Okay, last shot, to see if we can get on the same page.
Read the title of this thread and what this article is about and tell me it doesn't have anything to do with deep-linking.
The article is about deep-linking. This thread starts here, and is a tangential discussion about copying.
I thought you had a good idea, but I guess you took offense to that.
I'm not taking offense -- I'm just having trouble figuring out where your disagreement lies.
Did you read your post, I really don't have time to highlight your own words for you--but if you read it you might stumble upon the part where you say JavaScript is unreliable. (I actually said the same thing in the parent to your reply, if you'll see - so it's odd that you're arguing that as well).
Right, using JavaScript to prevent right-click-save is unreliable. I've said that a few times now. I've also explained twice now that there are better ways to achieve the same thing (prevent right-click-save). If you agree with me, there's no argument. If you don't, you'll need to clarify what you agree/disagree with, or we're both just wasting our time.
it would seem what you call "most people" isn't too many people at all. And that the "average person" seems to be "deep-linking" to the picture instead (even if you are using JavaScript or some other method).
Now you've really lost me. This thread is not about deep-linking, it's a tangent about preventing copying.
So what is your point of mentioning the JavaScript method(s) if it is not only to make my point? Your suggestion isn't stopping Right-clicking at all, it's merely changing what image they are (not think they are) clicking on. I hate the be nit-picky, but in this context it's a pretty big difference.
Again, you lost me. We're talking about preventing people from easily saving an image, by right-clicking and choosing save as. I mention the JavaScript method because it's an irritating and unreliable way to do that. Then I mention a reliable, non-irritating way to stop that method of saving an image. It looks like they are saving the photo, but they are actually only saving the transparent gif.
How is this "a pretty big difference" in the context? It serves exactly the same purpose: it prevents them from saving your photo using a right-click->save-as.
I think I'm still missing your point, then... yes, most people will try first to save an image they want using right-click/save as. If this doesn't work, the average person will give up, and the geek may find a way to grab the file from cache, or by browsing the HTML source... but he/she will probably realize at the same time that because you are willing to put some effort into protecting your photos, it would be wise to NOT try to reuse it on another site.
I disagree that it's hard to stop right-clicking. I wouldn't ever recommend the JavaScript catch-click-event method (because that's just annoying, and doesn't work everywhere).
But it's darned easy to just put your image as the background of a simple table cell, and display a transparent gif over it. That'll work on just about any browser in use nowadays.
Not the ones I mentioned (and browser are such a simple technology, really, that it's damned hard to *really* protect the thing) -- but they will foil the majority of people out there, which is the point.
Most people don't know how to read through the source to find the "real" image, most people don't know how the find the file in their browser cache... and even the ones that do might not think it's worth the trouble.
Once you have some basic protection, even it it's easy for a technical person to sidestep, you're making it impossible for them to claim that they simply didn't realize they were doing something they shouldn't. It's like a bike lock -- yes, anyone with bolt cutters can still take your bicycle in 10 seconds... but the lock will still do the trick in most situations.
Preventing people from *copying* the images is a completely new challenge, and fortunately most people don't worry about that too much.
Deep-linking is more dangerous than copying, because it can unexpectedly cause vast increases to your bandwidth if the image is redisplayed in a more popular location.
Copying... well, it's annoying if someone else uses your photo on a site w/o crediting you, and especially annoying if they are selling prints or something like that, but neither one costs you money (remember, you were displaying it for free), and in both cases they are violating copyright, so you can complain to their host with some reasonable hope of action.
If you're actually a good photographer and are *selling* those photos, then you need to look into ways to make them hard to copy. The obvious is only letting people preview a low-res or plainly watermarked version. You can use that annoying trick of catching the right-click event in JavaScript and popping a copyright reminder notice. You can display a transparent gif *over* the actual photo (defined in CSS instead of an image tag), like Google does for their photos of copyrighted book pages.
The next step perhaps will be to again turn to computer editing (or maybe just old fashion sketch artists) and take the faces of the children in the photos and get them out ot people in the area, and see if anyone recognises them.
You're forgetting something with this point -- and this actually highlights one of the difficulties of conducting these kinds of investigations. The photos of the victims need to be *very* carefully controlled, because it's essential to maintain the victim's privacy as much as possible.
