..a tv with a glaring large "Press ESC to exit full screen mode". Okay, I'm willing to swing this if we make a promise to use less flash content on the web.
Apparently, you'd prefer that flash apps running in your browser be able to fully impersonate your browser/operating system? That's what the whole "Press ESC..." thing is for, to warn you because of the security implications. It's amazing the lengths to which flash haters will go to justify their bias.
First, Adobe didn't add the ability for Flash in a browser to go fullscreen until version 9.0.28 of the player, which as released in Oct 2007 IIRC. And it had a number of restrictions due to security:
To enable full-screen mode, developers must add a new and tag parameter, allowFullScreen, to their HTML. This parameter defaults to false, or not allowing full screen. To allow full-screen, developers must set allowFullScreen to true in their / tags.
An overlay dialog box will appear when the movie enters full-screen mode, instructing the user how to exit and return to normal mode. The dialog box appears for a few seconds and then fades out.
The ActionScript that initiates full-screen mode can be called only in response to a mouse click or keypress. If it is called in other situations, it will be ignored (in ActionScript 2.0) or throw an exception (in ActionScript 3.0).
Users cannot enter text in text input fields while in full-screen mode. All keyboard input and key-related ActionScript is disabled while in full-screen mode, with the exception of the keyboard shortcuts that take the viewer out of full-screen mode.
The user can disable full-screen mode for all Flash movies by adding a setting to the Flash Player configuration file mms.cfg. The file is described in the TechNote, IT Administration: Configuring Flash Player Auto-Update Notification. Add the line: FullScreenDisable=1 to the mms.cfg file to disable full-screen mode.
The only reason they added the escape for full screen, was because Flash allowed fullscreen content without a way of getting back to normal.
According to the above, I don't really believe this. Unless you're talking about the standalone player, in which I still don't believe it because I'm pretty sure alt-tab, etc. would still work.
All of these things were done to prevent flash apps in a browser from impersonating your operating system. I don't see what you would have had them done otherwise. And yes, the content has to have a button or key for going fullscreen. However, you can usually pretty easily avoid that by greasemonkeying it. I run lots of flash apps fullscreen that don't actually have a button for it in the flash app.
It's also not up to the flash app, but up to the containing HTML app and the flash configuration file. Both of these are a good thing if you were concerned about untrusted flash code doing naughty things.
As far as the volume control, I don't really see where the problem is. I personally hate every app having their own volume controls, with the addition of another volume knob on the speaker. Just too many sliders where some can be cranked up to max while others are very low, thus distorting everything. So inside your flash app, you might have separate volumes for sound effects, music and voice. Now you want ANOTHER volume knob added by flash so that you have to figure out which volume knob is turned all the way down, the app's voice knob, the flash master volume knob, the windows Wave volume knob, the Windows Master volume knob, or your speaker's physical volume knob. Too many knobs for me.
Don't worry, the 3d setups are so elaborate that it will be decades before they become the norm. I don't see it ever becoming the norm the way it works now. And then it'll be even longer before home TVs can display stuff in 3d, so they'll continue to make dual 3d and 2d movies.
Don't think you have it as bad as the deaf when movies went to talkies, or the blind when radio gave way to the TV. Wonder if people modded them funny, too.
Reading about this, I just can't help but think of Nixon on Futurama. I'll be much more impressed when they get this technology working to the level where you can sign by rubbing your nose against the glass.
You may not, but I know you know that this is how legal departments in companies work. When a specialized department is part of a more generic whole, at some point working your way up the hierarchy you have to eventually find someone who isn't in the same specialty. There are legitimate arguments to how high you should have to go before you get to that point, but it will usually happen in any large organization.
Again, though, a classified ads site is not the same thing as a web forum. If you replied in email to a person who posted an ad on the site, what would you expect to happen? Would you expect the person to post it publicly? No. That's what expectations are all about. It doesn't matter that he CAN post them publicly. If you follow your logic then there is no such thing as privacy. I could be having a "private" conversation with you, but be secretly recording it and then post it on the internet.
That's what we're talking about here, whether you can reasonably expect certain communications to be private or not. Personally, I would rather have the law say that there is such a thing as privacy than in your alternate universe where nothing is private.
