In lossless compression, it beats TIFF hands-down for the mainstream compression methods (packbits, LZW, ZIP). You can use pretty much whatever compression you want in a TIFF file (it's more of a container format than an encoding definition), but given how well FLIF compresses vs other image compression methods, it's pretty good.
The progressive loading is also superior to TIFF, which generally don't use progressive at all. I'm not sure how much this matters, though, as their example of using it for responsive design assumes that the graphic at lower resolutions 'as is' gives an acceptable enough result to replace current solutions that serve a different resolution image that may well have been specifically tuned for a given resolution/bandwidth. JPG already has similar progressive loading, and I don't know of any browser that will halt a JPG download after the Nth iteration deeming it 'good enough'.
It also apparently has animation support, which may be better than APNG and MNG and others. For now GIF still seems to rule the animated image domain, despite its many shortcomings (imgur's faked-out video -> gif -> mp4-served-via-html-named-gifv doesn't count).
On most other fronts, though, it seems TIFF (and other formats) may be superior. A rather big one is that it doesn't yet support metadata. Another big one for the graphics industry would be lack of CMYk and other color spaces.
It also seems to support 'only' 16 bits per channel. There's a variety of 32bpc encodings for TIFF (straight, LogLUV, etc) and I do hope that it's just an arbitrary limit such that the work done in FLIF could conceivably be added to formats like OpenEXR.
That would also largely take care of concerns like the lack of additional channels, layers, etc. that can be presented in TIFF. This would make OpenEXR the container format and FLIF the encoding (or, at least, the compression).
That would still place it squarely in the interest of those dealing with graphics (a very fast decode of the progressive version used when framescrubbing, then loading the full 10k plate when paused for a bit, for example), and not so much the average consumer.
For consumer adoption, it would need broad support among browsers (lack of webp support means that hasn't particularly taken off), from digital imaging device manufacturers (you're more likely to upload 'a FLIF file' if that's what rolled out of the camera / got written to the SD card to begin with) and in common software (but that tends to follow from the other two).
To self: GP meant "ripped by people who did not subscribe to and pay for that content", obviously. Where's your coffee?
( This realization came right after hitting submit, but now I'm stuck behind the "It's been 10 hours since you last successfully posted a comment." barrier:) )
How does that relate to being 'hacked' any more than the latest blockbuster movie released on blu-ray getting ripped and distributed?
For a good chunk of Patreon content, you don't even have to bypass much of anything (unlike blu-rays' copy protection) as they're just regular youtube-hosted videos.
There's a good discussion to be had there about content, ip rights, piracy, the pros/cons thereof and the pros/cons of using patreon and similar system in the first place, and whether or not it's terrible when it's people just trying to make a few bucks on the side but okay when they're getting $arbitrary_amount/month off of patreon - but in the context of 'hacked', the occurrence of videos getting downloaded and re-uploaded elsewhere does not seem to fit in.
Recently, one of my favorite YouTube channels, Dave Jonesâ(TM) EEVblog, came under attack after having published a series of videos debunking a product claiming to vastly extend the life of alkaline batteries
2. Subtle, but not entirely unimportant: it's an IndieGoGo project, not a Kickstarter.
Efforts to change the peak's name back to Denali date back to 1975. The Washington Post reports that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) recently added language in a spending bill that would reestablish the mountain's original name.
C'mon, anon, at least elevate yourself to the type of anon who RTFA.
It is invasive, because it allows the wholesale collection of information on people without any effort
Hold up... it's the collection of information on cars. More specifically, it's the collection of information in license plates.
Every time somebody tries to argue that a speed ticket is not for them because they cannot be identified in a photo as having been the driver, a lot of people are ready to accept that license plate != person(s) for the same reasons that they would argue that IP address != person(s).
By the logic they employ, the same should extend to situations which are less favorable to them.
If we really want to start picking and choosing when something invades a person's privacy (drones taking pictures of your house even when not over your property), and when something is totally okay (google streetview), we better start making one hell of a database of exceptions to exceptions to exceptions to the rules.
