Sorry, I'm not a lesbian geeky female Trek fan. Just a geeky female space enthusiast, B5 fan, and Trek fan all in one. Ask Jeeves -- oh wait, they fired him. Sorry!
The owner's right to control what goes on on private property. If the owner doesn't like how you're behaving (and he/she won't once others start complaining about your rudeness) you will be asked to leave. If you do not (and stand there babbling about your rights), the cops will haul you out, and maybe charge you with trespassing.
Don't like it? Stay on public property. Say, the sidewalk out front. Or the street. Then they can't touch you.
Ah, but those connections are sold as 'unlimited' so they're simply taking up the provider on its offer to do whatever they want with the service they PAY FOR. That's their right, as it is your right to do what you wish with your connection.
The real answer is to complain to the ISP and tell them that their network is malfunctioning -- and it is, because what other users do should not have an effect on you. Write letters to the application programmers, and ask them to change their software to not be so bandwidth-intensive (they could at least change the as-shipped app defaults so that they're initially not so demanding, and force users to take the responsibility of changing them).
Or, of course, find an ISP that uses a better infrastructure that doesn't cause you so many problems.
And you don't have anything that you're passionate about? Give me a break. People who can quote baseball statistics out of their heads are just as geeky but THEY don't get made fun of.
Wow. You even pissed off an anonymous coward, who is probably anonymous to keep from getting abused. I give you points for that, but it's not enough to stay off my foe list.
I should have had you pegged as a fucking troll before, but now that I see that anyone who disagrees with you is "making a mistake", I've got you figured out.
Welcome to the bit bucket, (to borrow a word) fucktard.
Lovely. So you can't comprehend that someone might disagree with other people. Look, I don't give a damn who you or anyone else is. I don't agree with them! I don't like being bashed over the head with "Look, someone said something else, didn't you read it?!?" You can claim to be the king of England and point me to an opinion on it and I can still disagree if I want to.
I've been civil this whole time but if you can't respect that someone disagrees with you and you have to pull out the old, tired "Look, I'm not the only one who says what I think is the right answer!" card, I lose respect. I don't give a shit who you or anyone else is, I DO NOT AGREE and I don't have to. And not even "authority figures" are right all the time, so waving a title around means jack and shit. That's why we have appeals.
Give me a break.
I'm done. Find another thread and a better sucker who will actually bend over for you to pick on, because I'm not going to be back.
And for the third time, I disagree with you because it was asked by the wrong people, who didn't go through the proper channels for taking offending material off the net. I think at this point we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, and neither of us shows any signs of budging.
You can tell them not to copy and distribute my site if you own the copyright on my site!
No, I can tell your ISP to pull your site under the law. THAT is the remedy that has been specifically made available to you in cases like this. It's called the DMCA -- surely, you have heard of it?
And no, you can't order Google to remove someone else's site from the index. From their documentation:
Note: If you believe your request is urgent and cannot wait until the next time Google crawls your site, use our automatic URL removal system. In order for this automated process to work, the webmaster must first create and place a robots.txt file on the site in question.
Or are you proposing to hack someone else's server and install a robots.txt file? You'll find yourself facing hacking charges if you do such a thing. This requirement is designed to prevent fraudulent removal requests.
Google doesn't have to remove anything if it isn't asked to. The fact that Google is trying to build a comprehensive database to make its service as useful as possible means that it's opt-out, not opt-in. Yet Google knows that there will be times when something shouldn't be indexed. That's why there's TONS of information on their site describing exactly how to do it!
The An-225 was designed to carry Buran around, so I could tell you for sure that that's what you saw even without your description, which confirms it.:)
By comparison, the US shuttle is carried around by a Boeing 747, which was not originally designed for this purpose (it was designed as a competitor to the C-5 Galaxy and as a passenger hauler, and turned out to be a good shuttle carrier with internal modifications and additional vertical stabilizers added to the tail surfaces). The two SCAs were sourced from airlines that no loger needed them -- the first is from American Airlines (earlier photos of it will even show remnants of the lettering "AMERICAN" on the sides) and the second from JAL.
