By the way... I stopped coming up with "real" arguments a long, long time ago. Around back when i figured out that "Jane Q. Public" is about as knowledgeable on matters of copyright as your average John Q. Public.
You can't patent something that is obvious. Those are obvious.
Thank providence that people actually bothered to invent stuff and NOT PATENT it, or we'd have the same hell that the.gif format has endured for all of computing if anything that used signed integers had to pay royalties for using the two's complement patent.
I'm running a dual-core 1.8GHz Pentium with whatever graphics card HP decided to slap in (the driver is identified as "Intel(R) Q965/Q963 Express Chipset Family") and it plays about as smoothly as I care to have any YouTube videos look.
Implying they don't probably already have it. It's not like this is new. You've been able to link your Facebook account to your SMS number for a long time... you can get a text message whenever someone sends you a message or posts on your wall.
Hell, Slashdot does it too. Enter your mobile number in the user prefs and then there are a number of site messages that can be set to notify you via Mobile Text.
LOL, not necessary in the least. I understand perfectly. It's you who doesn't understand, "Jane Q. Public", but since you won't be deciding any actual cases I really don't care if you're illiterate in matters of copyright.
To which I replied that using Rosa Parks for an analogy was incorrect... as she was protesting, and she INTENDED to get caught. A protest doesn't do much good if no one notices.
As to whether or not it is OK to ignore stupid rules if you are intentionally trying to get caught... if you are attempting to protest something, and you believe that what you are protesting against is wrong, and you must break rules to do so, then yes... it would be OK to break those rules if you were TRYING to get caught, get noticed, and have your protest recognized.
So you are saying that she wouldn't have disobeyed the rule if she could have gotten away with it.
Maybe you want to be a canary, but sometimes that ends badly for the canary. If there is widespread disobedience to a stupid rule, it doesn't matter if they can't catch anyone; your protest was more effective than if a few people had made targets of themselves. Making yourself a target only works if the majority will feel sympathetic to your cause and if that majority is actually able to do anything about changing the stupid rules or preventing you from being punished.
What AC is trying to say is actually pretty simple.
You know all those apps that claim to show you the "top 10" stalkers/admirers/whatever? Well, they can't actually determine who's visiting your profile... actually they just pull names and numbers out of a hat.
But most people are too dumb/ignorant to realize this, so they'll think it's actually true when it says you're the "#1 stalker" on some 13-year-old girl's profile. Enjoy explaining yourself to someone who's too dumb to understand the concept of random selection.
Or make a special browser plug-in for this, as Google does with Gmail video chat. Google's plugin doesn't seem to have all the problems Flash does.
As much as I dislike Flash, asking everybody to invent their own wheel doesn't sound right either. Maybe Google's plugin doesn't have all the problems Flash does, but I don't want every damn website to have to install its own plugin to use the webcam. That's just begging to be back in the hell where users are required to install "codecs" to play this video and suddenly their machine is a botnet zombie.
At least if there's one single interface between a website and the mic/cam we can do our best to ensure that interface isn't exploitable. If every website has to roll their own, overall it's much less secure.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way... I stopped coming up with "real" arguments a long, long time ago. Around back when i figured out that "Jane Q. Public" is about as knowledgeable on matters of copyright as your average John Q. Public.
But you replied again.
I don't believe you.
They are obvious as it relates to negating a two's complement binary number, since they form the basis of the whole two's complement number system.
You can't patent something that is obvious. Those are obvious.
Thank providence that people actually bothered to invent stuff and NOT PATENT it, or we'd have the same hell that the .gif format has endured for all of computing if anything that used signed integers had to pay royalties for using the two's complement patent.
When they taught you two's complement didn't they tell you that to negate a number in two's complement you toggle each bit and then subtract 1?
v = (v ^ -1) + -1
And using an arithmetic right-shift to copy the sign bit across the full width of the int is hardly novel either.
No, the point is that if you're one of the outliers who still hasn't moved to a modern browser that supports basic HTML5 video...
