Darn. I was hoping this would do away with all of the pesky washing and cleaning and bleaching between the crimes and the absolution. No more having to worry about being hit by a bus between when you hit someone with a bus and drive in to the confessional.
If you read the article, they are depending on the JPEG compression artifacts for the watermark display. Resizing should not cause this because you are deling with the uncompressed image data.
Resizing and then saving as a JPEG will result in re-compression and the watermark appearing. Saving as anything else bypasses this completely.
This is only useful when you know what conditions will be applied. The example they give near the end, uploading to youtube, will apply only as long as youtube does not change their settings. Then you have to change your thresholds and all of your protected videos in the wold are unprotected.
Like calling a windowing operating system "Windows"? Or an office suite "Office"? Or a word processor "Word"? Or a worldwide identity "Passport"? Or a competitor to Java called ".net"? How in the holy shit do you search for ".net"?
"I want to do [x] in.NET"
Results: you can do anything at zombo com. Anything at all.
Fuck their marketing department, it makes it impossible to search for anything relevant until the search engines optimize for their retardedness.
On the other hand, I'd like an engine at the lowest price. Are you going to sell it to me, or is Boeing? Hmm, guess I'm going with Boing. I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.
Capitalism, it's what's for dinner. Want something else? Go be born to someone else, or embrace a different economic system. Mmm, capitalism. Goes down easy, comes up hard.
I had a quick look at your website from your/. page, and I have to say it doesn't look like you would be in a position to have much benefit from being linked in.
I've gotten 4 unsolicited job offers that I would have considered if certain circumstances were different, so although I technically have not benefitted I very well could have.
You're surprised that someone is charging what the market will pay for a product? I hate to tell you, but your underwear cost less to make than what you paid for it. OMG! Underwear is so overpriced! It's a scam!
If people were not willing to pay, sales would plummet and the price would come down. They have tried to blame downloading for lower demand, but they know if they dropped the price they would not sell enough to make up for the price drop. So it stays high. Would you allow sales to sag for 5 years while you tried to convince the world downloading was responsible for your terrible sales instead of just lowering prices?
Bit perfect? Most people listen to their CDs on a player, or rip them to a lossy format. I haven't found one player yet that can guarantee bit-perfect playback. The CD format was designed to allow for errors in the stream. You introduce errors in A/D and D/A conversion anyway, even if the only analog portion is the singer's autotuned voice. Try hex-editing a wav file and flipping a few bits here and there. With 16-bit audio, most of those bits are insignificant and you'l never notice unless you alter the most significant bits of a few samples on the same channel in a row. So even if you do manage a perfect rip, it doesn't really matter.
Few people try to rip with a tool like Exact Audio Copy which attempts to correct for differences in the hardware, and fewer preserve that output losslessly.
That's why people don't want a bit-perfect backup. If you're going to download it, legally, it's easier to just back that file up instead of buying a tangible object. Put yourself in the mindset of most people who want convenience and it makes sense.
You are mistaken. How do you account that money properly? It was incoming money, either reported as profit or unreported by accounting trickery. If it was counted as profit already, they already got taxed on it and had a net loss of 47.5 million for the lawsuit. If unreported, they spent less on legal issues than they thought and have to report $2.5M in unreported profit that already existed from wherever they get money.
Do you buy something, it comes up lower than you thought, and have to declare the difference as profit or income on your taxes? You might think of it as profit in the 'more money than I thought I had' sense, but it is not profit.
They knew their way around the legal system enough to properly estimate what it would take to settle the case quickly. All they did was slightly overestimate. Even with estimated interest earnings, they still lost money, for a net loss on the lawsuit, which is the opposite of profit.
$50m earning interest will still be a loss once paid. Unless they found a ridiculously awesome interest rate, or left it sitting for long enough to more than double. I don't see evidence of either, so overall it would be a loss.