But Google, because the site hosting the images did not declare via robots.txt that it was forbidden to enter, DID have permission to index the site in its database. The owner of a given site has to be the one to ask Google not to index; I can't tell them not to index your site if I for some reason don't like what you've got on it. The most I can do is ask you to take it down, or if you don't and I have the legal right to stop you, ask your ISP to take it down.
Another analogy is that it'd be like prosecuting the innocent buyer of a stolen car who had no knowledge that the car was stolen. Car buyers don't have an obligation to check, nor do they have any kind of expectation that they are buying a stolen item. Prosecuting the buyer is just insane and makes you look like a jackass.
But, as I have said in other posts, the search engine doesn't know what's supposed to be there and what isn't. That's not its job. The copyright holder needs to complain to the infringer. The infringer (or their ISP) takes the images down. And they're no longer accessible and will disappear out of the index the next time the search engine stops by for a check. And those who were rightly at fault will be in trouble but those who have nothing to do with it won't be bothered.
This is not Google's fault. I know it's "cool" to bash corporations on Slashdot, but it's not always the Big Megacorp's fault that bad things happen.
Oh, no, you misread my comment, or I wasn't clear, or both.
It's the people who stole the images that need to be served with the complaints. Not the search engine that is merely recording what it finds as long as it's been given permission (Google does obey robots.txt).
The search engine isn't playing a part in this beyond doing what it's designed to do. It's like claiming, if I worked as a checkout clerk at a grocery store, for allowing someone to purchase some good that wasn't authorized for sale at that store. I merely did what I'm paid to do and assumed that the item was legitimately offered for sale; I'm not the one responsible for checking that.
Good god, I thought the bullshit had been stretched thin as it was.
The poster you responded to does have a point -- "refund anticipation" loans ARE often ripoffs and it's a good idea to avoid them unless you REALLY REALLY need the money now. I filed in early February and I had my refund on the 13th. My full refund. (though I did have to pay a little for the state filing/prep and the fed prep, fed E-file was free for me). If you are smart enough to plan ahead financially, which you should be doing in any case, you shouldn't be throwing your money away on a "refund anticipation loan".
An automated program can't tell what should be on a site and what shouldn't. Google is not at fault here; if a third party copies the files, that third party is the one who should be on the receiving end of a takedown notice or a lawsuit. THAT is what the DMCA can be fairly used for, not for strangling the rights of people who just want to use things they paid for.
Google just has deeper pockets, so they were hit instead due to the "I want free money!" attitude so prevalent in the US today.
I'm waiting for Google to appeal. They sorely need to.
Yes, but there is also an opt-out that can be done using said robots.txt file and/or via Google's own website. Publishers whining and bitching and suing are just seeing the free-money aspect instead of sending someone to Google's page to do the five minutes of research that would yield how to fix the problem themselves, and for free without having to pay to file a case or pay lawyers.
It is yet another example of how out of control things are since it hasn't yet been made difficult or impossible to sue because you failed to prevent harm to yourself when doing so would have taken five minutes. It's like failing to fuel up your small plane, failing to check the fuel level if someone else fills it for you (which you should always do before takeoff regardless of who does the filling) and then suing the aircraft and/or engine manufacturers when the engine runs out of fuel, dies, and the plane crashes.
Whose fault is it but your own that you failed to ensure a safe situation? And yet all you care about is "I GOTTA SUE! SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY!!!!11!!!" And who pays? The rest of us in higher prices of small aircraft, or decreased ability to find what we're looking for when we search for something.
The bar on lawsuits like this needs to be raised. And raised yesterday.
But are you using the DVD's subtitle option or the remote's "subtitle" button? Again, this IS NOT the same thing as closed captioning. Closed captions are activated using the TV (set to CC1) and are decoded and displayed by the TV.
