A little weird, but I'm not really alarmed that this is being used. It (for better or worse) is public data - Taking advantage of it to bore me as little as possible with ads seems perfectly appropriate. Frankly, if I have to watch ads, I'd rather see ads for computer equipment and stuff than for My Little Pony Playhouse...
I've never shopped for one and didn't know what the maximum size was. I just ran through a maximumpc article that compared different storage media and quoted their maximum storage capabilities. If you're interested, my source can be viewed here. (Or on a single page here.)
Crud. That big long post and I had GB == TB all the way through... The only places I had it right are where I screwed up TB v GB on both sides... To be fair, though, you mangled it too - 1.6/1000 !=.16. Let's try that again:
Indeed. Who in the world uses bites when the Library of Congress is the standard measurement for data storage. Let's call 1 LOC approximately 20 TB and use the max storage quoted in TFA:
Jews, Muslims, and others consider Jesus to be historically important, but not necessarily divinely inspired or in the direct lineage of God. Maybe we're using different interpretations of the word "holy".
Well, Mike Rowe eventually gave in to MS and relinquished control over his software promoting website... Maybe Mr. Toyota and Mr. Ford should just change their names if they want to start businesses - Those names are already taken. Thank the gods my last name isn't Disney.
Actually, my take is that most people consider Mormons to be Christians, although kind of an odd sect. But, many Christians refuse to acknowledge Mormons to be Christian. Actually I've talked to more than one Protestant that even consider Catholics to be non-Christian. It all seems a bit silly to me - If you consider Jesus holy, you're a Christian. If you don't, you're not. Some Christians just have very very different beliefs and practices than other Christians.
Our economy is falling apart, our courts should be handling more sinister crimes like rape/murder and this guy is off law suiting away (yes, I know the courts are different for copywrite vs. criminal acts- thank you for pointing that out wannabelawyers on slashdot)
Actually, murder can wind up in civil court - OJ was cleared of criminal murder, but found liable for his wife's death in the civil case IIRC. Dunno about rape, but I'd suspect it's the same case.
IANAL. IAAWL.
BTW, what courts handle copywriting? I didn't even know it was illegal...
Actually, this is an often under-noticed area of copyright infringement (It looks like actual illegal infringement to me, but IANAL). My mother has several CDs full of images that she uses to decorate shirts, blankets, etc for her grand-kids. They cost her ~$5 apiece and are filled with lovable Disney characters that have been copied out of movies or TV shows, interpretted into embroidery patters, burned in bulk to CD, and then sold. My mom, of course, uses the logic that, since she paid for the discs, there's no way that she could be doing anything wrong. I'm sure that Disney is aware of the situation and is frustrated that they can't suck the blood from these spinster pirates because of the bad PR involved with suing confused grandmothers. At least that's my take on it.
there is no law saying the references you provide have to be in your direct management chain.
That's true, but there are a couple of gotchas. First, the folks in your direct management chain will (typically if not necessarily appropriately) carry a lot more weight with the hiring managers than your peers. Second, at least at my company, there are company policies regarding (and sometimes preventing) official references given from people that you don't have a solid-line connection to on the org chart. Dotted-line connections and peers may give personal opinions on the person they're asked about, but could face disciplinary action if they give professional opinions that may be inferred as company endorsements.
Yes, it's a huge improvement over IE6. Tabs alone make it much nicer IMO. Of course, here at work, IE 6 is all that we're allowed to have installed without a signed exception from management and IT.
Of course, it's still a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys compared to some of the competition. I'd rather see the sites encourage users to upgrade to FF, Opera, or even Safari or Chrome rather than just tie them to IE...
The description fits, except for the location (Crete is in the Mediterranean, while Plato thought Atlantis was in the Atlantic.)
According to TFA he said that it was in the "Real Sea". Apparently that's typically interpreted as being the Atlantic, but sometimes is assumed to be the Mediterranean.
Of course, since I'm collecting this knowledge from a first-hand account from Plato reacting to a finding on Google Maps - My information may be a little faulty, but the almighty wikipedia seems to back it up.
