I'm no astronomer, but presumably a computer can...
1) Compare image to previous image. 2) Highlight areas where there has been a significant change. 3) ????? 4) Show these bits to a human. 5) Profit (for the human, not the computer).
I was more implying (evidently not very well) my dislike for Halo and, by association the 360. It's got to be one of the most overrated games out there.
Hmmm...that's interesting. And quite impressive, really. Congratulations to Google!
However Google are a big enough company, and Maps is an important enough product that gets enough visitors, that it was worth their while to do this. For most people the extra time, cost and the low percentage of IE6 hits makes it not worth the effort.
Because it could double your development time and therefore development cost.
I agree with you...most of the time. Most people should design their sites for standards compliance and leave as is for IE=6. You can use a "IF IE 6" tag to show a banner at the top of the site saying something to the effect of "This site doesn't look right. That's because your browser is a piece of crap. You can, however, continue to use this site. It just won't look very nice or work very well. Here's a link to list of reasons why IE6 should die in a ditch." This, I think, is the best way to deal with the problem.
This is all well and good if your site is relatively simple (as most are) but the problems come when you're making a site that relies heavily on something that has to be done differently for IE6, such as JavaScript. For example, I don't know if Google Maps works on IE6 but I wouldn't be surprised that, for something of that complexity, most of the client-side code would need to be written twice - once for the standards and once for IE.
When providing even a basic equivalent of your site for a tiny percentage of the sites users almost doubles development time it just might not be worth it.
(note: for most sites "double" is an exaggeration...but I think my point still stands)
I sort of agree. The general competition has definitely lead to improvement all round but I seem to remember Chrome's main selling point when it was released was its speed (previously Opera's forte) which lead to the other browsers improving their speed. Firefox's was security, stability and customisability which has lead to improvements in Internet Explorer's. And Internet Explorer has...erm...lead to people paying greater attention to web standards as everyone slowly realises how shitty it is when a browser doesn't support them.
I didn't say you wouldn't be hurting anyone. I said most people would agree it's not as bad. Are you saying that making a copy of a car is as bad as taking one away from someone?
You could say it's not much of an analogy - because it's what is actually happening...just not with cars.
Why is there always some shill who has to "correct" the record, as if it matters?
Because it is an important distinction.
Is copyright infringement somehow not as bad as theft?
Yep. If you steal something you deprive the owner of the original. With copyright infringement the owner loses nothing. You wouldn't steal a car (I assume) but if you could make an exact duplicate for next to nothing and the owner gets to keep their car then most people would agree it's not as bad.
Is it because theft is something that those gang-bangers do in the bad part of town (therefore "I'm not a thief like them") and copyright infringement an acceptable highbrow, victimless, "non-crime" ("I may have downloaded the.mp3, but the content creator still has the.mp3, so I didn't steal anything.")?
Kind of. Not that people don't want to be associated with gang-bangers but that it IS less of a crime. If someone broke into your house and stole your TV you'd be pretty pissed off. If someone broke into your house and made an exact replica of your TV (a TV that they wouldn't have otherwise bought) and then left you'd probably just be wondering where the footprints on your carpet came from.
Piracy is also made to look much worse by the figures. There are people who "pirate" content they legitimately own. Some people buy a DVD and pirate a copy as well so that they can watch it, for example, on a Linux machine that they can't get DVDs to play on. Some people buy a computer game which won't run and have to pirate it to make it work. Also some people will pirate a movie that they wouldn't have otherwise watched (in which case the content provider didn't lose anything but did have one extra person watch their movie - a person who might tell their friends that it was good or might even go out and buy it). These numbers all get lumped together with the numbers of people that actually "steal" it.
What's with the whole nonsensical hair splitting about theft or infringement?
As I said above, it's an important distinction.
Regardless how you try to rationalize it away, you have illegally appropriated content to which you are not entitled, and have deprived the creator of payment and/or proper recognition, and you are a rat. Apparently folks here are OK being an infringing rat but get pretty defensive when they are called out as a thieving rat.