The kid is already messed up from being abused -- telling the entire community about it would be awful, even if it helped track down the perp. Imagine being a 6th or 7th grader and having your classmates find out about something like this. I shudder to think.
In theory they could just publish the photo without explaining -- but people talk, and they'll figure it out; there are only so many possibilities when the police want to talk to a kid who *isn't* missing.
You have a point; any "always open" app like email/calendar should not take up space on the task bar. Personally I have lots of apps like this (that I want to leave open all day w/o them taking up taskbar space). Is that seriously a show-stopper for people, though?
My current solution is PowerMenu; it's tiny, freeware, and gives you a "minimize to tray" option for all windows. I also use it to reorganize things on my taskbar (e.g., comparing old output with new, I can have the older document on the left... it just works better in my mind).
Tips: use the commandline options to disable menu extras you don't want. Here are my options: -hideself on -disable priority -disable transparency -disable alwaysontop
I wonder if this scientist watched too much Bjork on MTV in the late 90's... reminds me of the very cool video of robots making out in one of her videos (it must have been damned expensive to make...).
Save these links for later (since the server seems to be pretty slow even w/o a slashdotting) but there are links to the full-length vid here (RM, 4.6MB) and here (MPG, 26MB).
I remember seeing an applet (and Java application) that did something similar way back in '97/'98. It was amazing then (the guys was using undocumented internal Java code to be able to create the audio).
why human brain cells in particular? Could the brain cells of another animal not be chosen to demonstrate the same principle?
Well, if you're interested in curing human brain disorders, you need to learn more about the human brain in particular. Learning about other animals might be useful to advance knowledge in general, and to get ideas for experiments with human brain cells, but a discovery in other animals often doesn't translate into advances in human medicine.
If this experiment succeeds in producing human cognitive thought in a mouse, we most certainly have an issue.
What you're envisioning is not possible, and not what the scientist is interested in.
We're not going to end up with a super-intelligent mouse who could speak if it only had the proper vocal chords. Think about the space a mouse has in its skull, and how much room we have, and this will start to make more sense.
He's curious if the mouse's brain is built from human cells instead of mouse, how that will affect its development -- will the cells work more like human brain cells (given the source), or mouse brain cells (given the environment)? The shape of the brain, and the activity patterns, would be interesting to observe and he could gain insights into factors in normal human brain development (and defects in that process).
Unfortunately, the article tends towards a generally thoughtless, alarmist tone (including mentioning these experiments without any explanation...). Personally, I'm not worried.
Along the lines of what others are saying -- where are you typing these URLs?
Two obvious solutions come to mind - use different bookmarks in each browser (esp. those links in the toolbar for sites you visit all day), and pop up a FF window and an IE window when you get started in the morning.
OR -- you can use shortcuts on your desktop or the quick launch bar for the really popular ones. These could also be in your path if you have a lot, and want to type something into Start->Run.
These can be normal link shortcuts for FF (assuming that's your default browser), or put in the command line to launch IE for the ones that need to pop in IE.
Does that cover it? If you're thinking about clicking links in email, IM, that sort of thing, you'd need what you're asking for (though frankly, there's a lot of software out there that just calls IE directly and ignores your default browser...). It's a damned simple thing (you could impl it with a batch file, I think), but I'm not sure how to change what program opens URLs.
AND... for the real freaks out there who need more than 2 photos, here are two other pics (one, two) from the same day (well, he's wearing the same clothes, anyway; I guess that doesn't mean much), a classic early MS photo (NOT a hoax, despite the domain name), and Billy G's mugshot.
Actually, I'm an atheist myself, but I'm respecting the beliefs of those who aren't. In this case, it's not atheists vs. christians, it's everyone vs. idiots.
Okay, but you said: God created this world. It's arrogance and ignorance of the highest degree for men to say they understand how He did it.
Suggestion: If you take as assumed that God created this world (as billions of people do), then it's arrogance and ignorance of the highest degree for men to say they understand how He did it. ----------------
The trouble with this either way (unfortunately) is that the fundamentalist counter-arg is that the Bible is God's word, directly, and it's arrogance and ignorance of the highest degree to pretend we know better than GOD what God did.
In this case, that's a tangental arguement which has it's own merits, but is a barrier to what really matters in this case.