Worse than that - They may find themselves liable as accessories to a crime. I'm in the U.S. where, like in most places, viewing/possessing child pornography is a crime. If I were to verify one of the sites listed on the blacklist and it did, in fact, contain child porn, I'd be guilty of a crime. By providing me the link, the IWF may find themselves in hot water too. In court I may even be tempted to drag them in saying that, by providing the list, I felt an obligation to help them refine it. I never wanted to see those images - They pointed me to them and victimized me by encouraging me to view them.
If you RTFA, this is not at all an arbitrary move on Hulu's part. It's an arbitrary move on the part of the content owners that Hulu has decided to comply with.
Our content providers requested that we turn off access to our content via the Boxee product, and we are respecting their wishes. While we stubbornly believe in this brave new world of media convergence â" bumps and all â" we are also steadfast in our belief that the best way to achieve our ambitious, never-ending mission of making media easier for users is to work hand in hand with content owners. Without their content, none of what Hulu does would be possible, including providing you content via Hulu.com and our many distribution partner websites.
Hulu has always caved in to demands from the content providers. That's what has worked for them, so they'll continue to do it. Call them shills if you want, but if you think that you can do a better job while ignoring demands from the networks, give it a try. Good luck with that.
I'm not sure whether or not you're just trolling, but I'll bite.
From its very inception, [Hulu] has been little more than Youtube's retarded big-media cousin.
Youtube has this nasty habit of withdrawing copyrighted content when the content-owner complains. Hulu, on the other hand, has worked with the networks to legally circumvent this little snag. That's a big difference for those of us that like watching some of the stuff that Youtube can't legally host.
To me, Hulu doesn't "get it". They're like basic cable TV for your web browser, with all the drawbacks of network programming and few of the benefits of internet distribution.
Basic cable cable doesn't offer on-demand viewing of all of the most popular shows. I'd say it's like basic cable for your web-browser that has DVRed everything with a significant viewer base. That seems like a pretty big "benefit of Internet distribution" and one eliminated "drawback of network programming".
Mindless celebrities plug it everywhere they go...
Personally I have never seen that, but I'll assume that it's true. That said, if mindless celebrities are wrong, I don't want to be right. =)
You simply misunderstood the summary - It's fine the way it is.
Independent hacker Moxie Marlinspike showed off several techniques to get fool the tech behind the little padlock on your screen.
"fool the tech" is a little bot that hides behind the padlock on your browser, watches what you're typing, and reports it back to Moxie. Moxie has several techniques for getting Fool behind the padlock. Why Moxie named the little tech Fool, I have no idea.
If another company (or even a Hulu branch) wants to provide limited content to a wide audience, that's just fine - It may even be a good idea. But that's not what Hulu is doing. They're providing access to (mainly) US-generated entertainment to US-residents. (As a side note, my guess is that US-residents consume much more than 5% of the US-generated entertainment marker. Scaling by world-wide population is kind of a dumb metric for such a thing.) Even if it is more profitable to provide limited media to a wide audience, it doesn't mean that providing more popular content to a limited market base is a bad idea. Both can be profitable as parallel ventures.
Despite your mocking tone, sarcasm, and terminating your post with an LOL (which obviously show that you're far more knowledgeable than the parent), Mononke is absolutely right in that Hulu has made good choices and has established itself in a solid position in the market. If you think that they've neglected a good opportunity by expanding their base while limiting their content, make yourself rich by doing it better.
I didn't know what Boxee was either (although it wasn't that tough to educate myself). You can understand fanaticism - More or less open, but with limited Windows support - Woot!
But really, this doesn't really make me hate Hulu. They've got a solid business model - Provide content to US viewers (or people using a US-based proxy) and provide ad-supported content based on the restrictions imposed by the content providers. What's so wrong about that? They've accepted that media distribution is changing, accepted that laws restrict them to a limited number of choices, and have found a good niche. What's so wrong with that? Should every business buck the system and risk annihilation rather than find a profitable model within the system to expand options while the model shifts due to cavaliers like TPB?
Me either - I've never been tempted to visit twitter and would not have noticed.
However, I have to give them props for the fail whale. I ran into that graphic somewhere-or-other and it's got to be the single best network-overload graphic I've seen.