That's because they haven't stolen anything. Again, it's a subtle but important distinction. They may well have broken the law and they may be morally deficient but they haven't stolen anything. Also, true, it is against the law. What much of this discussion is about is not whether someone has broken the law but whether the law itself should be changed.
I have been here long enough to know about the Slashdot hive mind and the cognitive dissonance around this discussion. Lots of folks chanting freedom-this and fair-use-that, but they really just want their music, movies, and digital content free (as in beer).
Should just be a few minutes before this modded down to hell...
Yeah, free movies and music would be great but if it was all free no-one would get paid and eventually no-one would be able to afford to make new content (on a large scale, at least). What would be nice is if the big content providers used this technology rather than worked against it. They seem to think that because digital content can be copied easily, they shouldn't make it easy to get - they should lock it up in DRM instead. If they sold DRM-free.avi files it would obviously take the pirates no effort at all to post the video online. They (the providers) seem to think that the way around this is to lock the content down - they seem to think this will stop the pirates getting to it and sharing it. It doesn't. The DRM WILL be cracked. It WILL be
Yes, because either they don't use them at all or they spend all their time on them. No room between those two at all. It's just one or the other, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Get thee to an internet!
You're not. What with ASSCRAP and SCROTUS I sometimes wonder if I should be reading /. at work...
40cm is 40cm. And stop calling me a square.
I'm no astronomer, but presumably a computer can...
1) Compare image to previous image.
2) Highlight areas where there has been a significant change.
3) ?????
4) Show these bits to a human.
5) Profit (for the human, not the computer).
I was more implying (evidently not very well) my dislike for Halo and, by association the 360. It's got to be one of the most overrated games out there.
Hmmm...that's interesting. And quite impressive, really. Congratulations to Google!
However Google are a big enough company, and Maps is an important enough product that gets enough visitors, that it was worth their while to do this. For most people the extra time, cost and the low percentage of IE6 hits makes it not worth the effort.
Not at all.
There wouldn't have been anywhere to plug it in.
Because it could double your development time and therefore development cost.
I agree with you...most of the time. Most people should design their sites for standards compliance and leave as is for IE=6. You can use a "IF IE 6" tag to show a banner at the top of the site saying something to the effect of "This site doesn't look right. That's because your browser is a piece of crap. You can, however, continue to use this site. It just won't look very nice or work very well. Here's a link to list of reasons why IE6 should die in a ditch." This, I think, is the best way to deal with the problem.
This is all well and good if your site is relatively simple (as most are) but the problems come when you're making a site that relies heavily on something that has to be done differently for IE6, such as JavaScript. For example, I don't know if Google Maps works on IE6 but I wouldn't be surprised that, for something of that complexity, most of the client-side code would need to be written twice - once for the standards and once for IE.
When providing even a basic equivalent of your site for a tiny percentage of the sites users almost doubles development time it just might not be worth it.
(note: for most sites "double" is an exaggeration...but I think my point still stands)
For some people the fact that the Xbox was the only choice for Halo might have done it.
Yep. That's one reason I didn't buy a 360.
I'm aware of it, I just can't find it!
I guess you don't have time for things like that what with having to get those damned kids off your lawn all the time...
This page is now nearly 400KB and that's just the HTML.
I sort of agree. The general competition has definitely lead to improvement all round but I seem to remember Chrome's main selling point when it was released was its speed (previously Opera's forte) which lead to the other browsers improving their speed. Firefox's was security, stability and customisability which has lead to improvements in Internet Explorer's. And Internet Explorer has...erm...lead to people paying greater attention to web standards as everyone slowly realises how shitty it is when a browser doesn't support them.
Even better, use the Net tab in Firebug which breaks it down and shows you how long each component takes to lookup, request and receive.
e.g. immediately turn on the whole of google.com
But not google analytics... I'm tired of waiting for google to analyse my visit before the rest of the page is allowed to load.