The court will allow the studio to send invoices to downloaders if it only charges downloaders for the cost of a legitimate copy of the film, and if it pays the bond.
Now the judge just has to argue that the cost of a legitimate copy of the film is $0.smidgens (based on downloaded film duration as a fraction of a Netflix subscription, say) and there's truly no reason to ever buy a movie in Australia... other than for that fuzzy warm feeling of sending money to the media conglomerates.
This is indeed the problem. The Russian government (and tbh, all others involved) can - and will - continue to shift the blame. First it's a Ukrainian fighter jet, then it's not a Russian-made rocket, then it's Ukrainian 'rebels', then it's pro-Russian separatists they have no control over, then it's not their fault the recently-dismissed-from-Russian-army people shot down the wrong plane, and finally what were commercial planes doing there anyway? ( Hint: That's already the debate in various lawsuits against companies and governments other than the Russian one - as even the family members of victims realize Russia's covering their ass all too well. )
So the report's conclusions - which apparently need political debate to finalize - really don't matter much.
In the mean time, Russia imposes sanctions against countries involved in investigations leading to bankruptcies left right and center (oh right, that's why the conclusions need political debate), vetoes any U.N. proposal they dislike (the U.S. does much the same in other matters.. can't blame them for that one - too bad there isn't a cap on the number of vetoes votes one can cast per given time period), and happily go about business as usual knowing that in the end, this is barely even a blip on the radar in their history - much the same as Korean Air Lines 007, Iranian Air 655, Pan Am 103 (might ring a bell under 'Lockerbie ') and many others.
So the shooter was already outside in his own backyard with an appropriately loaded shotgun* just waiting for any old drone he had never seen to come by at random??
From the article:
During its first flight, the Phantom apparently gave an error message and could not fly past this road without a setting change. So, Boggs brought it home, fixed the settings and swapped its battery -- giving time for Merideth to go inside, retrieve his shotgun and wait for the drone to return
While the general sentiment of your statement is correct - given the plurality of services they have discontinued in the past - do note that this autocomplete API wasn't particularly "offered to the public"; it was never official or particularly supported.
Relying on undocumented / unofficial APIs always carries such a risk.
How long would they last if every 2nd or every 3rd vehicle you called was a rusted heap with smoke billowing out the hood and the exhaust pipe?
You're taking a jab at the taxi industry in some locations, and that tickles me some.
But... isn't prevening that exactly the sort of thing - via user reviews and such - that is part of Uber's appeal?
Every rusted heap with smoke billowing out the hood would quickly garner negative reviews (for that particular car, for the company that sent it, maybe both), and people would no longer order that taxi / from that company through Uber. Alternatively, people see the price as being super low and think that a little bit of smoke isn't so bad when they can save a few bucks, and people would order it regardless.
2? 3? Not sure - plenty of "implicated but not proven" or "something caught fire, landed safely, nobody hurt but extensive damage".
This is an interesting read, though - lengthy report of incidents, including minor (e.g. smoking bag before being loaded) between March 1991 and April 2015: http://www.faa.gov/about/offic...
No, he's probably right. Don't forget that things like a Raspberry Pi and Beaglebone Black and TiVos and smartphones and so forth and so on all run some flavor of Linux as well. It could very well easily be billions when you include all of the platforms from the simplest device (that could have done with a simpler microcontroller but using a more beefy chip meant cost savings on not having to use a separate display driver and running a lightweight Linux distro on there seemed like a perfect fit) to supercomputer clusters.