But what kind of self-destructive Las Vegas judge would actually accept that argument and then step forward and set a precedent against the casinos. On one side, you've got some random shmuck who has obviously broken the law but has a semi-plausible excuse that, although although almost certainly false, could reasonably present some doubt as to his guilt. On the other side, you have the financial gods of the region who have in their possession the map that shows you where they've hidden your wife and kids and, as a bonus, have the law on their side. Which way would you rule?
The bigger ones use card shuffling machines that I think continuously reshuffle the deck.
No. They will use several decks and do indeed have shufflers. But they do not reshuffle until the decks are exhausted. Continuous shuffling in pretty much any card game would be ludicrously bad form.
Officially I think you're right. I deal with several vendors who license their stuff to us. We are often trying to work beyond what their out-of-the-box COTS customers want, so we often ask for a little bit of flexibility (APIs for developing our own aps - nothing fancy). They usually ask for a NDA, which may be a good idea in this case too, but nothing fancy.
You bring up an interesting issue that's often misunderstood or intentionally ignored by people arguing for a cause using CO2 emissions as their only back-up. If your only goal is to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, you need to: 1) Support our managed timberlands 2) Argue that the trees should be felled as soon as they stop producing ounce-for-ounce as much lumber as could be produced on the same footprint by fresh-planted trees 3) Demand that the trees are treated and used as lumber (rather than paper) and land-filled after use. Or, preferably, preserved and land-filled immediately rather than being trucked around for construction.
The carbon is trapped in the wood, sealed to prevent short-term release, and imprisoned in a landfill. Hey, we can put a park on top =).
This is, of course, a stupid plan, but friendly in terms of CO2 emissions. There is a balance there that's often overlooked by tree-huggers and owl-slashers alike.
At some point it used to be acceptable to use the term "colored" as well. Not sure when all that changed.
It occurs to me as strange every time I hear the letters "NAACP". I understand that it would have been strange to re-name the org "NAAAAP" when the P.C. terms shifted from "colored" to "African American", but I think that's the only remaining place where the term "colored" is still appropriate when referring to race...
(As a side note, there are a few interesting scenes in Steven King's dark tower series where a "modern" white guy is conversing with a black woman from a few decades back. As would likely be the case, she's very upset when he calls her "black" and insists on the term colored, making him somewhat uncomfortable.)
What does all this have to do with Lincoln being an early adopter of tech again?
Slashdot Mirror
A little weird, but I'm not really alarmed that this is being used. It (for better or worse) is public data - Taking advantage of it to bore me as little as possible with ads seems perfectly appropriate. Frankly, if I have to watch ads, I'd rather see ads for computer equipment and stuff than for My Little Pony Playhouse...
I've never shopped for one and didn't know what the maximum size was. I just ran through a maximumpc article that compared different storage media and quoted their maximum storage capabilities. If you're interested, my source can be viewed here. (Or on a single page here.)
Crud. That big long post and I had GB == TB all the way through... The only places I had it right are where I screwed up TB v GB on both sides... To be fair, though, you mangled it too - 1.6/1000 != .16. Let's try that again:
Punch Card (960 bits) ~= 0.000000000006 LOCs
Audio Tape (1400 kB) ~= 0.00000000007 LOCs
Magnetic tape (35 kB) ~= 0.00000000175 LOCs
8" floppy (1.2 MB) ~= 0.00000006 LOCs
5.25" floppy (1.2 MB) ~= 0.00000006 LOCs
3.5" floppy ~= 0.000000072 LOCs
SmartMedia (128 MB) ~= 0.0000064 LOCs
LS-120 (240 MB) ~= 0.000012 LOCs
CD (700MB) ~= 0.000035 LOCs
Zip drive (750 MB) ~= 0.0000375 LOCs
MiniDisc (1 GB) ~= 0.00005 LOCs
Jaz drive (2 GB) ~= 0.0001 LOCs
Magneto-optical drive (2.6 GB) ~= 0.00013 LOCs
Microdrive (8 GB) ~= 0.0004 LOCs
DVD (8.5 GB) ~= 0.000425 LOCs
Colorado backup (14 GB) ~= 0.0007 LOCs
HD-DVD (30 GB) ~= 0.0015 LOCs
SD (32 GB) ~= 0.0016 LOCs
Blu-ray (50 GB) ~= 0.0025 LOCs
USB flash (64 GB) ~= 0.0032 LOCs
Compact flash (100 GB) ~= 0.005 LOCs
IBM Magnetic Tape (1 TB) ~= 0.05 LOCs
T10000 Magnetic Tape (1 TB) ~= 0.05 LOCs
2.5" portable hard drive (1 TB) ~= 0.05 LOCs
Better?