I was afraid that might be what it means...but I wasn't sure.
You mean "STORE VOICE (that only you can hear)".
Actually "unacceptable"? I mean, I take it you are now in the process of cancelling this service...right?
place road-kill on their doorstep with a note about "stop flooding me with advertising"
...and then place two the next day with a sign saying "SPECIAL TWO-FOR-ONE OFFER!"
I didn't say you wouldn't be hurting anyone. I said most people would agree it's not as bad. Are you saying that making a copy of a car is as bad as taking one away from someone?
You could say it's not much of an analogy - because it's what is actually happening...just not with cars.
Er, loose margins means big profits, right?
Why is there always some shill who has to "correct" the record, as if it matters?
Because it is an important distinction.
Is copyright infringement somehow not as bad as theft?
Yep. If you steal something you deprive the owner of the original. With copyright infringement the owner loses nothing. You wouldn't steal a car (I assume) but if you could make an exact duplicate for next to nothing and the owner gets to keep their car then most people would agree it's not as bad.
Is it because theft is something that those gang-bangers do in the bad part of town (therefore "I'm not a thief like them") and copyright infringement an acceptable highbrow, victimless, "non-crime" ("I may have downloaded the .mp3, but the content creator still has the .mp3, so I didn't steal anything.")?
Kind of. Not that people don't want to be associated with gang-bangers but that it IS less of a crime. If someone broke into your house and stole your TV you'd be pretty pissed off. If someone broke into your house and made an exact replica of your TV (a TV that they wouldn't have otherwise bought) and then left you'd probably just be wondering where the footprints on your carpet came from.
Piracy is also made to look much worse by the figures. There are people who "pirate" content they legitimately own. Some people buy a DVD and pirate a copy as well so that they can watch it, for example, on a Linux machine that they can't get DVDs to play on. Some people buy a computer game which won't run and have to pirate it to make it work. Also some people will pirate a movie that they wouldn't have otherwise watched (in which case the content provider didn't lose anything but did have one extra person watch their movie - a person who might tell their friends that it was good or might even go out and buy it). These numbers all get lumped together with the numbers of people that actually "steal" it.
What's with the whole nonsensical hair splitting about theft or infringement?
As I said above, it's an important distinction.
Regardless how you try to rationalize it away, you have illegally appropriated content to which you are not entitled, and have deprived the creator of payment and/or proper recognition, and you are a rat. Apparently folks here are OK being an infringing rat but get pretty defensive when they are called out as a thieving rat.
That's because they haven't stolen anything. Again, it's a subtle but important distinction. They may well have broken the law and they may be morally deficient but they haven't stolen anything. Also, true, it is against the law. What much of this discussion is about is not whether someone has broken the law but whether the law itself should be changed.
I have been here long enough to know about the Slashdot hive mind and the cognitive dissonance around this discussion. Lots of folks chanting freedom-this and fair-use-that, but they really just want their music, movies, and digital content free (as in beer).
Should just be a few minutes before this modded down to hell...
Yeah, free movies and music would be great but if it was all free no-one would get paid and eventually no-one would be able to afford to make new content (on a large scale, at least). What would be nice is if the big content providers used this technology rather than worked against it. They seem to think that because digital content can be copied easily, they shouldn't make it easy to get - they should lock it up in DRM instead. If they sold DRM-free .avi files it would obviously take the pirates no effort at all to post the video online. They (the providers) seem to think that the way around this is to lock the content down - they seem to think this will stop the pirates getting to it and sharing it. It doesn't. The DRM WILL be cracked. It WILL be
Ah! Internet Explorer, The Ayrton Senna of internet browsers - It's got the speed, but somehow that doesn't help.
Yes, because either they don't use them at all or they spend all their time on them. No room between those two at all. It's just one or the other, right?
Easier (and cheaper) to keep an eye on the weather and do most of your laundry on sunny days.
I'm British, you insensitive clod!