You seem to have completely missed the point of the GP. They're talking about how IBM might have written their own OS for the PC originally, rather than decouple the software from the hardware and let Microsoft create and own the operating system. This decision seems to not make much sense unless you factor in worries about continuing antitrust issues which IBM had been saddled with for quite some time when the IBM PC was being developed.
Copyright is not a natural right. In a world without government, you do not have an intrinsic right to control your work as soon as you release it to the public.
Though I agree with most of your post, I feel this just doesn't stand up. In a world without government, all "rights" are theoretical and philosophical. Everything is up for grabs. Government is what we create to move rights from the philosophical landscape into reality.
What the hell are you talking about? The top frame when you click on an image in the google search looks as follows:
See full size image See full size image 800 x 1118 - 176k - jpg - allisonfarnum.files.wordpress.com/.../tomato.jpg Image may be subject to copyright. Below is the image at: allisonfarnum.wordpress.com/
See the URL?
Also, when I click on an image in the results and it takes me to the page with the frame at the top and the original at the bottom, it DOES put focus to the original. The last part of the google page is:
<script>var a = document.getElementById('rf');a && a.contentWindow && a.contentWindow.focus();</script>
Is it possible you have noscript preventing it or some bad greasemonkey script? The problem isn't the design, it's in your browser setup.
Actually, google very clearly puts the original URL on the top frame, as well as on the main results search page. Did you miss the part where one of the major complaints is URL obfuscation? RTFS!
Hanlon's razor is a tool for both the simpleminded (to avoid the responsibility of looking for information) and the malicious (to avoid the responsibility for their actions). It's provably false in a large number of cases, and you've probably used it yourself to cover some malicious act. I know -I- have, and I've seen countless other people do it themselves.
If so, you're using it wrong. It's not any of those things. It's a reminder that before you go off all half-cocked and pointing fingers, you should have actual proof rather than just assumptions. It's a way to keep from making an ass of yourself. And a very eloquent one, at that.
I've used it any number of times to avoid that very situation and been glad when later it did turn out to be provable incompetence.
How would Sun producing their own App Engine solve the problem of Google's App Engine not being fully compatible? It'd still be incompatible and still have a lot of users.
Can't we just tag this as "theyreright" and "movealong" (or maybe just "theyrerightmovealong"). Anyone who would make a big deal out of this needs to turn in their geek card.
I can't remember ever testing a beta product that said it was fine to upgrade one beta to another. I'm sure they exist, but they're far less common the more complicated a piece of software gets. And I can't really think of much more complicated than a full-fledged operating system (as opposed to something like a really lightweight embedded system, microkernel or something).
Bully for you. But you have to be aware that there are different types of dimmers and different types of CFLs. Some work fine with all dimmers, some work fine only with certain dimmers. Since I don't know (and he likely doesn't either) the exact type of dimmer he has, the best way to avoid problems is to either use a dimmer designed for CFLs or a CFL designed to be dimmable.
All of the following text is from the reference provided:
[1]Newer dimmers are actually semiconductor devices that turn the switch on and off very rapidly - 120 times per second in normal designs. Because CFLs have a finite start-up time, and because frequent switching shortens bulb lifetime, these switches prevent the CFL from working optimally, and cause it to burn out quickly.
Manufacturers compensate for these problems by designing the power electronics within the ballast to deal with these issues. This requires more complicated and more expensive parts. Alternatively, you can design a special dimming switch for CFLs that put those power electronics before the switch rather than after it. This is more expensive, however, and requires a bigger retrofit.
Even with this "fix" there are expectations for dimmable products that need to be addressed.
[2]Do CFLs work on dimmers? Most screw-base CFLs do not work with dimmers designed for use with incandescent lamps. These CFLs will have a label on the lamp and/or the packaging stating "not for use with dimmers. However, certain special screw-base CFLs are designed to work with standard incandescent lamp dimmers. These CFLs will be labeled "dimmable" or similar language on the lamp and/or the packaging. However, due to small differences between different brands of dimmers, not all dimmable CFLs work with all types of incandescent dimmers. Some dimmable CFLs, however, will work with all major brands of incandescent lamp dimmers.
[3]Historically, incandescent dimmers worked through resistance- they lowered the voltage and the dimmer switch got hot, and the light bulb became very inefficient as low voltage barely warmed the filament. The bulb lasted forever but it used as much electricity as if it was running full blast.
