Careful, you were bordering on incoherent before, and now you've finally crossed the line into nonsensical hysteria.
the sites you use just appear by magic?
No, they're like any other business. Someone with a neat idea secures some funding (either privately or via venture funding), develops a site, deploys it, and hopefully attracts a user base.
Ads or paywall, it works the same way either way.
Seriously, maybe you should try taking your head out of your ass and consider that there may be business models other than the ad-supported-content-model.
but if you smugly trumpet yourself in a public forum
Sure do! I block ads! Hey everyone, get an Ad Blocker!
as if you are doing nothing wrong,
I'm not doing anything wrong. What gives you the silly idea I am? If the websites wanted me to compensate them for their content, they'd ask me to pay for it. They don't, so I alter the content the strip the ads (as an aside, I do the same thing with my PVR when I'm watching TV).
i will call you out for what you are
With nonsensical rhetoric? Wow, bravo.
you seem incapable of seeing your own shitty ignorant way of thinking about how the web actually fucking works financially
No, it *has* worked that way financially. I might not work that way in the future (though I doubt it), in which case other business models will take hold. And so the web will evolve. So be it.
when the content you like disappears, you'll want to know why
It won't disappear. It'll get buried behind a paywall and I'll just pay a subscription fee for the content I like, or fall back on free content, such as blogs, forums, and other non-profit content providers. It'll be like back in the days of cable before they fucked their customers over.
as a web developer, i hate you fucking ad blockers
Tough shit, asshole.
If you want someone to blame, go blame the website operators, who've forced users to block ads because they got steadily more and more obnoxious, until they were simply too unbearable to endure any longer.
And yes, I block ads, asshole. I block ads as a big "fuck you" to you to all the douchbags out there that made browsing the web a fucking nightmare without it. Does that mean I end up punishing the "good" websites, too? Yup! Tough shit.
Meanwhile, if these sites have decent content, people will pay for it. If they don't pay for it, then evidently it's not worth the money. But if your little fantastical nightmare scenario comes true, all the good content will be hidden behind paywalls, and so if we really want it, we'll pay for it anyway. Which is fine by me, as long as I don't have to put up with pop-ups, pop-unders, overlayed ads, interstitials, flash ads, and all the shit that comes with them (including drive-by virus infections, among other things).
So, in short, fuck the website operators, and while I'm at it, fuck you too.
This means that things in people's lives - choices they made or things that happened to them and how they reacted to those things - are mainly responsible for homosexuality.
Weird that you choose to completely ignore things like the environment in the womb (hormone balance in utero is known to play a part in gender differentiation, so it follows that those and possibly other affects would come into play during the development of gender identity).
But yeah, you're right, I'm sure the only two factors involved in gender identity are genetics and personal choice...
You are right. It wasn't better 4 years ago when I had both a job and the choice of whether or not to purchase private health care. It certainly wasn't better 10 years ago when I could board a plane and actually take toothpaste with me. I'm just being nostalgic./sarcasm
Well, nice work going off the rails, there... See, you said this:
Society has changed. People used to respect police officers, and the risk to an officer used to be much lower.
Absolutely nothing in your bitter little tirade worked to support that supposition. Absolutely none of it.
But, hey, don't let that stop you. Please, bitch away. Tell me how it was so much better back in the good ol' days, when men could beat their wives and children in the comfort of their own home. When those nasty "colored folk" would, for god sake, stay in their place. When men were men, women were women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were *real* small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.
Society has changed. People used to respect police officers, and the risk to an officer used to be much lower.
Citation needed. Pandering to nostalgia is the last resort of a simple mind. Every single generation thinks it was better "in the old days", but inevitably, the precise opposite is the case.
And if all that weren't enough, the weather hasn't been cooperating. Steady winds have produced choppy waters, which means the booms have been overwhelmed.
Weird that you were marked offtopic, given your post is exactly on topic (and, as it happens, exactly what I was thinking).