Indeed. Who in the world uses bites when the Library of Congress is the standard measurement for data storage. Let's call 1 LOC approximately 20 TB and use the max storage quoted in TFA:
Punch Card (960 bits) ~= 0.000000006 LOCs
Magnetic tape (35 kB) ~= 0.00000175 LOCs
IBM Magnetic Tape (1 TB) ~= 0.05 LOCs
Audio Tape (1400 kB) ~= 0.00000007 LOCs
T10000 Magnetic Tape (1 TB) ~= 0.05 LOCs
8" floppy (1.2 MB) ~= 0.00006 LOCs
5.25" floppy (1.2 MB) ~= 0.00006 LOCs
3.5" floppy ~= 0.000072 LOCs
CD (700MB) ~= 0.035 LOCs
Magneto-optical drive (2.6 GB) ~= 0.13 LOCs
MiniDisc (1 GB) ~= 0.05 LOCs
Colorado backup (14 GB) ~= 0.7 LOCs
Compact flash (100 GB) ~= 5 LOCs
Zip drive (750 MB) ~= 0.0375 LOCs
Jaz drive (2 GB) ~= 0.1 LOCs
DVD (8.5 GB) ~= 0.425 LOCs
LS-120 (240 MB) ~= 0.012 LOCs
SmartMedia (128 MB) ~= 0.0064 LOCs
Microdrive (8 GB) ~= 0.4 LOCs
2.5" portable hard drive (1 TB) ~= 0.05 LOCs
SD (32 GB) ~= 1.6 LOCs
USB flash (64 GB) ~= 3.2 LOCs
HD-DVD (30 GB) ~= 1.5 LOCs
Blu-ray (50 GB) ~= 2.5 LOCs
Now we have some perspective. Much more useful.
Jews, Muslims, and others consider Jesus to be historically important, but not necessarily divinely inspired or in the direct lineage of God. Maybe we're using different interpretations of the word "holy".
IANA religious scholar.
Well, Mike Rowe eventually gave in to MS and relinquished control over his software promoting website... Maybe Mr. Toyota and Mr. Ford should just change their names if they want to start businesses - Those names are already taken. Thank the gods my last name isn't Disney.
Actually, my take is that most people consider Mormons to be Christians, although kind of an odd sect. But, many Christians refuse to acknowledge Mormons to be Christian. Actually I've talked to more than one Protestant that even consider Catholics to be non-Christian. It all seems a bit silly to me - If you consider Jesus holy, you're a Christian. If you don't, you're not. Some Christians just have very very different beliefs and practices than other Christians.
If we just blurred all maps, the terrorists couldn't even find their targets!
Our economy is falling apart, our courts should be handling more sinister crimes like rape/murder and this guy is off law suiting away (yes, I know the courts are different for copywrite vs. criminal acts- thank you for pointing that out wannabelawyers on slashdot)
Actually, murder can wind up in civil court - OJ was cleared of criminal murder, but found liable for his wife's death in the civil case IIRC. Dunno about rape, but I'd suspect it's the same case.
IANAL. IAAWL.
BTW, what courts handle copywriting? I didn't even know it was illegal...
Actually, this is an often under-noticed area of copyright infringement (It looks like actual illegal infringement to me, but IANAL). My mother has several CDs full of images that she uses to decorate shirts, blankets, etc for her grand-kids. They cost her ~$5 apiece and are filled with lovable Disney characters that have been copied out of movies or TV shows, interpretted into embroidery patters, burned in bulk to CD, and then sold. My mom, of course, uses the logic that, since she paid for the discs, there's no way that she could be doing anything wrong. I'm sure that Disney is aware of the situation and is frustrated that they can't suck the blood from these spinster pirates because of the bad PR involved with suing confused grandmothers. At least that's my take on it.
there is no law saying the references you provide have to be in your direct management chain.