What GP should have said was 'desktop share'. Where people use the computers more directly. Where people are fallible. Where people will click "Yes" when they're asked if they really, really want to run a program after they downloaded it from a site that kind of looked like their bank's so it must have been legit, etc. There's little to no defense against botnet type behavior in any operating system when the attack vector is human ignorance, gullibility, or straight out stupidity
It's not just about monetization of data. It's also about trying to keep some things under relative wraps. Imagine if not just garages and enthusiasts could get the occasional read-out from e.g. the ODB-II, but that everybody with an in-dash Google/Apple unit or even just a smartphone communicating with a pre-installed dongle would have that information at any time. Worse, imagine if this information starts getting collected 'publicly' (under Google/Apple's control) and people (G/A) start noticing trends about certain models or brands. Marketing spin can only do so much in the face of widely collected data.
The battery is just a battery. Those who are into wearables likely find no practical issue with grabbing an existing coin cell holder with leads and JST connector (or just solder one on themselves) and plugging that in - or with using a small lipo pouch (presuming the circuitry is tolerant to the voltage).
It is a shame that the slot (itself a holder) was removed mainly because of the fear that little children will eat absolutely anything, but I can understand the decision given that it is targeted to (slightly older) children in the first place and engineering e.g. a screw-fastened lid on top of it would be rather expensive.
I can't mod up, so just a reply then: thanks for the additional information.
I think it falls back to my second point, though; "inform the standards by which private conduct is judged" in no way suggests that you can't be sued, and "truth an absolute defense to defamation" is still a defense that would have to be brought before the court?
I will say it is not defamatory to make the factual statement you hired someone and got bad service, no batter what the business thinks.
If you are making a factual statement - and I interpret that to mean a statement of fact that is actually the truth - then by all means. In this case, the business believes that the statement is not the truth, and further believes it has damaged their business.
Whether or not that is actually the case (either way), let the courts decide.
In this particular case, the business owner believes
Bullshit. Do you have facts to support this? Or are you just asserting it?
Do I have facts to support that the business believes something? No. I can't read their minds, and neither can you.
So can I say with certainty that the business actually believes in what they write in the allegations - e.g.:
5. The entire review is false as it pertains to the plaintiff. 6. The review as published by defendant DOE 1 is libelous on its face
- no, I can't say with certainty that they actually believe this, and aren't just using these and other allegations to try to silence critics. The suit is the evidence before me on which I base the description that they believe it. If you want to split hairs and suggest that I should have said that these are the allegations, fair enough.
If those people actually did hire this company, and if they are giving actual negative reviews, this lawsuit is nothing but intimidation tactics by assholes.
That's two ifs that would end up being at the core of either this or follow-up lawsuits, now wouldn't it?
If those people are actually just 1 person and if their reviews are anything but honest, then this lawsuit is well-founded, the reviewer is nothing but an asshole, and additionally in legal trouble?
How do we find out which of those scenarios apply?
Court orders to reveal someone's identity are also a government thing
A completely different government thing. You can't just link them together and suggest that the government should intervene in a civil law case just because pudding is delicious.
anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion
And the real courts have fuck-all to do with that
You'd think I would have followed that up with a reference to something about courts. Oh wait, I did:)
I "believe" Google should pay me for beta-testing their various products that almost never leave beta.
By all means, file a suit.
When can I expect the courts to make them send me a check?
IANAL, and certainly not yours. Yes, I know you're just trying to make a point and/or trying to be funny - but ultimately it's up to a lawyer to plead your case and the courts to decide whether the point you're trying to make has merit.
2. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of such speech. Whether you're Anita Sarkeesian, the Dixie Chicks or Sir Tim Hunt - anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion - and potentially in the court of law if a target of your speech feels that your speech crossed the boundary into libel / slander / defamation.
In this particular case, the business owner believes that the reviews are malicious, fake, the act of a single person, etc. etc. (read the actual document). Now it's up to the court to decide whether or not Yelp will have to notify the author(s) of those reviews, or hand over personal information directly, etc.
To throw another one out there - lower bitrate, different approach, much cheaper (especially if built yourself - designs are completely open): https://github.com/waywardgeek...
Technically, they should already have 'a monopoly'. They're putting up these blocks because the government is unwilling or unable to actually enforce previously existing laws OR the new law that was passed back in October 2014.