Come on, you smoke because your brain is broken? Really? Please. If that's really the case, get a prescription for an SRI and throw away the coffin nails.
Dunno, I've never tried. If Hulu is using Flash's standard RTMPE mechanism, then yeah, it should work just fine. The tool requires four inputs:
1. The URL for the original flash player. 2. The uncompressed size of the flash player. 3. The SHA256 hash of the original (compressed) flash player. 4. The rmtp(e) URI to the flv.
For step one, after downloading the swf, use flasm to decompress it (it'll output the size to the console):
flasm -x player.swf
For step two, use openssl to compute the hash:
openssl sha -sha256 -hmac "Genuine Adobe Flash Player 001" player.swf
What makes Flash attractive to webmasters is that it's ubiquitous, and that it implements DRM.
DRM? Really? Weird, because I've got this handy little tool called rtmpdump that, with a little manual effort, let's me trivially retrieve any flash video, even if it's streamed via RTMPE and supposedly "protected" (I regularly use it to pull down, for example, extended Daily Show interviews for playback on my Myth box).
Granted, webmasters might *think* their videos are protected. But they're not. Flash DRM is a complete sham by it's very nature (how can you claim a video is protected when, along with the content, you have to give me all the information necessary to decode it?).
It's not. It's no different than the IMG tag. ie, it's just a generic video container element with a well-defined DOM API.
Even if HTML5 has to define a video codec in their specifications, why Firefox cannot instead create a plugin that would take advantage of codecs installed on the system?
Because they're being stubborn and sticking to their lofty ideals, instead of trying to do what's actually best for their userbase (they've attempted to claim technical difficulties, but given other browsers like Chromium seem to manage it, their claims ring exceedingly hollow).
Not related to the case, but if the boss is requesting access to secure systems that he has no business purpose for accessing (regardless of whether he owns it), say, the customer credit card database, it would be wrong to deny that access?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it would definitely be wrong for you to make a unilateral decision instead of taking it to a higher authority, whether that be a manager higher in the chain, or in the case of suspected criminal behaviour, the police.
Re:First prevorb
on
jQuery Cookbook
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You could have said the same thing for C around 1997 - cross-compilation on gcc and msc was difficult because of compatibility issues.
No, actually you couldn't.
What you describe is a differing implementation of the language itself. ie, a C program that would compile on gcc would not compile on msc because of issues with the way the compiler compiled the language.
But no such incompatibilities exist with javascript. Take a valid javascript program that corresponds to the latest ECMA standard and throw it at any intepreter, and the interpreter will consider it a valid javascript program.
Now, are there incompatibilities in the *APIs*? Yes, absolutely. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the language itself.
Frankly, it seems to me that you, too, are having trouble differentiating these issues. Javascript is a language. The DOM is an API. The DOM sucks. Badly. But Javascript is actually a very nice language, and through tools like Rhino, can even be used outside of the browser environment and leveraged as a fairly powerful general scripting language.
Indeed that is. That said, you do need to notify the judge/court/something that you are a member of the class, and therefore entitled to compensation under any ruling (after all, the court can't know you're a PS3 owner unless you tell them).
That said, I *think* you are given some period *after* any ruling to send that notification.
It's not perfect, no (the fact that it's weakly typed rather sucks, and it's handling of local vs global variables can be... surprising), but it's hardly messy.
Says the guy who apparently doesn't understand why Javascript is actually pretty awesome. A dynamic language that encapsulates lisp-like functional capabilities in a familiar syntax. Yes, how horrible.
Wait, let me guess, you're one of those guys who doesn't understand the difference between Javascript, the language, and the horror that is the DOM?
If the direction the quality of HP printers is heading is any indication
Yes, because god knows the only thing HP makes is printers, and therefore printers are the perfect barometer for how Palm will fair under their auspices...
Let the Obama Bin Ladens enter this country. Let the Chinese send spies to blow up our homes and memorials. Let the Mexican drug lords roll over the Arizona border with their machine guns, destroying property and killing citizen in Phoenix (as they are ALREADY doing).
