the same email in multiple folders, but you can have the same email in multiple labels
I agree that "don't sort it, search it" can be annoying, but it's obvious that they won't remove folders for bookmarks or randomly order tabs.
Well since it uses Webkit, it will be one of the most standards compliant browsers in existence, for HTML and CSS anyway, and I'd assume that they're pretty good at Javascript compliance as well
Moving a tab bar to the top would take approximately 0 extra seconds to code, since they'd have to place it somewhere anyway, (obviously the 0 is kinda a slight exaggeration, maybe a couple of small changes to webkit were needed as well, but practically nothing) and I think that running each tab/script/plugin as a separate process was one thing they decided to do rather than reinvent the wheel, another was the new JS VM.
It's hard to believe that someone attacks a new browser over the slight rearrangement of the UI and claims that they did nothing more important than that
When I read the comic I seemed to think it looked completely different to Firefox, new process for each tab/plugin/script, new Javascript VM... I suppose they're similar in the fact that they both render web pages, have tabs and extensions, but every browser has those, and that's where the similarities end.
So you're saying that it's ok for their to be a gaping security flaw, as long as, in your opinion, it's too difficult for a secondary school student to understand?
Even if it were true that Secondary school students could never do anything more than google for exploits, you can't be sure that a google would be ineffective for long, once the system is set up in schools the incentive to break it and post details on the internet increases a lot.
Slashdot Mirror
they also made it cross-platform in theory (though they never went through with it and actually rolled out .NET for other platforms)
Kinda like OOXML in that respect, in theory it's cross-platform and open, realistically it's the exact same shit that has been pulled by them for over a decade, but this time it looks friendly and might protect them from legal trouble.
It'll be cross-platform when it works on other platforms, not when it's an ISO standard, that goes for C#, .NET, OOXML and anything else.
Next they'll be announcing that Tibet has launched Nuclear Weapons next year, justifying their invasion yesterday.
Of course by the time the rest of the world figures out what the hell this actually means the conflict will be over.
They could also count it as "They download the song once and then uploaded it once again". Which is simpler to understand, and when worded that way it makes it sound like defendant committed two crimes.
Your logic is of course more correct, but since when does that matter to a jury of mostly randomly chosen people
I know that it informs us about this guys foot fetish, but does that really qualify it to be "informative" in this context?
I assume that it would be "off-topic" and that "informative" is reserved for informative comments about the article in question.
Problem is, every copy of a game they don't sell, they seem to blame on piracy, not their own worthless products.
You forgot one feature:
Version 1.
-Is legally and morally acceptable.
Version 2.
-Is legally and morally unacceptable.
Well not much people agree that this spyware (That's wht it is, not necessarilly a rootkit, but it's purpose is to spy on you) is morally acceptable. Maybe you do, but most people try to avoid spyware.
Most people also think it's not morally acceptable to say "What, you already installed the game 3(or 5) times, go buy another one."
Actually, satire and criticism are two of the most widely known acts allowed by fair use.
Also, most of the videos were videos of protests at Scientology centres, not copyrighted material.
So they could take all the videos down or be legally responsible for keeping 4,000 videos up after a claim was filed.
If even ONE of these videos was actually infringing, then they could be held at least partly responsible for the infringement by refusing to heed the takedown request.
Obviously 99% of these are just simple attempts to intimidate critics or make it harder to find anti-scientology opinions, but I'm sure at least 1 of the videos might in some way infringe on copyrighted material. After all, for a so-called "Church", this cult sure has a lot of copyrighted material, trademarks and patents they can use to sue and harrass.
Well thankfully he's considerate enough to touch himself at night and not during peak hours. As long as he touches himself while most casual users are offline, then both him and the casual users get the most out of their connection.
Ok, my first paragraph is completely wrong (not being sarcastic here btw).
But my point about Wireshark or the source still stands, Wireshark is easier of course, but the source would show you that under NO conditions does this info get sent, whereas Wireshark can only confirm that it doesn't get sent under the conditions you're currently using it
The drive works with all OSes, the film only with Windows most likely.
Much like when Argos says that a webcam/software set works with Linux, when actually only the webcam does.