And since governments don't take too kindly to protests against its own institution (you may protest.. you know, somewhere out in a field where nobody's bothered by it, sees it, and you accomplish nothing - there's a good little citizen), they've taken to these measures.
Whether that will result in the law getting enforced, or ferrying people about is turned into a free for all (in which case the 'official' taxi drivers should not have to get a license and pay for that either), for the time being they have every right to be upset; not so much at Uber, but certainly at the French government.
Though if you think this is bad - keep an eye on Calais and the French government's unwillingness to deal with that clusterfuck.
Slashdot Mirror
In lossless compression, it beats TIFF hands-down for the mainstream compression methods (packbits, LZW, ZIP). You can use pretty much whatever compression you want in a TIFF file (it's more of a container format than an encoding definition), but given how well FLIF compresses vs other image compression methods, it's pretty good.
The progressive loading is also superior to TIFF, which generally don't use progressive at all. I'm not sure how much this matters, though, as their example of using it for responsive design assumes that the graphic at lower resolutions 'as is' gives an acceptable enough result to replace current solutions that serve a different resolution image that may well have been specifically tuned for a given resolution/bandwidth. JPG already has similar progressive loading, and I don't know of any browser that will halt a JPG download after the Nth iteration deeming it 'good enough'.
It also apparently has animation support, which may be better than APNG and MNG and others. For now GIF still seems to rule the animated image domain, despite its many shortcomings (imgur's faked-out video -> gif -> mp4-served-via-html-named-gifv doesn't count).
On most other fronts, though, it seems TIFF (and other formats) may be superior. A rather big one is that it doesn't yet support metadata. Another big one for the graphics industry would be lack of CMYk and other color spaces.
It also seems to support 'only' 16 bits per channel. There's a variety of 32bpc encodings for TIFF (straight, LogLUV, etc) and I do hope that it's just an arbitrary limit such that the work done in FLIF could conceivably be added to formats like OpenEXR.
That would also largely take care of concerns like the lack of additional channels, layers, etc. that can be presented in TIFF. This would make OpenEXR the container format and FLIF the encoding (or, at least, the compression).
That would still place it squarely in the interest of those dealing with graphics (a very fast decode of the progressive version used when framescrubbing, then loading the full 10k plate when paused for a bit, for example), and not so much the average consumer.
For consumer adoption, it would need broad support among browsers (lack of webp support means that hasn't particularly taken off), from digital imaging device manufacturers (you're more likely to upload 'a FLIF file' if that's what rolled out of the camera / got written to the SD card to begin with) and in common software (but that tends to follow from the other two).
To self: GP meant "ripped by people who did not subscribe to and pay for that content", obviously. Where's your coffee?
( This realization came right after hitting submit, but now I'm stuck behind the "It's been 10 hours since you last successfully posted a comment." barrier :) )
How does that relate to being 'hacked' any more than the latest blockbuster movie released on blu-ray getting ripped and distributed?
For a good chunk of Patreon content, you don't even have to bypass much of anything (unlike blu-rays' copy protection) as they're just regular youtube-hosted videos.
There's a good discussion to be had there about content, ip rights, piracy, the pros/cons thereof and the pros/cons of using patreon and similar system in the first place, and whether or not it's terrible when it's people just trying to make a few bucks on the side but okay when they're getting $arbitrary_amount/month off of patreon - but in the context of 'hacked', the occurrence of videos getting downloaded and re-uploaded elsewhere does not seem to fit in.
1. From the article (I know, I know):
2. Subtle, but not entirely unimportant: it's an IndieGoGo project, not a Kickstarter.
C'mon, anon, at least elevate yourself to the type of anon who RTFA.
Hold up... it's the collection of information on cars. More specifically, it's the collection of information in license plates.
Every time somebody tries to argue that a speed ticket is not for them because they cannot be identified in a photo as having been the driver, a lot of people are ready to accept that license plate != person(s) for the same reasons that they would argue that IP address != person(s).