Agreed -- this wouldn't even come up if I were arguing the original creationist vs. evolution debate. I took a tangent that's interesting to me; i.e., exploring how you are blending the scientific approach to truth with the religion approach to truth.
I'm suprised at the number of people who wnt only to declare total victory over theists in this case.
Interestingly, I think it's only in places like a/. discussion where I will sometimes argue this sort of the thing to the bitter end; in some ways it's more an intellectual exercise than anything else. If I'm working towards an actual goal in a conversation (like convincing someone that textbook sticker are a bad idea) I'm a lot less hard-line.
Does it matter in the long run as long as the stuff we DO know isn't blocked by people like these people are trying to do to evolution?
Good point, but of course we're 10 posts down in a slashdot discussion offshoot thread, so I don't think that holds here.:)
This is a much better explanation of your view (thank you), and I totally agree with the flaws in the Creationist argument (not hard to find flaws there), but it still bugs me that you're assuming the existence of God, which is very anti-scientific. We have no way of knowing, of course (the supernatural is untestable), but when you add up the evidence it seems very unlikely that there is a God in the traditional sense -- i.e., all-loving, involved in human affairs, listening (and sometimes answering) prayers, encouraging worship, etc..
I'm not sure where you fall in the spectrum; I'm okay with people who choose to believe in a power that "set everything up" in the beginning, but it's hard to assume much about that power, and you're assuming that there actually *was* a beginning.
It's a much more scientific approach to assume all forces are explicable, and there are no super-natural forces (the God category). Bringing God into any equation is cheating, actually -- because you are invoking unobserved and unpredictable forces, you could reach any conclusion you wanted. It'd be handy ("...then God steps in, and we have fusion!"), but not useful.
God created this world. It's arrogance and ignorance of the highest degree for men to say they understand how He did it.
You're partway there. It's arrogance and ignorance for us to say we know how the world was created, period. That includes saying "we know God exists, and He created it". How can we presume such knowledge?
The best we can do it look at the world we can observe (God has proved notably tricky to observe), and come up with the best explanations we can based on that evidence. We call those explanations "theories". They are testable, and must be altered when they fail a test.
There are other explanations, which are not based on observation but on ancient stories passed down over centuries. We call those explanations "myths". These are generally untestable (or have been disproved), but are an interesting part of our culture and history.
...ignore what you hear on that web site. It only applies to Dutch people.
It's easy to modify the pure Dutch pronunciation to something Americans (for instance) can handle.
Pronounce it "how-hunts" (just changing the sounds we don't normally make in English into the closest equivalents). This is easy to remember, almost correct, and it's how we deal with most foreign names and words. How do you pronounce the name of the composer "Chopin"? You'll look like an ass in the US if you either:
1) Say "chop-in"
2) Use a full French accent with the nasal last vowel sound. Just say "show-pah".
Same thing with Beethoven. We say bay-toe-vin, not beeth-ow-vin; we use an approximation of the actual German pronounciation. Sorry for the all-music examples, that's what came to mind.
There are examples of names that got butchered and stayed that way (Dr. Seuss should rhyme with "joyce"), but usually we end up with a general approximation, and sometimes people change the spelling of their names to make it easier. This happens a lot with Gaelic names, because of the very different use of the alphabet (the name Maeve is normally spelled "Maudbh".. would you pronounce that "mao-duh-buh-huh"?).
Anyone know how Huygens is being pronounced in the news, etc.?
SourceForge lets you specify what kinds of help you are looking for -- use this to find someone to help you out with these details. People love giving advice -- find someone interested in your project who has done this before, and take advantage of that. Give them access to your project, discuss the best options with them (nice learning experience for you... plus needing to explain "why" will push them towards better suggestions), and you're on your way.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, last shot, to see if we can get on the same page.
Read the title of this thread and what this article is about and tell me it doesn't have anything to do with deep-linking.
The article is about deep-linking. This thread starts here, and is a tangential discussion about copying.
I thought you had a good idea, but I guess you took offense to that.
I'm not taking offense -- I'm just having trouble figuring out where your disagreement lies.
Did you read your post, I really don't have time to highlight your own words for you--but if you read it you might stumble upon the part where you say JavaScript is unreliable. (I actually said the same thing in the parent to your reply, if you'll see - so it's odd that you're arguing that as well).