They don't have a product. They don't have a market. They exist solely to be extortionists. They don't even have anything to use to extort anyone -- they have no valid patents!
So they exist solely to sue trying to frighten people based on bullshit claims that have no logical or legal standing.
I have a Pioneer DV-250, got a HDTV, and wanted a better player even though the TV does have what LG calls the "xD Engine" that does some upsampling on its own. The only gripe is that it doesn't show closed captions if you're using the component inputs so I'm hoping that this one will output captions over the DVI/HDMI port or that the upsampled picture (it apparently will send it over the analog ports also) will work on outputs other than the component ports.
If it doesn't... $60 for a refurb, and now that my "old" (it's not that old) CRT TV is in the bedroom, I can move one of the DVD players back there for watching DVDs while being lazy.
It's ridiculous to make a player these days that doesn't do closed captioning AT ALL, though! And they don't offer ANY other players... which is too bad given the good reviews that one got. Too bad its one flaw is a fatal one.
Closed captions aren't the same thing as subtitles -- they're generated by the television via the use of a special decoding chip, and the font is built into the TV, and the characters aren't actually image layers that are pre-rendered.
Ah? I want an upscaling DVD player but I'm hearing-impaired so I need closed captioning. I ordered one of these from Amazon.com after seeing this story, since it was cheap (just under $60) and seems well-suited to my goals. I want a high-res picture that will show captions and it's good to know that it's quite likely that I did the right thing while buying while I could.
If the captions don't show over DVI/HDMI (my set can do both, as well as HDCP) then they should show up fine over S-Video, if you're correct.
Great news.
Anyone know if closed captions are likely to work over the DVI connection?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I'm not a lesbian geeky female Trek fan. Just a geeky female space enthusiast, B5 fan, and Trek fan all in one. Ask Jeeves -- oh wait, they fired him. Sorry!
The owner's right to control what goes on on private property. If the owner doesn't like how you're behaving (and he/she won't once others start complaining about your rudeness) you will be asked to leave. If you do not (and stand there babbling about your rights), the cops will haul you out, and maybe charge you with trespassing.
Don't like it? Stay on public property. Say, the sidewalk out front. Or the street. Then they can't touch you.
Ah, but those connections are sold as 'unlimited' so they're simply taking up the provider on its offer to do whatever they want with the service they PAY FOR. That's their right, as it is your right to do what you wish with your connection.
The real answer is to complain to the ISP and tell them that their network is malfunctioning -- and it is, because what other users do should not have an effect on you. Write letters to the application programmers, and ask them to change their software to not be so bandwidth-intensive (they could at least change the as-shipped app defaults so that they're initially not so demanding, and force users to take the responsibility of changing them).
Or, of course, find an ISP that uses a better infrastructure that doesn't cause you so many problems.
And you don't have anything that you're passionate about? Give me a break. People who can quote baseball statistics out of their heads are just as geeky but THEY don't get made fun of.
Take. some. damn. tact. lessons.
Wow. You even pissed off an anonymous coward, who is probably anonymous to keep from getting abused. I give you points for that, but it's not enough to stay off my foe list.
I should have had you pegged as a fucking troll before, but now that I see that anyone who disagrees with you is "making a mistake", I've got you figured out.
Welcome to the bit bucket, (to borrow a word) fucktard.
Lovely. So you can't comprehend that someone might disagree with other people. Look, I don't give a damn who you or anyone else is. I don't agree with them! I don't like being bashed over the head with "Look, someone said something else, didn't you read it?!?" You can claim to be the king of England and point me to an opinion on it and I can still disagree if I want to.
I've been civil this whole time but if you can't respect that someone disagrees with you and you have to pull out the old, tired "Look, I'm not the only one who says what I think is the right answer!" card, I lose respect. I don't give a shit who you or anyone else is, I DO NOT AGREE and I don't have to. And not even "authority figures" are right all the time, so waving a title around means jack and shit. That's why we have appeals.