By the logic they employ, the same should extend to situations which are less favorable to them.
If we really want to start picking and choosing when something invades a person's privacy (drones taking pictures of your house even when not over your property), and when something is totally okay (google streetview), we better start making one hell of a database of exceptions to exceptions to exceptions to the rules.
Now the judge just has to argue that the cost of a legitimate copy of the film is $0.smidgens (based on downloaded film duration as a fraction of a Netflix subscription, say) and there's truly no reason to ever buy a movie in Australia... other than for that fuzzy warm feeling of sending money to the media conglomerates.
This is indeed the problem. The Russian government (and tbh, all others involved) can - and will - continue to shift the blame. First it's a Ukrainian fighter jet, then it's not a Russian-made rocket, then it's Ukrainian 'rebels', then it's pro-Russian separatists they have no control over, then it's not their fault the recently-dismissed-from-Russian-army people shot down the wrong plane, and finally what were commercial planes doing there anyway?
( Hint: That's already the debate in various lawsuits against companies and governments other than the Russian one - as even the family members of victims realize Russia's covering their ass all too well. )
So the report's conclusions - which apparently need political debate to finalize - really don't matter much.
In the mean time, Russia imposes sanctions against countries involved in investigations leading to bankruptcies left right and center (oh right, that's why the conclusions need political debate), vetoes any U.N. proposal they dislike (the U.S. does much the same in other matters.. can't blame them for that one - too bad there isn't a cap on the number of vetoes votes one can cast per given time period), and happily go about business as usual knowing that in the end, this is barely even a blip on the radar in their history - much the same as Korean Air Lines 007, Iranian Air 655, Pan Am 103 (might ring a bell under 'Lockerbie ') and many others.
From the article:
( emphasis mine )
*checks username*
While the general sentiment of your statement is correct - given the plurality of services they have discontinued in the past - do note that this autocomplete API wasn't particularly "offered to the public"; it was never official or particularly supported.
Relying on undocumented / unofficial APIs always carries such a risk.
You're taking a jab at the taxi industry in some locations, and that tickles me some.
But... isn't prevening that exactly the sort of thing - via user reviews and such - that is part of Uber's appeal?
Every rusted heap with smoke billowing out the hood would quickly garner negative reviews (for that particular car, for the company that sent it, maybe both), and people would no longer order that taxi / from that company through Uber.
Alternatively, people see the price as being super low and think that a little bit of smoke isn't so bad when they can save a few bucks, and people would order it regardless.
Either which way, Uber's system would be working.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2? 3? Not sure - plenty of "implicated but not proven" or "something caught fire, landed safely, nobody hurt but extensive damage".
This is an interesting read, though - lengthy report of incidents, including minor (e.g. smoking bag before being loaded) between March 1991 and April 2015:
http://www.faa.gov/about/offic...
No, he's probably right. Don't forget that things like a Raspberry Pi and Beaglebone Black and TiVos and smartphones and so forth and so on all run some flavor of Linux as well. It could very well easily be billions when you include all of the platforms from the simplest device (that could have done with a simpler microcontroller but using a more beefy chip meant cost savings on not having to use a separate display driver and running a lightweight Linux distro on there seemed like a perfect fit) to supercomputer clusters.
What GP should have said was 'desktop share'. Where people use the computers more directly. Where people are fallible. Where people will click "Yes" when they're asked if they really, really want to run a program after they downloaded it from a site that kind of looked like their bank's so it must have been legit, etc. There's little to no defense against botnet type behavior in any operating system when the attack vector is human ignorance, gullibility, or straight out stupidity
Having recently run into this, use &force=webgl or &force=canvas in the URL to enable/disable that.
More details:
https://productforums.google.c...
But yes, this really should be a switch/checkbox/radiobuttons/something..somewhere.