Congrats, you've just provided a fantastics example of the very definition of FUD. "If you don't do this evil, authoritarian thing, these people who are evil and NOT LIKE YOU will rape your mother, kill your father, and scratch all your CDs, too!"
Christ, next you'll suggest we should maybe round up anyone who looks suspicious and stick them into some kind of camp where we can keep them safely contained and concentrated in one place...
Nowhere after that statement is Congress granted the authority to do whatever it wishes.
Err, huh? Collecting income taxes is already legal under the 16th amendment. And the part you cite talks about *legislative powers*. Nothing in that text limits about how the federal government may spend that tax revenue once it's been collected.
Yeah, it's a pity the negative forcing of airborne aerosols has been known about for, like, 50 years now. Hell, there's even a name for it: Global dimming.
I know, facts. They suck when you don't like them, eh?
When is the Green movement going to implement their final solution? That is, when will the governments of the earth begin roundups and executions of 90% of the global population to return the earth to its natural state? That is, after all, the only possible route to the goal that they seek.
Damn it, how'd you find out?! Shit, it's true, everyone. What we "Green movement" people want to do is wipe out the human race so as to return the earth to pristine condition. Now, I'm sure you've heard some "Green movement" people say things like "Wow, that's really fucking retarded. We just want to, like, live sustainably so we don't destroy the only home we have in this solar system", but they're lying. They want to exterminate you. *All of you*.
So watch out! Remember, if one of those assholes says to you "Dude, recycle that can you wasteful son of a bitch", what they're really saying is "I'm gonna slit your throat and bury your filthy corpse in order to sequester your carbon."
Slashdot Mirror
Careful, you were bordering on incoherent before, and now you've finally crossed the line into nonsensical hysteria.
the sites you use just appear by magic?
No, they're like any other business. Someone with a neat idea secures some funding (either privately or via venture funding), develops a site, deploys it, and hopefully attracts a user base.
Ads or paywall, it works the same way either way.
Seriously, maybe you should try taking your head out of your ass and consider that there may be business models other than the ad-supported-content-model.
but if you smugly trumpet yourself in a public forum
Sure do! I block ads! Hey everyone, get an Ad Blocker!
as if you are doing nothing wrong,
I'm not doing anything wrong. What gives you the silly idea I am? If the websites wanted me to compensate them for their content, they'd ask me to pay for it. They don't, so I alter the content the strip the ads (as an aside, I do the same thing with my PVR when I'm watching TV).
i will call you out for what you are
With nonsensical rhetoric? Wow, bravo.
you seem incapable of seeing your own shitty ignorant way of thinking about how the web actually fucking works financially
No, it *has* worked that way financially. I might not work that way in the future (though I doubt it), in which case other business models will take hold. And so the web will evolve. So be it.
when the content you like disappears, you'll want to know why
It won't disappear. It'll get buried behind a paywall and I'll just pay a subscription fee for the content I like, or fall back on free content, such as blogs, forums, and other non-profit content providers. It'll be like back in the days of cable before they fucked their customers over.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
as a web developer, i hate you fucking ad blockers
Tough shit, asshole.
If you want someone to blame, go blame the website operators, who've forced users to block ads because they got steadily more and more obnoxious, until they were simply too unbearable to endure any longer.
And yes, I block ads, asshole. I block ads as a big "fuck you" to you to all the douchbags out there that made browsing the web a fucking nightmare without it. Does that mean I end up punishing the "good" websites, too? Yup! Tough shit.
Meanwhile, if these sites have decent content, people will pay for it. If they don't pay for it, then evidently it's not worth the money. But if your little fantastical nightmare scenario comes true, all the good content will be hidden behind paywalls, and so if we really want it, we'll pay for it anyway. Which is fine by me, as long as I don't have to put up with pop-ups, pop-unders, overlayed ads, interstitials, flash ads, and all the shit that comes with them (including drive-by virus infections, among other things).
So, in short, fuck the website operators, and while I'm at it, fuck you too.