That's true, but there are a couple of gotchas. First, the folks in your direct management chain will (typically if not necessarily appropriately) carry a lot more weight with the hiring managers than your peers. Second, at least at my company, there are company policies regarding (and sometimes preventing) official references given from people that you don't have a solid-line connection to on the org chart. Dotted-line connections and peers may give personal opinions on the person they're asked about, but could face disciplinary action if they give professional opinions that may be inferred as company endorsements.
Yes, it's a huge improvement over IE6. Tabs alone make it much nicer IMO. Of course, here at work, IE 6 is all that we're allowed to have installed without a signed exception from management and IT.
Of course, it's still a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys compared to some of the competition. I'd rather see the sites encourage users to upgrade to FF, Opera, or even Safari or Chrome rather than just tie them to IE...
The description fits, except for the location (Crete is in the Mediterranean, while Plato thought Atlantis was in the Atlantic.)
According to TFA he said that it was in the "Real Sea". Apparently that's typically interpreted as being the Atlantic, but sometimes is assumed to be the Mediterranean.
Of course, since I'm collecting this knowledge from a first-hand account from Plato reacting to a finding on Google Maps - My information may be a little faulty, but the almighty wikipedia seems to back it up.
Worse than that - They may find themselves liable as accessories to a crime. I'm in the U.S. where, like in most places, viewing/possessing child pornography is a crime. If I were to verify one of the sites listed on the blacklist and it did, in fact, contain child porn, I'd be guilty of a crime. By providing me the link, the IWF may find themselves in hot water too. In court I may even be tempted to drag them in saying that, by providing the list, I felt an obligation to help them refine it. I never wanted to see those images - They pointed me to them and victimized me by encouraging me to view them.
May be kind of far-fetched, but I dunno - IANAL.
If you RTFA, this is not at all an arbitrary move on Hulu's part. It's an arbitrary move on the part of the content owners that Hulu has decided to comply with.
Our content providers requested that we turn off access to our content via the Boxee product, and we are respecting their wishes. While we stubbornly believe in this brave new world of media convergence â" bumps and all â" we are also steadfast in our belief that the best way to achieve our ambitious, never-ending mission of making media easier for users is to work hand in hand with content owners. Without their content, none of what Hulu does would be possible, including providing you content via Hulu.com and our many distribution partner websites.
Hulu has always caved in to demands from the content providers. That's what has worked for them, so they'll continue to do it. Call them shills if you want, but if you think that you can do a better job while ignoring demands from the networks, give it a try. Good luck with that.
I'm not sure whether or not you're just trolling, but I'll bite.
From its very inception, [Hulu] has been little more than Youtube's retarded big-media cousin.
Youtube has this nasty habit of withdrawing copyrighted content when the content-owner complains. Hulu, on the other hand, has worked with the networks to legally circumvent this little snag. That's a big difference for those of us that like watching some of the stuff that Youtube can't legally host.
To me, Hulu doesn't "get it". They're like basic cable TV for your web browser, with all the drawbacks of network programming and few of the benefits of internet distribution.
Basic cable cable doesn't offer on-demand viewing of all of the most popular shows. I'd say it's like basic cable for your web-browser that has DVRed everything with a significant viewer base. That seems like a pretty big "benefit of Internet distribution" and one eliminated "drawback of network programming".
Mindless celebrities plug it everywhere they go...
Personally I have never seen that, but I'll assume that it's true. That said, if mindless celebrities are wrong, I don't want to be right. =)
You simply misunderstood the summary - It's fine the way it is.
Independent hacker Moxie Marlinspike showed off several techniques to get fool the tech behind the little padlock on your screen.
"fool the tech" is a little bot that hides behind the padlock on your browser, watches what you're typing, and reports it back to Moxie. Moxie has several techniques for getting Fool behind the padlock. Why Moxie named the little tech Fool, I have no idea.