Then the electronic dimmer was invented, which work by turning the light bulb on and off faster than we can see it, 120 times a second. It is not 100% efficient, which is why dimming your lights 25% reduces your electricity consumption only 20%. And it is no wonder why it causes problems for compact fluorescents, which are not designed for this additional turning on and off of a switch 120 times per second.
Oh god, not the shakeyshot. That's the main thing I actually don't like about BSG. Sometimes I can't help but just yell "Stop moving the damn camera!" at the screen (futile and sad, I know). It's not that it's a shakey camera like you'd get if someone was filming it while walking and running as part of the action - it's the artificiality of it all. How I especially loathe the "pan-and-move conversation." The camera moves from one face to the next then slightly moves off-center. Then it moves back to the first and slightly moves again. Repeat.
BSG seems to have pushed forward to the next level. They have all the annoying tricks already mentioned with the addition of a zoom. So they keep doing move-shake-zoom, move-shake-zoom over and over. Whether its be running through a corridor, having a conversation, addressing a crowd or engaging in a space battle. It's move-shake-zoom all over the place.
I blame NYPD Blue, though they may well have been just a follower of the trend. I remember catching five minutes of it and thinking "who can stand to watch this show?"
You forgot the third option. They'll likely bypass the normal pricing for their new gTLD crap and have a special auction for the.xxx and.sex ones. The easiest way to predict their next move is to think "What would I do if I could make up arbitrary rules regarding domains, charge whatever I like for it, and no one out there is likely to step in and stop me?"
Oh, that's the best joke, yet. You actually think the problem is that they don't realize what a terrible idea it is and enough people haven't pointed it out to them? They've got a printing press and nobody to make them stop using it.
At this point, I think the only thing that will stop them is if the U.S. passes a law forbidding any U.S. company to route traffic for anything other than existing TLDs. But once this is in place for a few years, good luck putting the genie back in the bottle.
Keep it under your hats, but a friend told me about this awesome site that doesn't even have a domain name it's so secret. They have some of the most fucked up porn there. Not sure how they stay legal sometimes. My only complaint is that they recycle their material a lot so I often find a lot of repeats. I usually just check back every few months to see the newer stuff. I don't want to doom the site so I'll try to keep all the extra idiot slashdot users out and post it in a form only us hackers will likely realize - 7F000001.
Slashdot Mirror
..a tv with a glaring large "Press ESC to exit full screen mode". Okay, I'm willing to swing this if we make a promise to use less flash content on the web.
Apparently, you'd prefer that flash apps running in your browser be able to fully impersonate your browser/operating system? That's what the whole "Press ESC..." thing is for, to warn you because of the security implications. It's amazing the lengths to which flash haters will go to justify their bias.
First, Adobe didn't add the ability for Flash in a browser to go fullscreen until version 9.0.28 of the player, which as released in Oct 2007 IIRC. And it had a number of restrictions due to security:
The only reason they added the escape for full screen, was because Flash allowed fullscreen content without a way of getting back to normal.
According to the above, I don't really believe this. Unless you're talking about the standalone player, in which I still don't believe it because I'm pretty sure alt-tab, etc. would still work.
All of these things were done to prevent flash apps in a browser from impersonating your operating system. I don't see what you would have had them done otherwise. And yes, the content has to have a button or key for going fullscreen. However, you can usually pretty easily avoid that by greasemonkeying it. I run lots of flash apps fullscreen that don't actually have a button for it in the flash app.
It's also not up to the flash app, but up to the containing HTML app and the flash configuration file. Both of these are a good thing if you were concerned about untrusted flash code doing naughty things.
As far as the volume control, I don't really see where the problem is. I personally hate every app having their own volume controls, with the addition of another volume knob on the speaker. Just too many sliders where some can be cranked up to max while others are very low, thus distorting everything. So inside your flash app, you might have separate volumes for sound effects, music and voice. Now you want ANOTHER volume knob added by flash so that you have to figure out which volume knob is turned all the way down, the app's voice knob, the flash master volume knob, the windows Wave volume knob, the Windows Master volume knob, or your speaker's physical volume knob. Too many knobs for me.