This means that things in people's lives - choices they made or things that happened to them and how they reacted to those things - are mainly responsible for homosexuality.
Weird that you choose to completely ignore things like the environment in the womb (hormone balance in utero is known to play a part in gender differentiation, so it follows that those and possibly other affects would come into play during the development of gender identity).
But yeah, you're right, I'm sure the only two factors involved in gender identity are genetics and personal choice...
You are right. It wasn't better 4 years ago when I had both a job and the choice of whether or not to purchase private health care. It certainly wasn't better 10 years ago when I could board a plane and actually take toothpaste with me. I'm just being nostalgic./sarcasm
Well, nice work going off the rails, there... See, you said this:
Absolutely nothing in your bitter little tirade worked to support that supposition. Absolutely none of it.
But, hey, don't let that stop you. Please, bitch away. Tell me how it was so much better back in the good ol' days, when men could beat their wives and children in the comfort of their own home. When those nasty "colored folk" would, for god sake, stay in their place. When men were men, women were women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were *real* small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.
Society has changed. People used to respect police officers, and the risk to an officer used to be much lower.
Citation needed. Pandering to nostalgia is the last resort of a simple mind. Every single generation thinks it was better "in the old days", but inevitably, the precise opposite is the case.
And if all that weren't enough, the weather hasn't been cooperating. Steady winds have produced choppy waters, which means the booms have been overwhelmed.
Weird that you were marked offtopic, given your post is exactly on topic (and, as it happens, exactly what I was thinking).
Come on, you smoke because your brain is broken? Really? Please. If that's really the case, get a prescription for an SRI and throw away the coffin nails.
Dunno, I've never tried. If Hulu is using Flash's standard RTMPE mechanism, then yeah, it should work just fine. The tool requires four inputs:
1. The URL for the original flash player.
2. The uncompressed size of the flash player.
3. The SHA256 hash of the original (compressed) flash player.
4. The rmtp(e) URI to the flv.
For step one, after downloading the swf, use flasm to decompress it (it'll output the size to the console):
flasm -x player.swf
For step two, use openssl to compute the hash:
openssl sha -sha256 -hmac "Genuine Adobe Flash Player 001" player.swf
Then fire up rtmpdump as follows:
rtmpdump --swfhash [hash] --swfsize [size] --swfUrl [url] -r [rtmp(e) URI] -o [output name]
And a little while later, you should have a lovely, fresh flv on your hands.
What makes Flash attractive to webmasters is that it's ubiquitous, and that it implements DRM.
DRM? Really? Weird, because I've got this handy little tool called rtmpdump that, with a little manual effort, let's me trivially retrieve any flash video, even if it's streamed via RTMPE and supposedly "protected" (I regularly use it to pull down, for example, extended Daily Show interviews for playback on my Myth box).
Granted, webmasters might *think* their videos are protected. But they're not. Flash DRM is a complete sham by it's very nature (how can you claim a video is protected when, along with the content, you have to give me all the information necessary to decode it?).
Why is the video codec type hardcoded in HTML5
It's not. It's no different than the IMG tag. ie, it's just a generic video container element with a well-defined DOM API.
Even if HTML5 has to define a video codec in their specifications, why Firefox cannot instead create a plugin that would take advantage of codecs installed on the system?
Because they're being stubborn and sticking to their lofty ideals, instead of trying to do what's actually best for their userbase (they've attempted to claim technical difficulties, but given other browsers like Chromium seem to manage it, their claims ring exceedingly hollow).
Oh, and kudos to kdawson for continuing the streak of truly shitacular articles. Well done!
Not related to the case, but if the boss is requesting access to secure systems that he has no business purpose for accessing (regardless of whether he owns it), say, the customer credit card database, it would be wrong to deny that access?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But it would definitely be wrong for you to make a unilateral decision instead of taking it to a higher authority, whether that be a manager higher in the chain, or in the case of suspected criminal behaviour, the police.
You could have said the same thing for C around 1997 - cross-compilation on gcc and msc was difficult because of compatibility issues.