Give me a break.
I'm done. Find another thread and a better sucker who will actually bend over for you to pick on, because I'm not going to be back.
And for the third time, I disagree with you because it was asked by the wrong people, who didn't go through the proper channels for taking offending material off the net. I think at this point we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, and neither of us shows any signs of budging.
You can tell them not to copy and distribute my site if you own the copyright on my site!
No, I can tell your ISP to pull your site under the law. THAT is the remedy that has been specifically made available to you in cases like this. It's called the DMCA -- surely, you have heard of it?
And no, you can't order Google to remove someone else's site from the index. From their documentation:
Note: If you believe your request is urgent and cannot wait until the next time Google crawls your site, use our automatic URL removal system. In order for this automated process to work, the webmaster must first create and place a robots.txt file on the site in question.
Or are you proposing to hack someone else's server and install a robots.txt file? You'll find yourself facing hacking charges if you do such a thing. This requirement is designed to prevent fraudulent removal requests.
Google doesn't have to remove anything if it isn't asked to. The fact that Google is trying to build a comprehensive database to make its service as useful as possible means that it's opt-out, not opt-in. Yet Google knows that there will be times when something shouldn't be indexed. That's why there's TONS of information on their site describing exactly how to do it!
The An-225 was designed to carry Buran around, so I could tell you for sure that that's what you saw even without your description, which confirms it. :)
By comparison, the US shuttle is carried around by a Boeing 747, which was not originally designed for this purpose (it was designed as a competitor to the C-5 Galaxy and as a passenger hauler, and turned out to be a good shuttle carrier with internal modifications and additional vertical stabilizers added to the tail surfaces). The two SCAs were sourced from airlines that no loger needed them -- the first is from American Airlines (earlier photos of it will even show remnants of the lettering "AMERICAN" on the sides) and the second from JAL.
But Google, because the site hosting the images did not declare via robots.txt that it was forbidden to enter, DID have permission to index the site in its database. The owner of a given site has to be the one to ask Google not to index; I can't tell them not to index your site if I for some reason don't like what you've got on it. The most I can do is ask you to take it down, or if you don't and I have the legal right to stop you, ask your ISP to take it down.
Another analogy is that it'd be like prosecuting the innocent buyer of a stolen car who had no knowledge that the car was stolen. Car buyers don't have an obligation to check, nor do they have any kind of expectation that they are buying a stolen item. Prosecuting the buyer is just insane and makes you look like a jackass.
But, as I have said in other posts, the search engine doesn't know what's supposed to be there and what isn't. That's not its job. The copyright holder needs to complain to the infringer. The infringer (or their ISP) takes the images down. And they're no longer accessible and will disappear out of the index the next time the search engine stops by for a check. And those who were rightly at fault will be in trouble but those who have nothing to do with it won't be bothered.
This is not Google's fault. I know it's "cool" to bash corporations on Slashdot, but it's not always the Big Megacorp's fault that bad things happen.
Oh, no, you misread my comment, or I wasn't clear, or both.
It's the people who stole the images that need to be served with the complaints. Not the search engine that is merely recording what it finds as long as it's been given permission (Google does obey robots.txt).
The search engine isn't playing a part in this beyond doing what it's designed to do. It's like claiming, if I worked as a checkout clerk at a grocery store, for allowing someone to purchase some good that wasn't authorized for sale at that store. I merely did what I'm paid to do and assumed that the item was legitimately offered for sale; I'm not the one responsible for checking that.
Pretty impressive stuff. The An-225 is the world's biggest aircraft, I think. It's even bigger than the C-5 Galaxy.
So tax preparers are all terrorists now?
Good god, I thought the bullshit had been stretched thin as it was.
The poster you responded to does have a point -- "refund anticipation" loans ARE often ripoffs and it's a good idea to avoid them unless you REALLY REALLY need the money now. I filed in early February and I had my refund on the 13th. My full refund. (though I did have to pay a little for the state filing/prep and the fed prep, fed E-file was free for me). If you are smart enough to plan ahead financially, which you should be doing in any case, you shouldn't be throwing your money away on a "refund anticipation loan".