Get a real browser.
It works in Firefox and Opera. I can't test it in Chrome.
I'm running a dual-core 1.8GHz Pentium with whatever graphics card HP decided to slap in (the driver is identified as "Intel(R) Q965/Q963 Express Chipset Family") and it plays about as smoothly as I care to have any YouTube videos look.
How the fuck can you comment on HTML5's video performance when your shitty browser doesn't even support it?
YOU "piss orf".
This seems to be "so, sluggish" to you?
||facebook.com^$third-party,domain=~fbcdn.net,domain=~facebook.com
||facebook.net^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com,domain=~fbcdn.net
||fbcdn.net^$third-party,domain=~facebook.com,domain=~facebook.net
Why? You leave your computer unattended and unlocked where other people might be able to use it?
Like hell. I'm not giving my DL number to Facebook.
Implying they don't probably already have it. It's not like this is new. You've been able to link your Facebook account to your SMS number for a long time... you can get a text message whenever someone sends you a message or posts on your wall.
Hell, Slashdot does it too. Enter your mobile number in the user prefs and then there are a number of site messages that can be set to notify you via Mobile Text.
I'm guessing Alaska.
LOL, not necessary in the least. I understand perfectly. It's you who doesn't understand, "Jane Q. Public", but since you won't be deciding any actual cases I really don't care if you're illiterate in matters of copyright.
To which I replied that using Rosa Parks for an analogy was incorrect... as she was protesting, and she INTENDED to get caught. A protest doesn't do much good if no one notices.
As to whether or not it is OK to ignore stupid rules if you are intentionally trying to get caught... if you are attempting to protest something, and you believe that what you are protesting against is wrong, and you must break rules to do so, then yes... it would be OK to break those rules if you were TRYING to get caught, get noticed, and have your protest recognized.
So you are saying that she wouldn't have disobeyed the rule if she could have gotten away with it.
Maybe you want to be a canary, but sometimes that ends badly for the canary. If there is widespread disobedience to a stupid rule, it doesn't matter if they can't catch anyone; your protest was more effective than if a few people had made targets of themselves. Making yourself a target only works if the majority will feel sympathetic to your cause and if that majority is actually able to do anything about changing the stupid rules or preventing you from being punished.
No, you're saying one of two things:
It's perfectly OK to ignore stupid rules.
It's only OK to ignore stupid rules if you're intentionally trying to get caught.
Which is it?
Are you really trying to claim that Rosa Parks would not have broken that rule if she'd known she could get away with it?
It must be nice to have a job that will never, ever require you to come in and put out fires in the server room at 2 AM.
That was what I meant... but what's there to do on Netflix other than stream movies? Then again, I don't use it, so maybe I just wouldn't know.
Doesn't Netflix require Silverlight?
Owners of copyright in the underlying work, such as background music in a video, charge substantially more for downloads than for streams.
stream === download
They charge substantially more to people who don't know how to save a stream.
What AC is trying to say is actually pretty simple.
You know all those apps that claim to show you the "top 10" stalkers/admirers/whatever? Well, they can't actually determine who's visiting your profile... actually they just pull names and numbers out of a hat.
But most people are too dumb/ignorant to realize this, so they'll think it's actually true when it says you're the "#1 stalker" on some 13-year-old girl's profile. Enjoy explaining yourself to someone who's too dumb to understand the concept of random selection.
Or make a special browser plug-in for this, as Google does with Gmail video chat. Google's plugin doesn't seem to have all the problems Flash does.
As much as I dislike Flash, asking everybody to invent their own wheel doesn't sound right either. Maybe Google's plugin doesn't have all the problems Flash does, but I don't want every damn website to have to install its own plugin to use the webcam. That's just begging to be back in the hell where users are required to install "codecs" to play this video and suddenly their machine is a botnet zombie.
At least if there's one single interface between a website and the mic/cam we can do our best to ensure that interface isn't exploitable. If every website has to roll their own, overall it's much less secure.