Not one of the 36 responses thinks that an end-of-the-line crt from the 1990s is a home theatre.
BTW - have you cleaned up that room yet? As I pointed out...
He claims his tv has "excellent blackness" - but fails to note that the anti-glare coating is either non-existent or shot - look at the reflection off the tube - you can see the crap he has hanging all over the place. And those two TV trays parked in front of the couch look like they're permanent fixtures. Plus, this "audiophile" has a speaker nailed to the wall right next to the person's head when they're sitting on the couch. That's not "audiophile" - that's audio FAIL.
All gleaned from the reflection of the room that you can plainly see on the "30 inch CRT home theatre" screen.
Even 5 years ago, 42" was the minimum people would consider as a home theatre - in a small room. Today, it better be 1080p, high-refresh-rate, nice sound system, and the room better be laid out so that people can actually experience it as "theatre in the home" and not "tv".
All I know is that there are a lot of us who like the brand. Back when the first RAZRs came out, I knew someone who had been on an incompatible network for a decade - $800 a month was his usual cell-phone bill - they couldn't carry the RAZR, so he went out and bought one ($1k) and switched networks.
When push comes to shove, the US is going to find that even if ACTA passes, it won't change much in Canada. Any legislation that requires the circumvention of both provincial and federal privacy laws (IPs have been held to be personally-identifiable information in court cases against Videotron and Bell in Quebec and Ontario respectively), isn't going to be enforceable.
It's going to be a case of "yes, the law is there, but there's no effective means of enforcing it through a simple request for an IP address - you'll need to get a warrant, and if you make a false declaration to get that warrant, you're going to pay for it because the provincial privacy commissioner, not the person you are going after, will be suing for damages + costs on their behalf.
So you won't see the bogus DMCA "good-faith belief" rubber-stamping. Even judges have been smacked down for "rubber-stamping." It used to be that piles of traffic tickets that weren't contested would be brought to the clerk, and the clerk would sign off on the conviction. The judges got caught doing this, and the convictions reversed. Judges HAVE to review every request, just like they have to review every ticket, not leave it to their clerks to rubber-stamp.
Sure, the procedure takes a bit more time, but it saves time in the long run because it results in fewer abuses of the system, and fewer appeals of those abuses.
Good for you. The "no servers" rule is stupid, and more people should violate it; ISP contracts are contracts of adhesion, and vulnerable to legal challenges if they're too capriciously arbitrary.
When you're getting a legit DMCA letter
Two points:
In this case, the DMCA takedown wasn't legit.
If it's that much of an issue, get cheap a hosting plan.
Also, there's nothing to prevent anyone from self-hosting in a server sitting in their closet.
Actually, there is. Many residential internet service contracts specifically disallow any kind of server-side stuff. I ran an FTP server and website to get at my homework on my apartment computer from campus when I was at college. Comcast sent me a fairly comprehensive nasty-gram on the subject.
Run the services on unprivileged ports. Mail on 2525. Http on 8000 or 8080. FTP? Run it on the same port used by XBox Live.
And TPB was NEVER forced to obey a DCMA notice. They WERE forced to obey an order issued by the courts in Sweden. Sweden does not issue DMCA notices. They also don't recognize DMCA notices.
You want your files safe from google responding to a DMCA notice? Don't host them with google.
Want your files safe from DMCA notices? Host them outside the USA.
While 98 was more stable than 95, the reason I upgraded was the 2 GB FAT limit that was smashed with FAT32
... or you could have booted into linux (or shoved the drive into a wonbox that had fat32 support), formatted the filesystem as fat32, then booted back into Windows95. It was the easiest way to get a 30 gig hd to work under Window95. Worked for drives up to 128 gig (4x 32 gig primary partitions).
If you run on someone else's hosting, they'll just send the DMCA to your host, who will then take down your content. They only way you'd be safe from being DMCA'd is if you had your own server sitting in your closet. And that's what GP was talking about with their post.
Look at your sig (for those whe aren't logged in, it says "I'm sorry, I'm Canadian.") and realize that what you say is only true for 5% of the worlds population. 95% of the world will not respond to a DMCA notice since it's outside their jurisdiction. They just have to look north of the US border.
Also, there's nothing to prevent anyone from self-hosting in a server sitting in their closet. A good cable-modem and either an existing dyndns or create a redirect from a cheap hosting provider along the lines of "<?php header('location:12.34.56.78:8000'); ?> Add #Listen 8000 to apache and then apache2clt restart and you're good to go. Multiple computers at home? Configure your wireless router to port-forward all external requests to the internal ip of your server. $50 routers have a nice web interface for doing this.
This way, all your content is safe and sound at home.
The point being that using a real provider, and not google, gives you lots of options, including the ability to just dump everything on another machine if you find your hosting provider is acting stupid.
The pilot, a registered Republican, woke up from his nap (pilots cat-nap as much as they can because of the new budget-saving schedules), saw the guy, and mistook him for Michael Moore.
If you're going to invest years into something, there's no reason why you can't also invest a few dollars a month into a hosting plan.