That is just stupid.
If another company (or even a Hulu branch) wants to provide limited content to a wide audience, that's just fine - It may even be a good idea. But that's not what Hulu is doing. They're providing access to (mainly) US-generated entertainment to US-residents. (As a side note, my guess is that US-residents consume much more than 5% of the US-generated entertainment marker. Scaling by world-wide population is kind of a dumb metric for such a thing.) Even if it is more profitable to provide limited media to a wide audience, it doesn't mean that providing more popular content to a limited market base is a bad idea. Both can be profitable as parallel ventures.
Despite your mocking tone, sarcasm, and terminating your post with an LOL (which obviously show that you're far more knowledgeable than the parent), Mononke is absolutely right in that Hulu has made good choices and has established itself in a solid position in the market. If you think that they've neglected a good opportunity by expanding their base while limiting their content, make yourself rich by doing it better.
I didn't know what Boxee was either (although it wasn't that tough to educate myself). You can understand fanaticism - More or less open, but with limited Windows support - Woot!
But really, this doesn't really make me hate Hulu. They've got a solid business model - Provide content to US viewers (or people using a US-based proxy) and provide ad-supported content based on the restrictions imposed by the content providers. What's so wrong about that? They've accepted that media distribution is changing, accepted that laws restrict them to a limited number of choices, and have found a good niche. What's so wrong with that? Should every business buck the system and risk annihilation rather than find a profitable model within the system to expand options while the model shifts due to cavaliers like TPB?
Me either - I've never been tempted to visit twitter and would not have noticed.
However, I have to give them props for the fail whale. I ran into that graphic somewhere-or-other and it's got to be the single best network-overload graphic I've seen.
But what kind of self-destructive Las Vegas judge would actually accept that argument and then step forward and set a precedent against the casinos. On one side, you've got some random shmuck who has obviously broken the law but has a semi-plausible excuse that, although although almost certainly false, could reasonably present some doubt as to his guilt. On the other side, you have the financial gods of the region who have in their possession the map that shows you where they've hidden your wife and kids and, as a bonus, have the law on their side. Which way would you rule?
The bigger ones use card shuffling machines that I think continuously reshuffle the deck.
No. They will use several decks and do indeed have shufflers. But they do not reshuffle until the decks are exhausted. Continuous shuffling in pretty much any card game would be ludicrously bad form.
Officially I think you're right. I deal with several vendors who license their stuff to us. We are often trying to work beyond what their out-of-the-box COTS customers want, so we often ask for a little bit of flexibility (APIs for developing our own aps - nothing fancy). They usually ask for a NDA, which may be a good idea in this case too, but nothing fancy.
IANAL.
You bring up an interesting issue that's often misunderstood or intentionally ignored by people arguing for a cause using CO2 emissions as their only back-up. If your only goal is to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, you need to:
1) Support our managed timberlands
2) Argue that the trees should be felled as soon as they stop producing ounce-for-ounce as much lumber as could be produced on the same footprint by fresh-planted trees
3) Demand that the trees are treated and used as lumber (rather than paper) and land-filled after use. Or, preferably, preserved and land-filled immediately rather than being trucked around for construction.
The carbon is trapped in the wood, sealed to prevent short-term release, and imprisoned in a landfill. Hey, we can put a park on top =).
This is, of course, a stupid plan, but friendly in terms of CO2 emissions. There is a balance there that's often overlooked by tree-huggers and owl-slashers alike.
At some point it used to be acceptable to use the term "colored" as well. Not sure when all that changed.
It occurs to me as strange every time I hear the letters "NAACP". I understand that it would have been strange to re-name the org "NAAAAP" when the P.C. terms shifted from "colored" to "African American", but I think that's the only remaining place where the term "colored" is still appropriate when referring to race...
(As a side note, there are a few interesting scenes in Steven King's dark tower series where a "modern" white guy is conversing with a black woman from a few decades back. As would likely be the case, she's very upset when he calls her "black" and insists on the term colored, making him somewhat uncomfortable.)
What does all this have to do with Lincoln being an early adopter of tech again?