Although that's not usually a problem, sicne I don't expect the software to work, and the software is just something you get with the webcam, not the product itself, but this could be considered kinda deceitful
Being able to do it doesn't make it legal, but the "Fair Use" clauses in copyright say he's allowed to make a copy for personal use, ripping it without the DRM is fine, he should give the reason "DRM means I can't watch it with the video player I currently have installed." if asked, although technically he doesn't even need to say WHY he did it, just that it was only for his use.
Doesn't send what you upload to Google's servers, I can tell because I have a horribly low upload speed and if it sent everything you uploaded to Google, it would be half the speed, it's not.
Obviously that's purely anecdotal and I'm not even claiming to have done any proper tests, but for the paranoid there's wireshark, or looking at Chrome's source (and building yourself if you don't trust the binary they provide), anyone who's worried about Googling stealing their stuff, go check if they actually do it instead of bitching about theoretical situations
Of course to note is that they send what you type in the address bar to your default search engine for suggestions, but they don't hide this and it's simple to turn it off in the options. (I'm wondering if it sends this while the browser is in 'in cognito mode', I would assume it shouldn't, but not on Windows right now so can't check
They say they took some code from Firefox, but very, very little, they use Webkit for the rendering engine and designed everything else by themselves. A lead Firefox developer was also working on it AFAIK (probably where the Firefox source came from).
You obviously weren't clear enough, I don't see how Google not liking the address bar has any relevance to them moving it a tiny bit below where it currently is, or how you can claim that they are reinventing the wheel and have nothing better to do. (Obviously I consider the new VM and separate processes to be "better" than a slight change in UI, you might not)
I could understand if they removed the address bar or moved it somewhere inaccessible... But they moved it a tiny amount.
I use a lot more than 6 tabs, you're ignoring the part about the drop-down from the right side of the tab bar, I can have about 50 tabs open and still navigate easily through them, without wasting shitloads of space with a sidebar. When the horizontal bar isn't enough I use the drop down.
So how open is it? Will they be willing at allow these things to be made optional, accept patches to let people change the way Google Chrome works?
Well it will be fully open source, of course that could mean a lot of things, ranging from "You can see the code, report bugs or even fork it, but no-one outside google will ever be able to influence our official releases" to "You can see it, change it, report bugs, send patches and we will include the good ones"
Yay, I can now use up a lot of space at the side of the screen instead of a small amount at the top. There's a button on tyhe right of the tab bar to drop down a list of all tabs anyway which serves that purpose, without taking up huge amounts of space with a sidebar (Yeah you can close it I assume but more hassle than just using the drop-down)
They removed folders... To be replaced by labels, which can do everything folders can and more, and since email clients tend to treat them the same it's the EXACT same for client users, and the same except for the word "Label" instead of "Folder" on the web UI.
Of course you can't have the same email in multiple folders, but you can have the same email in multiple labels
I agree that "don't sort it, search it" can be annoying, but it's obvious that they won't remove folders for bookmarks or randomly order tabs.
Well since it uses Webkit, it will be one of the most standards compliant browsers in existence, for HTML and CSS anyway, and I'd assume that they're pretty good at Javascript compliance as well
Moving a tab bar to the top would take approximately 0 extra seconds to code, since they'd have to place it somewhere anyway, (obviously the 0 is kinda a slight exaggeration, maybe a couple of small changes to webkit were needed as well, but practically nothing) and I think that running each tab/script/plugin as a separate process was one thing they decided to do rather than reinvent the wheel, another was the new JS VM.
It's hard to believe that someone attacks a new browser over the slight rearrangement of the UI and claims that they did nothing more important than that
When I read the comic I seemed to think it looked completely different to Firefox, new process for each tab/plugin/script, new Javascript VM... I suppose they're similar in the fact that they both render web pages, have tabs and extensions, but every browser has those, and that's where the similarities end.
Note: This post was written for the April Fools' Day, so there's no Google Browser. At least not yet.
Difference is, of course, that today is not April fools day
All from the same guy (SoulSkill) too. (Yes I went and checked who posted them all when i noticed it.
So you're saying that it's ok for their to be a gaping security flaw, as long as, in your opinion, it's too difficult for a secondary school student to understand?
Even if it were true that Secondary school students could never do anything more than google for exploits, you can't be sure that a google would be ineffective for long, once the system is set up in schools the incentive to break it and post details on the internet increases a lot.