An automated program can't tell what should be on a site and what shouldn't. Google is not at fault here; if a third party copies the files, that third party is the one who should be on the receiving end of a takedown notice or a lawsuit. THAT is what the DMCA can be fairly used for, not for strangling the rights of people who just want to use things they paid for.
Google just has deeper pockets, so they were hit instead due to the "I want free money!" attitude so prevalent in the US today.
I'm waiting for Google to appeal. They sorely need to.
Yes, but there is also an opt-out that can be done using said robots.txt file and/or via Google's own website. Publishers whining and bitching and suing are just seeing the free-money aspect instead of sending someone to Google's page to do the five minutes of research that would yield how to fix the problem themselves, and for free without having to pay to file a case or pay lawyers.
It is yet another example of how out of control things are since it hasn't yet been made difficult or impossible to sue because you failed to prevent harm to yourself when doing so would have taken five minutes. It's like failing to fuel up your small plane, failing to check the fuel level if someone else fills it for you (which you should always do before takeoff regardless of who does the filling) and then suing the aircraft and/or engine manufacturers when the engine runs out of fuel, dies, and the plane crashes.
Whose fault is it but your own that you failed to ensure a safe situation? And yet all you care about is "I GOTTA SUE! SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY!!!!11!!!" And who pays? The rest of us in higher prices of small aircraft, or decreased ability to find what we're looking for when we search for something.
The bar on lawsuits like this needs to be raised. And raised yesterday.
But are you using the DVD's subtitle option or the remote's "subtitle" button? Again, this IS NOT the same thing as closed captioning. Closed captions are activated using the TV (set to CC1) and are decoded and displayed by the TV.
And you see my point of why NTP needs to be busted into oblivion.
It's quite possible to understand something without 100% agreeing with it, which is what you seem to have missed.
They don't have a product. They don't have a market. They exist solely to be extortionists. They don't even have anything to use to extort anyone -- they have no valid patents!
So they exist solely to sue trying to frighten people based on bullshit claims that have no logical or legal standing.
Or, they COULD just use a Mac or a Linux system or one of the freeware PDF printer drivers for Windows.
Anyone else thinking "Hmmm, we should turn them in for that"? Give them a taste of their own medicine.
I have a Pioneer DV-250, got a HDTV, and wanted a better player even though the TV does have what LG calls the "xD Engine" that does some upsampling on its own. The only gripe is that it doesn't show closed captions if you're using the component inputs so I'm hoping that this one will output captions over the DVI/HDMI port or that the upsampled picture (it apparently will send it over the analog ports also) will work on outputs other than the component ports.
... $60 for a refurb, and now that my "old" (it's not that old) CRT TV is in the bedroom, I can move one of the DVD players back there for watching DVDs while being lazy.
... which is too bad given the good reviews that one got. Too bad its one flaw is a fatal one.
If it doesn't
It's ridiculous to make a player these days that doesn't do closed captioning AT ALL, though! And they don't offer ANY other players
Closed captions aren't the same thing as subtitles -- they're generated by the television via the use of a special decoding chip, and the font is built into the TV, and the characters aren't actually image layers that are pre-rendered.
Ah? I want an upscaling DVD player but I'm hearing-impaired so I need closed captioning. I ordered one of these from Amazon.com after seeing this story, since it was cheap (just under $60) and seems well-suited to my goals. I want a high-res picture that will show captions and it's good to know that it's quite likely that I did the right thing while buying while I could.
If the captions don't show over DVI/HDMI (my set can do both, as well as HDCP) then they should show up fine over S-Video, if you're correct.
Great news.
Anyone know if closed captions are likely to work over the DVI connection?
You get that sort of thing no matter what the topic is. Now, what's really tiring are the people who mistake copyright infringement for theft.