Right, using JavaScript to prevent right-click-save is unreliable. I've said that a few times now. I've also explained twice now that there are better ways to achieve the same thing (prevent right-click-save). If you agree with me, there's no argument. If you don't, you'll need to clarify what you agree/disagree with, or we're both just wasting our time.
it would seem what you call "most people" isn't too many people at all. And that the "average person" seems to be "deep-linking" to the picture instead (even if you are using JavaScript or some other method).
Now you've really lost me. This thread is not about deep-linking, it's a tangent about preventing copying.
So what is your point of mentioning the JavaScript method(s) if it is not only to make my point?
Your suggestion isn't stopping Right-clicking at all, it's merely changing what image they are (not think they are) clicking on. I hate the be nit-picky, but in this context it's a pretty big difference.
Again, you lost me. We're talking about preventing people from easily saving an image, by right-clicking and choosing save as. I mention the JavaScript method because it's an irritating and unreliable way to do that. Then I mention a reliable, non-irritating way to stop that method of saving an image. It looks like they are saving the photo, but they are actually only saving the transparent gif.
How is this "a pretty big difference" in the context? It serves exactly the same purpose: it prevents them from saving your photo using a right-click->save-as.
I think I'm still missing your point, then... yes, most people will try first to save an image they want using right-click/save as. If this doesn't work, the average person will give up, and the geek may find a way to grab the file from cache, or by browsing the HTML source... but he/she will probably realize at the same time that because you are willing to put some effort into protecting your photos, it would be wise to NOT try to reuse it on another site.
I disagree that it's hard to stop right-clicking. I wouldn't ever recommend the JavaScript catch-click-event method (because that's just annoying, and doesn't work everywhere).
But it's darned easy to just put your image as the background of a simple table cell, and display a transparent gif over it. That'll work on just about any browser in use nowadays.
I'd have to guess the people that do will just Right-Click and Save As...
Exactly -- *that's* easy to defeat.
Not the ones I mentioned (and browser are such a simple technology, really, that it's damned hard to *really* protect the thing) -- but they will foil the majority of people out there, which is the point.
Most people don't know how to read through the source to find the "real" image, most people don't know how the find the file in their browser cache... and even the ones that do might not think it's worth the trouble.
Once you have some basic protection, even it it's easy for a technical person to sidestep, you're making it impossible for them to claim that they simply didn't realize they were doing something they shouldn't. It's like a bike lock -- yes, anyone with bolt cutters can still take your bicycle in 10 seconds... but the lock will still do the trick in most situations.
Preventing people from *copying* the images is a completely new challenge, and fortunately most people don't worry about that too much.
Deep-linking is more dangerous than copying, because it can unexpectedly cause vast increases to your bandwidth if the image is redisplayed in a more popular location.
Copying... well, it's annoying if someone else uses your photo on a site w/o crediting you, and especially annoying if they are selling prints or something like that, but neither one costs you money (remember, you were displaying it for free), and in both cases they are violating copyright, so you can complain to their host with some reasonable hope of action.
If you're actually a good photographer and are *selling* those photos, then you need to look into ways to make them hard to copy. The obvious is only letting people preview a low-res or plainly watermarked version. You can use that annoying trick of catching the right-click event in JavaScript and popping a copyright reminder notice. You can display a transparent gif *over* the actual photo (defined in CSS instead of an image tag), like Google does for their photos of copyrighted book pages.
The next step perhaps will be to again turn to computer editing (or maybe just old fashion sketch artists) and take the faces of the children in the photos and get them out ot people in the area, and see if anyone recognises them.
You're forgetting something with this point -- and this actually highlights one of the difficulties of conducting these kinds of investigations. The photos of the victims need to be *very* carefully controlled, because it's essential to maintain the victim's privacy as much as possible.
The kid is already messed up from being abused -- telling the entire community about it would be awful, even if it helped track down the perp. Imagine being a 6th or 7th grader and having your classmates find out about something like this. I shudder to think.
In theory they could just publish the photo without explaining -- but people talk, and they'll figure it out; there are only so many possibilities when the police want to talk to a kid who *isn't* missing.