Ignorance. A scientist who says they found no ghosts doesn't say ghosts do not exist. A scientist does not know what a ghost is, so it is impossible to say they exist or not. Only that they were not found.
A true scientist would attempt to define characteristics of ghosts and non-ghosts, and be able to measure differences between the two. Science has not been able to define a ghost, so science does not know what to look for. Science knows what not to look for, but does not know what to look for.
As you said, until you see it you do not know what to look for. How about you help science try to figure out what to look for, what to measure? If you can observe it, it can be measured. Whether we have capable tools or not is the question.
"Hackers" didn't find it, and the article is like 4 paragraphs on 3 pages. It's an advert and a revenue generator for infoworld. Of course I have NoScript and other blockers, so I clicked through all 3 pages to waste their bandwidth. I suggest everyone do the same.
You're looking at this as a hardware vs. software issue I think. Crap electronics get basic tests like 'are the battery leads connected' and 'does it turn on'. Same as the bug fix or patch is tested. OK, it worked, get it out there. So what you're talking about is already being done, basic testing.
OP is talking about setting up an entire QA process that tests every possible case that can be thought of. This is not basic 'it works' testing, this is full-on 'let no part be unbroken' quality assurance. Sell that idea to the chinese and see how far it goes.
Same in US, depending on the state I think. But many states have a requirement to delay a test to get a good reading anyway. It is recommended that that test subjects wait at least 15 minutes in between eating and blowing into the machine. This is also the reason police in Colorado have to wait 20 minutes to administer a breath test, so they cut down on false positives (from link below).
So many states will take the initial test, and if you register as under the influence then you get arrested, taken "downtown", and you get the test that will be entered into evidence at trial. Unfortunately if they don't get results on the second one, some states will just use the first reading. But, there have been cases where the suspected DUI requests for a proper blood test (to test the blood alcohol level), is denied, and attacks the functionality, operation, or calibration of the device. Can't remember which state it was, but one required the source code of the breathalyzer used to be examined by an expert and it was riddled with rounding errors and artificial boundaries and lots of cases got thrown out. So lots of people are beginning to fight back against poorly done tests now, and the no-refusal test is the (il-)logical conclusion to get an accurate reading.
Bread and ice cream can cause high, but legal, readings. Some say it is the alcohol byproduct of yeast which gets trapped in bread's "air bubble" pockets, but I think it has more to do with carbs somehow.
You're using this new technology called javascript, I can feel it. Turn that shit off for slashdot. You'll get used to it, and it won't try to reload stuff.
You may be using CTRL+W to close a tab, and I think slashdot has some sort of ASDW navigation thing going on. That's what I figured last time I investigated. So you could write a greasemonky script to intercept or disable the key presses, or just turn it off.
I was just in Blackpool, and the message was clear: "YOU ARE BEING WATCHED." In cabs, on the street, everywhere. Someone tries to break in to a hotel room in Austria (unlocking the door) and no cameras, no video, just a drunk woman's word against the trusted staff, and nothing is done (I know, cool story bro).
I found it miserable, and if I can avoid it, I won't be back to England any time soon. It is simply too much, constantly being reminded that not only are you being watched, but you will be prosecuted when/if we feel like it, and if you're a victim very sorry about all of the trouble we'll get back to you when we know something.
I watch BBC news on public broadcasting, and just last night there was a news story which made it clear: 1) CCTV will be searched for a murder investigation 2) If you were in the area, you will be identified, so might as well come forward and tell us what you know so we don't have to come looking for you. Some girl was reported missing and found dead or something, the human interest story of the night. Half of the story was tear-jerking, half of it was CCTV promotion, no joke.
Those were paraphrased points from the news, not my interpretation. The news yelling "CCTV" is Antoine Dodson saying "You are really dumb, for real."
A guy got lost after taking his wife to Gatwick and spent 3 days driving along the interstate. They put his license plate into the automatic license checker, got 3 positives, and finally found him on the fourth hit and got him home.