No, actually you couldn't.
What you describe is a differing implementation of the language itself. ie, a C program that would compile on gcc would not compile on msc because of issues with the way the compiler compiled the language.
But no such incompatibilities exist with javascript. Take a valid javascript program that corresponds to the latest ECMA standard and throw it at any intepreter, and the interpreter will consider it a valid javascript program.
Now, are there incompatibilities in the *APIs*? Yes, absolutely. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the language itself.
Frankly, it seems to me that you, too, are having trouble differentiating these issues. Javascript is a language. The DOM is an API. The DOM sucks. Badly. But Javascript is actually a very nice language, and through tools like Rhino, can even be used outside of the browser environment and leveraged as a fairly powerful general scripting language.
Indeed that is. That said, you do need to notify the judge/court/something that you are a member of the class, and therefore entitled to compensation under any ruling (after all, the court can't know you're a PS3 owner unless you tell them).
That said, I *think* you are given some period *after* any ruling to send that notification.
It's not perfect, no (the fact that it's weakly typed rather sucks, and it's handling of local vs global variables can be... surprising), but it's hardly messy.
What the hell does that have to do with Javascript, the language?
That's like saying C, the language, sucks because you don't like POSIX.
Says the guy who apparently doesn't understand why Javascript is actually pretty awesome. A dynamic language that encapsulates lisp-like functional capabilities in a familiar syntax. Yes, how horrible.
Wait, let me guess, you're one of those guys who doesn't understand the difference between Javascript, the language, and the horror that is the DOM?
If the direction the quality of HP printers is heading is any indication
Yes, because god knows the only thing HP makes is printers, and therefore printers are the perfect barometer for how Palm will fair under their auspices...
Let the Obama Bin Ladens enter this country. Let the Chinese send spies to blow up our homes and memorials. Let the Mexican drug lords roll over the Arizona border with their machine guns, destroying property and killing citizen in Phoenix (as they are ALREADY doing).
Congrats, you've just provided a fantastics example of the very definition of FUD. "If you don't do this evil, authoritarian thing, these people who are evil and NOT LIKE YOU will rape your mother, kill your father, and scratch all your CDs, too!"
Christ, next you'll suggest we should maybe round up anyone who looks suspicious and stick them into some kind of camp where we can keep them safely contained and concentrated in one place...
Some would go as far as saying that even documented foreigners should be extremely limited as they take our jobs.
Don't you mean, "they terk er jerrrrbs!"?
Nowhere after that statement is Congress granted the authority to do whatever it wishes.
Err, huh? Collecting income taxes is already legal under the 16th amendment. And the part you cite talks about *legislative powers*. Nothing in that text limits about how the federal government may spend that tax revenue once it's been collected.
Given that I didn't anywhere state what my position is
Of course you did. Here's the relevant quote:
Are you saying you weren't taking that position? If not, why'd you say it? And if you aren't taking a position, why the hell did you post at all?
Let's play climate alarmist bullshit bingo:
Yeah, it's a pity the negative forcing of airborne aerosols has been known about for, like, 50 years now. Hell, there's even a name for it: Global dimming.
I know, facts. They suck when you don't like them, eh?
When is the Green movement going to implement their final solution? That is, when will the governments of the earth begin roundups and executions of 90% of the global population to return the earth to its natural state? That is, after all, the only possible route to the goal that they seek.
Damn it, how'd you find out?! Shit, it's true, everyone. What we "Green movement" people want to do is wipe out the human race so as to return the earth to pristine condition. Now, I'm sure you've heard some "Green movement" people say things like "Wow, that's really fucking retarded. We just want to, like, live sustainably so we don't destroy the only home we have in this solar system", but they're lying. They want to exterminate you. *All of you*.
So watch out! Remember, if one of those assholes says to you "Dude, recycle that can you wasteful son of a bitch", what they're really saying is "I'm gonna slit your throat and bury your filthy corpse in order to sequester your carbon."