You have a point; any "always open" app like email/calendar should not take up space on the task bar. Personally I have lots of apps like this (that I want to leave open all day w/o them taking up taskbar space). Is that seriously a show-stopper for people, though?
My current solution is PowerMenu; it's tiny, freeware, and gives you a "minimize to tray" option for all windows. I also use it to reorganize things on my taskbar (e.g., comparing old output with new, I can have the older document on the left... it just works better in my mind).
Tips: use the commandline options to disable menu extras you don't want. Here are my options:
-hideself on -disable priority -disable transparency -disable alwaysontop
I wonder if this scientist watched too much Bjork on MTV in the late 90's... reminds me of the very cool video of robots making out in one of her videos (it must have been damned expensive to make...).
Save these links for later (since the server seems to be pretty slow even w/o a slashdotting) but there are links to the full-length vid here (RM, 4.6MB) and here (MPG, 26MB).
The key is a special new paint...
The "ricers" were right!
And all this time, I thought that inane changes to your vehicle to make it *look* faster wouldn't actually do anything for the performance.
Boy, was I wrong.
Strangely enough, I'm crawling back into... the PHP code I'm working on. Taco, can we *please* change usernames but keep the UID?
There's a *lot* of open source in Java, and basically all of them use ant.
I'm sorry, what was this article about?
I remember seeing an applet (and Java application) that did something similar way back in '97/'98. It was amazing then (the guys was using undocumented internal Java code to be able to create the audio).
/. comment -- this is *not* new, though it is cool.
Here's the website of the current incarnation of that application.
So -- the eternal
Or even more appropriate...
Pinky and the Brain!
why human brain cells in particular? Could the brain cells of another animal not be chosen to demonstrate the same principle?
Well, if you're interested in curing human brain disorders, you need to learn more about the human brain in particular. Learning about other animals might be useful to advance knowledge in general, and to get ideas for experiments with human brain cells, but a discovery in other animals often doesn't translate into advances in human medicine.
If this experiment succeeds in producing human cognitive thought in a mouse, we most certainly have an issue.
What you're envisioning is not possible, and not what the scientist is interested in.
We're not going to end up with a super-intelligent mouse who could speak if it only had the proper vocal chords. Think about the space a mouse has in its skull, and how much room we have, and this will start to make more sense.
He's curious if the mouse's brain is built from human cells instead of mouse, how that will affect its development -- will the cells work more like human brain cells (given the source), or mouse brain cells (given the environment)? The shape of the brain, and the activity patterns, would be interesting to observe and he could gain insights into factors in normal human brain development (and defects in that process).
Unfortunately, the article tends towards a generally thoughtless, alarmist tone (including mentioning these experiments without any explanation...). Personally, I'm not worried.
Along the lines of what others are saying -- where are you typing these URLs?
Two obvious solutions come to mind - use different bookmarks in each browser (esp. those links in the toolbar for sites you visit all day), and pop up a FF window and an IE window when you get started in the morning.
OR -- you can use shortcuts on your desktop or the quick launch bar for the really popular ones. These could also be in your path if you have a lot, and want to type something into Start->Run.
These can be normal link shortcuts for FF (assuming that's your default browser), or put in the command line to launch IE for the ones that need to pop in IE.
Does that cover it? If you're thinking about clicking links in email, IM, that sort of thing, you'd need what you're asking for (though frankly, there's a lot of software out there that just calls IE directly and ignores your default browser...). It's a damned simple thing (you could impl it with a batch file, I think), but I'm not sure how to change what program opens URLs.
Here's a mirror, another blog.
AND... for the real freaks out there who need more than 2 photos, here are two other pics (one, two) from the same day (well, he's wearing the same clothes, anyway; I guess that doesn't mean much), a classic early MS photo (NOT a hoax, despite the domain name), and Billy G's mugshot.
Actually, I'm an atheist myself, but I'm respecting the beliefs of those who aren't. In this case, it's not atheists vs. christians, it's everyone vs. idiots.
Okay, but you said:
God created this world. It's arrogance and ignorance of the highest degree for men to say they understand how He did it.
Suggestion:
If you take as assumed that God created this world (as billions of people do), then it's arrogance and ignorance of the highest degree for men to say they understand how He did it.