In America I know I'm being watched in places, but I can count on results when something happens. Unless it's 9/11 and the government confiscates every video (not a copy) to do whatever they do with big evidence, which is apparently hide it. I don't do things in public I don't want others to see or know about, that would be true with or without cameras. If they were used consistently and properly, I wouldn't have problems. But it is a crap shoot whether citizens will benefit, while the government decides when it will benefit.
Make no mistake, I understand the intent, but application differs from theory.
There's a difference between teaching and educating. You can teach anything if you're a good teacher. What you can't do is fix mistakes in understanding. You teach something, most of the class understands, and one or two keep doing it wrong. Not because of a flaw in your teaching, but because their background or understanding didn't overlap and they didn't make the connection, whatever.
You can teach, but you can't go back and fix a broken understanding, which is where the real education happens. Getting people to understand what they are doing wrong, why it's wrong, what to do right, and why it's right. All without saying "you're doing it wrong".
A teaching generalist is possible, I can teach you all kinds of stuff. I can't educate you on much. And when we're talking about K-12, we need educators.
Are you going to clarify every submission now? Cos that sounds like what you're volunteering for.
I clicked the link to Dropbox from the article and read up about it, which was a link to the blog. I understand it's just the what's new announcement, but your description and the what's new page make them sound like completely different applications. I did enough work to try to find out more about this thing, and still came back with the wrong idea. *That* is the problem here.
Why even post something in this manner unless it's just for page hits? I want to be informed, and without your post I would have been the opposite of informed, because I actually completely misunderstood what it does.
When an I Can Has Cheezeburger site explains the entire Obama administration, government view of free speech vs. censorship, and current political climate in 3 panels something is wrong.
Yeah some details didn't need to be leaked. But most did. The military calls this "collateral damage" and minimizes it compared to the success of hitting a target. Civilians are apparently held to a different standard because we haven't been trained how to properly attack and cover up.
I skipped Avast when I learned that the free version required registration. I went to AVG, which as we discussed not loo long ago was a terrible mistake.
I don't believe in antivirus, I put responsibility on Microsoft and Adobe for the safety of my machines. Router/firewall, noscript, on-demand scanning, and not visiting stupid sites or downloading from untrusted sources are my responsibility. But I do have MSE for on-demand scanning in case I'm not sure.
Your comment only makes sense when the loser loses because of a lack of merit.
There are plenty of cases where both sides have a valid point and it is up to the judicial branch to interpret the language and decide who prevails.
You are now going to note that you said "most lawsuits" not all. But of all the lawsuits I've read about in the news, most have actually been valid claims that the legal system has to disentangle. They should do their job, which is find facts and render judgement on those facts. If one side files a motion to dismiss and it is dismissed, one might assume the lawsuit was meritless. But that would be wrong. Dismissed does not mean there was no merit, it could mean that the suit was filed in the wrong place or any number of other reasons.
I too would like a disincentive for frivolous lawsuits, and in fact a lawyer can be disbarred for filing a suit on behalf of their client, which they know to be frivolous. Countersuing for frivolity and abuse of process is such a disincentive.
But you lose does not mean your case had no merit.
I, an American, had a conversation with a lifelong British citizen. My observation was that British society seems a lot more closely watched - CCTV everywhere, "you are being watched" and all that. He said, 40 years ago he would have disagreed.
I was about to argue with him, but then I realized the amount of intelligence gathered by CIA and other organizations on US citizens is at this point legendary. The amount of scrutiny was unheard of. And it died off a bit, while the Brits stepped it up. The difference is, we didn't know we were being spied on.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, it's an astroturf campaing for North Face jackets. North Face - Never Stop Exploring. Available at fine stores everywhere.
Darn. I was hoping this would do away with all of the pesky washing and cleaning and bleaching between the crimes and the absolution. No more having to worry about being hit by a bus between when you hit someone with a bus and drive in to the confessional.