It does have it's political downfalls
You, sir, win the Glossing Over The Situation Award of the century.
Don't worry, the 3d setups are so elaborate that it will be decades before they become the norm. I don't see it ever becoming the norm the way it works now. And then it'll be even longer before home TVs can display stuff in 3d, so they'll continue to make dual 3d and 2d movies.
Don't think you have it as bad as the deaf when movies went to talkies, or the blind when radio gave way to the TV. Wonder if people modded them funny, too.
Reading about this, I just can't help but think of Nixon on Futurama. I'll be much more impressed when they get this technology working to the level where you can sign by rubbing your nose against the glass.
On the other hand, he seems to very much be a politician first and a technologist second.
Translation: He won't say something politically dumb and wind up resigning in the first year.
Like pretty much 99% of actual geeks would.
You may not, but I know you know that this is how legal departments in companies work. When a specialized department is part of a more generic whole, at some point working your way up the hierarchy you have to eventually find someone who isn't in the same specialty. There are legitimate arguments to how high you should have to go before you get to that point, but it will usually happen in any large organization.
Again, though, a classified ads site is not the same thing as a web forum. If you replied in email to a person who posted an ad on the site, what would you expect to happen? Would you expect the person to post it publicly? No. That's what expectations are all about. It doesn't matter that he CAN post them publicly. If you follow your logic then there is no such thing as privacy. I could be having a "private" conversation with you, but be secretly recording it and then post it on the internet.
That's what we're talking about here, whether you can reasonably expect certain communications to be private or not. Personally, I would rather have the law say that there is such a thing as privacy than in your alternate universe where nothing is private.
You seem to have completely missed the point of the GP. They're talking about how IBM might have written their own OS for the PC originally, rather than decouple the software from the hardware and let Microsoft create and own the operating system. This decision seems to not make much sense unless you factor in worries about continuing antitrust issues which IBM had been saddled with for quite some time when the IBM PC was being developed.
Copyright is not a natural right. In a world without government, you do not have an intrinsic right to control your work as soon as you release it to the public.
Though I agree with most of your post, I feel this just doesn't stand up. In a world without government, all "rights" are theoretical and philosophical. Everything is up for grabs. Government is what we create to move rights from the philosophical landscape into reality.
What the hell are you talking about? The top frame when you click on an image in the google search looks as follows:
See full size image
See full size image
800 x 1118 - 176k - jpg - allisonfarnum.files.wordpress.com/.../tomato.jpg
Image may be subject to copyright.
Below is the image at: allisonfarnum.wordpress.com/
See the URL?
Also, when I click on an image in the results and it takes me to the page with the frame at the top and the original at the bottom, it DOES put focus to the original. The last part of the google page is:
Is it possible you have noscript preventing it or some bad greasemonkey script? The problem isn't the design, it's in your browser setup.
Actually, google very clearly puts the original URL on the top frame, as well as on the main results search page. Did you miss the part where one of the major complaints is URL obfuscation? RTFS!
Code Monkey think maybe manager want to write goddamn login page himself.
Hanlon's razor is a tool for both the simpleminded (to avoid the responsibility of looking for information) and the malicious (to avoid the responsibility for their actions). It's provably false in a large number of cases, and you've probably used it yourself to cover some malicious act. I know -I- have, and I've seen countless other people do it themselves.
If so, you're using it wrong. It's not any of those things. It's a reminder that before you go off all half-cocked and pointing fingers, you should have actual proof rather than just assumptions. It's a way to keep from making an ass of yourself. And a very eloquent one, at that.
I've used it any number of times to avoid that very situation and been glad when later it did turn out to be provable incompetence.
How would Sun producing their own App Engine solve the problem of Google's App Engine not being fully compatible? It'd still be incompatible and still have a lot of users.
Can't we just tag this as "theyreright" and "movealong" (or maybe just "theyrerightmovealong"). Anyone who would make a big deal out of this needs to turn in their geek card.
I can't remember ever testing a beta product that said it was fine to upgrade one beta to another. I'm sure they exist, but they're far less common the more complicated a piece of software gets. And I can't really think of much more complicated than a full-fledged operating system (as opposed to something like a really lightweight embedded system, microkernel or something).