It's not just about monetization of data. It's also about trying to keep some things under relative wraps. Imagine if not just garages and enthusiasts could get the occasional read-out from e.g. the ODB-II, but that everybody with an in-dash Google/Apple unit or even just a smartphone communicating with a pre-installed dongle would have that information at any time. Worse, imagine if this information starts getting collected 'publicly' (under Google/Apple's control) and people (G/A) start noticing trends about certain models or brands. Marketing spin can only do so much in the face of widely collected data.
I suspect that there will be information on most countries having some group interested in this.
Dutch police: http://www.nu.nl/internet/4083...
Dutch IRS: http://tweakers.net/nieuws/104...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The battery is just a battery. Those who are into wearables likely find no practical issue with grabbing an existing coin cell holder with leads and JST connector (or just solder one on themselves) and plugging that in - or with using a small lipo pouch (presuming the circuitry is tolerant to the voltage).
It is a shame that the slot (itself a holder) was removed mainly because of the fear that little children will eat absolutely anything, but I can understand the decision given that it is targeted to (slightly older) children in the first place and engineering e.g. a screw-fastened lid on top of it would be rather expensive.
I can't mod up, so just a reply then: thanks for the additional information.
I think it falls back to my second point, though; "inform the standards by which private conduct is judged" in no way suggests that you can't be sued, and "truth an absolute defense to defamation" is still a defense that would have to be brought before the court?
If you are making a factual statement - and I interpret that to mean a statement of fact that is actually the truth - then by all means. In this case, the business believes that the statement is not the truth, and further believes it has damaged their business.
Whether or not that is actually the case (either way), let the courts decide.
Do I have facts to support that the business believes something? No. I can't read their minds, and neither can you.
So can I say with certainty that the business actually believes in what they write in the allegations - e.g.:
- no, I can't say with certainty that they actually believe this, and aren't just using these and other allegations to try to silence critics. The suit is the evidence before me on which I base the description that they believe it. If you want to split hairs and suggest that I should have said that these are the allegations, fair enough.
That's two ifs that would end up being at the core of either this or follow-up lawsuits, now wouldn't it?
If those people are actually just 1 person and if their reviews are anything but honest, then this lawsuit is well-founded, the reviewer is nothing but an asshole, and additionally in legal trouble?
How do we find out which of those scenarios apply?
A completely different government thing. You can't just link them together and suggest that the government should intervene in a civil law case just because pudding is delicious.
You'd think I would have followed that up with a reference to something about courts. Oh wait, I did :)
By all means, file a suit.
IANAL, and certainly not yours. Yes, I know you're just trying to make a point and/or trying to be funny - but ultimately it's up to a lawyer to plead your case and the courts to decide whether the point you're trying to make has merit.
1. Freedom of speech is a government thing.
2. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of such speech. Whether you're Anita Sarkeesian, the Dixie Chicks or Sir Tim Hunt - anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion - and potentially in the court of law if a target of your speech feels that your speech crossed the boundary into libel / slander / defamation.
In this particular case, the business owner believes that the reviews are malicious, fake, the act of a single person, etc. etc. (read the actual document). Now it's up to the court to decide whether or not Yelp will have to notify the author(s) of those reviews, or hand over personal information directly, etc.
To throw another one out there - lower bitrate, different approach, much cheaper (especially if built yourself - designs are completely open): https://github.com/waywardgeek...
Technically, they should already have 'a monopoly'. They're putting up these blocks because the government is unwilling or unable to actually enforce previously existing laws OR the new law that was passed back in October 2014.
And since governments don't take too kindly to protests against its own institution (you may protest.. you know, somewhere out in a field where nobody's bothered by it, sees it, and you accomplish nothing - there's a good little citizen), they've taken to these measures.
Whether that will result in the law getting enforced, or ferrying people about is turned into a free for all (in which case the 'official' taxi drivers should not have to get a license and pay for that either), for the time being they have every right to be upset; not so much at Uber, but certainly at the French government.
Though if you think this is bad - keep an eye on Calais and the French government's unwillingness to deal with that clusterfuck.