COMPUTERS, Y U NO FORGIVE?
If you read the article, they are depending on the JPEG compression artifacts for the watermark display. Resizing should not cause this because you are deling with the uncompressed image data.
Resizing and then saving as a JPEG will result in re-compression and the watermark appearing. Saving as anything else bypasses this completely.
This is only useful when you know what conditions will be applied. The example they give near the end, uploading to youtube, will apply only as long as youtube does not change their settings. Then you have to change your thresholds and all of your protected videos in the wold are unprotected.
Like calling a windowing operating system "Windows"? Or an office suite "Office"? Or a word processor "Word"? Or a worldwide identity "Passport"? Or a competitor to Java called ".net"? How in the holy shit do you search for ".net"?
"I want to do [x] in .NET"
Results: you can do anything at zombo com. Anything at all.
Fuck their marketing department, it makes it impossible to search for anything relevant until the search engines optimize for their retardedness.
On the other hand, I'd like an engine at the lowest price. Are you going to sell it to me, or is Boeing? Hmm, guess I'm going with Boing. I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.
Capitalism, it's what's for dinner. Want something else? Go be born to someone else, or embrace a different economic system. Mmm, capitalism. Goes down easy, comes up hard.
I had a quick look at your website from your /. page, and I have to say it doesn't look like you would be in a position to have much benefit from being linked in.
I've gotten 4 unsolicited job offers that I would have considered if certain circumstances were different, so although I technically have not benefitted I very well could have.
You're surprised that someone is charging what the market will pay for a product? I hate to tell you, but your underwear cost less to make than what you paid for it. OMG! Underwear is so overpriced! It's a scam!
If people were not willing to pay, sales would plummet and the price would come down. They have tried to blame downloading for lower demand, but they know if they dropped the price they would not sell enough to make up for the price drop. So it stays high. Would you allow sales to sag for 5 years while you tried to convince the world downloading was responsible for your terrible sales instead of just lowering prices?
Bit perfect? Most people listen to their CDs on a player, or rip them to a lossy format. I haven't found one player yet that can guarantee bit-perfect playback. The CD format was designed to allow for errors in the stream. You introduce errors in A/D and D/A conversion anyway, even if the only analog portion is the singer's autotuned voice. Try hex-editing a wav file and flipping a few bits here and there. With 16-bit audio, most of those bits are insignificant and you'l never notice unless you alter the most significant bits of a few samples on the same channel in a row. So even if you do manage a perfect rip, it doesn't really matter.
Few people try to rip with a tool like Exact Audio Copy which attempts to correct for differences in the hardware, and fewer preserve that output losslessly.
That's why people don't want a bit-perfect backup. If you're going to download it, legally, it's easier to just back that file up instead of buying a tangible object. Put yourself in the mindset of most people who want convenience and it makes sense.
You are mistaken. How do you account that money properly? It was incoming money, either reported as profit or unreported by accounting trickery. If it was counted as profit already, they already got taxed on it and had a net loss of 47.5 million for the lawsuit. If unreported, they spent less on legal issues than they thought and have to report $2.5M in unreported profit that already existed from wherever they get money.
Do you buy something, it comes up lower than you thought, and have to declare the difference as profit or income on your taxes? You might think of it as profit in the 'more money than I thought I had' sense, but it is not profit.
They knew their way around the legal system enough to properly estimate what it would take to settle the case quickly. All they did was slightly overestimate. Even with estimated interest earnings, they still lost money, for a net loss on the lawsuit, which is the opposite of profit.
$50m earning interest will still be a loss once paid. Unless they found a ridiculously awesome interest rate, or left it sitting for long enough to more than double. I don't see evidence of either, so overall it would be a loss.
Ignorance. A scientist who says they found no ghosts doesn't say ghosts do not exist. A scientist does not know what a ghost is, so it is impossible to say they exist or not. Only that they were not found.