Bully for you. But you have to be aware that there are different types of dimmers and different types of CFLs. Some work fine with all dimmers, some work fine only with certain dimmers. Since I don't know (and he likely doesn't either) the exact type of dimmer he has, the best way to avoid problems is to either use a dimmer designed for CFLs or a CFL designed to be dimmable.
All of the following text is from the reference provided:
[1]Newer dimmers are actually semiconductor devices that turn the switch on and off very rapidly - 120 times per second in normal designs. Because CFLs have a finite start-up time, and because frequent switching shortens bulb lifetime, these switches prevent the CFL from working optimally, and cause it to burn out quickly.
Manufacturers compensate for these problems by designing the power electronics within the ballast to deal with these issues. This requires more complicated and more expensive parts. Alternatively, you can design a special dimming switch for CFLs that put those power electronics before the switch rather than after it. This is more expensive, however, and requires a bigger retrofit.
Even with this "fix" there are expectations for dimmable products that need to be addressed.
[2] Do CFLs work on dimmers? Most screw-base CFLs do not work with dimmers designed for use with incandescent lamps. These CFLs will have a label on the lamp and/or the packaging stating "not for use with dimmers. However, certain special screw-base CFLs are designed to work with standard incandescent lamp dimmers. These CFLs will be labeled "dimmable" or similar language on the lamp and/or the packaging. However, due to small differences between different brands of dimmers, not all dimmable CFLs work with all types of incandescent dimmers. Some dimmable CFLs, however, will work with all major brands of incandescent lamp dimmers.
[3]Historically, incandescent dimmers worked through resistance- they lowered the voltage and the dimmer switch got hot, and the light bulb became very inefficient as low voltage barely warmed the filament. The bulb lasted forever but it used as much electricity as if it was running full blast.
Then the electronic dimmer was invented, which work by turning the light bulb on and off faster than we can see it, 120 times a second. It is not 100% efficient, which is why dimming your lights 25% reduces your electricity consumption only 20%. And it is no wonder why it causes problems for compact fluorescents, which are not designed for this additional turning on and off of a switch 120 times per second.
Just FYI, CFLs lifespan is shortened when used in humid environments. Like bathrooms, for example.
Did you use a dimmer that was approved for use with CFLs?
Oh god, not the shakeyshot. That's the main thing I actually don't like about BSG. Sometimes I can't help but just yell "Stop moving the damn camera!" at the screen (futile and sad, I know). It's not that it's a shakey camera like you'd get if someone was filming it while walking and running as part of the action - it's the artificiality of it all. How I especially loathe the "pan-and-move conversation." The camera moves from one face to the next then slightly moves off-center. Then it moves back to the first and slightly moves again. Repeat.
BSG seems to have pushed forward to the next level. They have all the annoying tricks already mentioned with the addition of a zoom. So they keep doing move-shake-zoom, move-shake-zoom over and over. Whether its be running through a corridor, having a conversation, addressing a crowd or engaging in a space battle. It's move-shake-zoom all over the place.
I blame NYPD Blue, though they may well have been just a follower of the trend. I remember catching five minutes of it and thinking "who can stand to watch this show?"
Poor strawman. He never stood a chance.
Let me know when you actually want to try to address MY argument.
You forgot the third option. They'll likely bypass the normal pricing for their new gTLD crap and have a special auction for the .xxx and .sex ones. The easiest way to predict their next move is to think "What would I do if I could make up arbitrary rules regarding domains, charge whatever I like for it, and no one out there is likely to step in and stop me?"
Oh, that's the best joke, yet. You actually think the problem is that they don't realize what a terrible idea it is and enough people haven't pointed it out to them? They've got a printing press and nobody to make them stop using it.
At this point, I think the only thing that will stop them is if the U.S. passes a law forbidding any U.S. company to route traffic for anything other than existing TLDs. But once this is in place for a few years, good luck putting the genie back in the bottle.
Keep it under your hats, but a friend told me about this awesome site that doesn't even have a domain name it's so secret. They have some of the most fucked up porn there. Not sure how they stay legal sometimes. My only complaint is that they recycle their material a lot so I often find a lot of repeats. I usually just check back every few months to see the newer stuff. I don't want to doom the site so I'll try to keep all the extra idiot slashdot users out and post it in a form only us hackers will likely realize - 7F000001.