----------------
The trouble with this either way (unfortunately) is that the fundamentalist counter-arg is that the Bible is God's word, directly, and it's arrogance and ignorance of the highest degree to pretend we know better than GOD what God did.
In this case, that's a tangental arguement which has it's own merits, but is a barrier to what really matters in this case.
/. discussion where I will sometimes argue this sort of the thing to the bitter end; in some ways it's more an intellectual exercise than anything else. If I'm working towards an actual goal in a conversation (like convincing someone that textbook sticker are a bad idea) I'm a lot less hard-line.
:)
Agreed -- this wouldn't even come up if I were arguing the original creationist vs. evolution debate. I took a tangent that's interesting to me; i.e., exploring how you are blending the scientific approach to truth with the religion approach to truth.
I'm suprised at the number of people who wnt only to declare total victory over theists in this case.
Interestingly, I think it's only in places like a
Does it matter in the long run as long as the stuff we DO know isn't blocked by people like these people are trying to do to evolution?
Good point, but of course we're 10 posts down in a slashdot discussion offshoot thread, so I don't think that holds here.
This is a much better explanation of your view (thank you), and I totally agree with the flaws in the Creationist argument (not hard to find flaws there), but it still bugs me that you're assuming the existence of God, which is very anti-scientific. We have no way of knowing, of course (the supernatural is untestable), but when you add up the evidence it seems very unlikely that there is a God in the traditional sense -- i.e., all-loving, involved in human affairs, listening (and sometimes answering) prayers, encouraging worship, etc..
I'm not sure where you fall in the spectrum; I'm okay with people who choose to believe in a power that "set everything up" in the beginning, but it's hard to assume much about that power, and you're assuming that there actually *was* a beginning.
It's a much more scientific approach to assume all forces are explicable, and there are no super-natural forces (the God category). Bringing God into any equation is cheating, actually -- because you are invoking unobserved and unpredictable forces, you could reach any conclusion you wanted. It'd be handy ("...then God steps in, and we have fusion!"), but not useful.
God created this world. It's arrogance and ignorance of the highest degree for men to say they understand how He did it.
You're partway there. It's arrogance and ignorance for us to say we know how the world was created, period. That includes saying "we know God exists, and He created it". How can we presume such knowledge?
The best we can do it look at the world we can observe (God has proved notably tricky to observe), and come up with the best explanations we can based on that evidence. We call those explanations "theories". They are testable, and must be altered when they fail a test.
There are other explanations, which are not based on observation but on ancient stories passed down over centuries. We call those explanations "myths". These are generally untestable (or have been disproved), but are an interesting part of our culture and history.
...ignore what you hear on that web site. It only applies to Dutch people.
It's easy to modify the pure Dutch pronunciation to something Americans (for instance) can handle.
Pronounce it "how-hunts" (just changing the sounds we don't normally make in English into the closest equivalents). This is easy to remember, almost correct, and it's how we deal with most foreign names and words. How do you pronounce the name of the composer "Chopin"? You'll look like an ass in the US if you either:
1) Say "chop-in"
2) Use a full French accent with the nasal last vowel sound.
Just say "show-pah".
Same thing with Beethoven. We say bay-toe-vin, not beeth-ow-vin; we use an approximation of the actual German pronounciation. Sorry for the all-music examples, that's what came to mind.
There are examples of names that got butchered and stayed that way (Dr. Seuss should rhyme with "joyce"), but usually we end up with a general approximation, and sometimes people change the spelling of their names to make it easier. This happens a lot with Gaelic names, because of the very different use of the alphabet (the name Maeve is normally spelled "Maudbh".. would you pronounce that "mao-duh-buh-huh"?).
Anyone know how Huygens is being pronounced in the news, etc.?
Year 1882: God is dead -- Nietzsche
Year 1900: Nietzsche is dead -- God
That's funny, but it doesn't actually make any sense when you think about it. Try this:
Year 1882: "God is dead" -- Nietzsche
Year 1900: "Nietzsche is dead" -- Newspaper
"" -- God
SourceForge lets you specify what kinds of help you are looking for -- use this to find someone to help you out with these details. People love giving advice -- find someone interested in your project who has done this before, and take advantage of that. Give them access to your project, discuss the best options with them (nice learning experience for you... plus needing to explain "why" will push them towards better suggestions), and you're on your way.