A true scientist would attempt to define characteristics of ghosts and non-ghosts, and be able to measure differences between the two. Science has not been able to define a ghost, so science does not know what to look for. Science knows what not to look for, but does not know what to look for.
As you said, until you see it you do not know what to look for. How about you help science try to figure out what to look for, what to measure? If you can observe it, it can be measured. Whether we have capable tools or not is the question.
"Hackers" didn't find it, and the article is like 4 paragraphs on 3 pages. It's an advert and a revenue generator for infoworld. Of course I have NoScript and other blockers, so I clicked through all 3 pages to waste their bandwidth. I suggest everyone do the same.
You're looking at this as a hardware vs. software issue I think. Crap electronics get basic tests like 'are the battery leads connected' and 'does it turn on'. Same as the bug fix or patch is tested. OK, it worked, get it out there. So what you're talking about is already being done, basic testing.
OP is talking about setting up an entire QA process that tests every possible case that can be thought of. This is not basic 'it works' testing, this is full-on 'let no part be unbroken' quality assurance. Sell that idea to the chinese and see how far it goes.
Same in US, depending on the state I think. But many states have a requirement to delay a test to get a good reading anyway. It is recommended that that test subjects wait at least 15 minutes in between eating and blowing into the machine. This is also the reason police in Colorado have to wait 20 minutes to administer a breath test, so they cut down on false positives (from link below).
So many states will take the initial test, and if you register as under the influence then you get arrested, taken "downtown", and you get the test that will be entered into evidence at trial. Unfortunately if they don't get results on the second one, some states will just use the first reading. But, there have been cases where the suspected DUI requests for a proper blood test (to test the blood alcohol level), is denied, and attacks the functionality, operation, or calibration of the device. Can't remember which state it was, but one required the source code of the breathalyzer used to be examined by an expert and it was riddled with rounding errors and artificial boundaries and lots of cases got thrown out. So lots of people are beginning to fight back against poorly done tests now, and the no-refusal test is the (il-)logical conclusion to get an accurate reading.
Bread and ice cream can cause high, but legal, readings. Some say it is the alcohol byproduct of yeast which gets trapped in bread's "air bubble" pockets, but I think it has more to do with carbs somehow.
http://duicoloradolaw.com/dui-breath-alcohol-machines-give-false-positives/
(not from CO, just found a representative page as a source)
You're using this new technology called javascript, I can feel it. Turn that shit off for slashdot. You'll get used to it, and it won't try to reload stuff.
You may be using CTRL+W to close a tab, and I think slashdot has some sort of ASDW navigation thing going on. That's what I figured last time I investigated. So you could write a greasemonky script to intercept or disable the key presses, or just turn it off.
soccerooswifes733ts.com agrees.
I was just in Blackpool, and the message was clear: "YOU ARE BEING WATCHED." In cabs, on the street, everywhere. Someone tries to break in to a hotel room in Austria (unlocking the door) and no cameras, no video, just a drunk woman's word against the trusted staff, and nothing is done (I know, cool story bro).
I found it miserable, and if I can avoid it, I won't be back to England any time soon. It is simply too much, constantly being reminded that not only are you being watched, but you will be prosecuted when/if we feel like it, and if you're a victim very sorry about all of the trouble we'll get back to you when we know something.
I watch BBC news on public broadcasting, and just last night there was a news story which made it clear: 1) CCTV will be searched for a murder investigation 2) If you were in the area, you will be identified, so might as well come forward and tell us what you know so we don't have to come looking for you. Some girl was reported missing and found dead or something, the human interest story of the night. Half of the story was tear-jerking, half of it was CCTV promotion, no joke.
Those were paraphrased points from the news, not my interpretation. The news yelling "CCTV" is Antoine Dodson saying "You are really dumb, for real."
A guy got lost after taking his wife to Gatwick and spent 3 days driving along the interstate. They put his license plate into the automatic license checker, got 3 positives, and finally found him on the fourth hit and got him home.
In America I know I'm being watched in places, but I can count on results when something happens. Unless it's 9/11 and the government confiscates every video (not a copy) to do whatever they do with big evidence, which is apparently hide it. I don't do things in public I don't want others to see or know about, that would be true with or without cameras. If they were used consistently and properly, I wouldn't have problems. But it is a crap shoot whether citizens will benefit, while the government decides when it will benefit.
Make no mistake, I understand the intent, but application differs from theory.
There's a difference between teaching and educating. You can teach anything if you're a good teacher. What you can't do is fix mistakes in understanding. You teach something, most of the class understands, and one or two keep doing it wrong. Not because of a flaw in your teaching, but because their background or understanding didn't overlap and they didn't make the connection, whatever.
You can teach, but you can't go back and fix a broken understanding, which is where the real education happens. Getting people to understand what they are doing wrong, why it's wrong, what to do right, and why it's right. All without saying "you're doing it wrong".
A teaching generalist is possible, I can teach you all kinds of stuff. I can't educate you on much. And when we're talking about K-12, we need educators.
Are you going to clarify every submission now? Cos that sounds like what you're volunteering for.
I clicked the link to Dropbox from the article and read up about it, which was a link to the blog. I understand it's just the what's new announcement, but your description and the what's new page make them sound like completely different applications. I did enough work to try to find out more about this thing, and still came back with the wrong idea. *That* is the problem here.
Why even post something in this manner unless it's just for page hits? I want to be informed, and without your post I would have been the opposite of informed, because I actually completely misunderstood what it does.
http://comixed.memebase.com/2010/12/08/4-koma-comic-strip-an-issue-of-debate/
When an I Can Has Cheezeburger site explains the entire Obama administration, government view of free speech vs. censorship, and current political climate in 3 panels something is wrong.
Yeah some details didn't need to be leaked. But most did. The military calls this "collateral damage" and minimizes it compared to the success of hitting a target. Civilians are apparently held to a different standard because we haven't been trained how to properly attack and cover up.
There should be a separate mod for on-topic links to that particular site. Achievement unlocked.
I skipped Avast when I learned that the free version required registration. I went to AVG, which as we discussed not loo long ago was a terrible mistake.
I don't believe in antivirus, I put responsibility on Microsoft and Adobe for the safety of my machines. Router/firewall, noscript, on-demand scanning, and not visiting stupid sites or downloading from untrusted sources are my responsibility. But I do have MSE for on-demand scanning in case I'm not sure.
Nah, just change the strings, and wait for someone to come back to re-wind them. It's the guitar fairy reminding you that old strings are bad strings.
Your comment only makes sense when the loser loses because of a lack of merit.
There are plenty of cases where both sides have a valid point and it is up to the judicial branch to interpret the language and decide who prevails.
You are now going to note that you said "most lawsuits" not all. But of all the lawsuits I've read about in the news, most have actually been valid claims that the legal system has to disentangle. They should do their job, which is find facts and render judgement on those facts. If one side files a motion to dismiss and it is dismissed, one might assume the lawsuit was meritless. But that would be wrong. Dismissed does not mean there was no merit, it could mean that the suit was filed in the wrong place or any number of other reasons.
I too would like a disincentive for frivolous lawsuits, and in fact a lawyer can be disbarred for filing a suit on behalf of their client, which they know to be frivolous. Countersuing for frivolity and abuse of process is such a disincentive.
But you lose does not mean your case had no merit.
I, an American, had a conversation with a lifelong British citizen. My observation was that British society seems a lot more closely watched - CCTV everywhere, "you are being watched" and all that. He said, 40 years ago he would have disagreed.
I was about to argue with him, but then I realized the amount of intelligence gathered by CIA and other organizations on US citizens is at this point legendary. The amount of scrutiny was unheard of. And it died off a bit, while the Brits stepped it up. The difference is, we didn't know we were being spied on.