There are plenty of plans out there that let you do a one-click install of whatever sort of content management or blogging software you could reasonably need, and you get to customize it. And one-click backups and restores, for both the database backend and the site itself.
Plus you get your own domain name.
And you don't have to worry about "someone else already has that email / user name" crap.
... because I *really* like Motorola cell phones. They've always been tanks. My current one is 4 years old, almost 5,000 hours, and has been dropped (and smashed by one angry perp I caught on video who tried to "destroy the evidence") onto concrete.
The weak point was the plug at the bottom for the charger - it stopped working properly a few weeks ago. 10 minutes with the point of a kitchen knife to scrape off the accumulated gunk and it's good as new!
It isn't actually obviously clear if even his dictionary would have been copyrightable under modern copyright laws.
The "Webster Dictionary" is not copyrighted. Anyone is free to make their own "Webster's Dictionary". The ONLY portions that are copyrightable are any additions, like a modern guide to pronunciation, etc.
You can't copyright a fact, such as "1+1=2". You can't copyright trivialities, such as "Hello, world!\n"; You don't even have exclusive copyright to movie titles, which is why there are movies with the same title and completely different stories.
>Portable" does not necessarily mean OS-agnostic. When it comes to data, it means you can access it from multiple locations. I can access my email anywhere I go with my laptop - and if that isn't enough, I have a recent copy that I can also ssh into sitting on my home server, from any computer that supports ssh.
What? Losing almost $2 million dollars a day, year after year? It's a terrible idea. They lost billions on YouTube, developed the "want" for people to watch online video, and now NetFlix and Hulu are the ones profiting from it.
Normally it's the 800 pound gorilla that lets the smaller monkeys take the risks of developing the market, then moves in and crushes them with its greater weight. I think Google needs to hire some more ex-Microsofties.
I'm talking about overlapping floats, elements that are supposed to disappear but don't, etc. Try looking at the Acid Tests in IE 6 to see what fails hard.
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
Dortor: "Then stop doing it, stupid!"
Same thing. You can either create multiple versions, or stop supporting IE6. I've refused to write browser-sniffing code for years. If it fails in IE6, that's not my problem - that's the users. The resources that are devoted to "IE compatibility" would be more profitably used to add new features, rather than trying to cover people still stuck on Win2k.
"Oh, but my users are stuck on Win2k."
Then they have other issues as well. Recognize this as your chance to make some money by helping them upgrade to linux instead of whining.
"But they don't want to upgrade."
That's their option. Recognize it, and move on.
"But I want them as a customer."
Then be prepared for lots of misery - and that your "custom" version will be outdated sooner, and that someone else will then eat your lunch because they support the "new stuff" while you've already branded yourself as a Neanderthal.
Life is full of compromises. Bring your music player, and have "You Can't Always Get What You Want" ready to play... then take to the white board and make a case for them dropping IE6, IE7, whatever... because it's about showmanship, not technical excellence. The person who can SHOW why, in a 15-minute presentation on a whiteboard (not power point - powerpoint makes you stupid) will get the work, not the person who sits in front of the computer composing a 10-point email.
Google is losing half a billion a year on youtube. Initially, "The Great Idea" was to acquire it, and use the supposed synergies to not only enhance the google brand, but get youtube to make a profit.
Competitors will always be able to present the same content for lower cost because they aren't also hosting non-paying content, so even if google does start a hulu-like service, they won't have the same operating margins their competitors will.
Buy YouTube
________
PROFIT!
You'll notice that Step 2 is missing. There is no way to get from step 1 to step 3 as long as other competitors don't have the extra overhead of supporting a free "video-blogging" service.
Simple - use the KISS formula. Don't try to use html+css as a page layout program or as the ONLY way to deliver an application, and +99% of your problems simply disappear.
Some simple scenarios, taken from real life:
"But it doesn't look the exact same in [insert browser version]!"
My response to that is "Who gives a sh*t?" Really. If your site is dependent on "to-the-pixel positioning", then why not go all the way and publish it either as an imagemap or a pdf? Because you obviously think that content takes a back seat to presentation.
Response: "You're being stupid!"
"Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black...":huh:
"I want it to do this..."
"Then make it into a network-enabled Java or python or tck/perl or whatever application, because the browser isn't the best platform for that...
"But I want it to run in a browser!"
"And I want a bazillion dollars. And a pony!":shrug:
"How come it doesn't work properly in [insert browser version]."
"Because that version has a bug."
"But it HAS to work in that version! Work around it!" (translation - that's the version *I* use)
"Well, Sunshine, you go file a bug report and convince them to fix it. This is a documented bug, and they can't/won't fix it for me and for the million other people who are having problems with it, but I'm sure they'll listen to you...":sarcasm:
"I just checked. They do it, so why can't you? You're not as good as them?"
"Look again - they're NOT doing what you said. You just assumed... again...":rolleyes:
Browsers are not necessarily the optimal platform for every networked application. Unfortunately, too many "programmers" are one-trick web-monkeys. When all you have is a browser, everything looks like it needs to be hammered into a web page.
That is going to change over the next decade... the problem being that, like most paradigm shifts, people won't recognize it until after it's well under way.
All my apps are already portable - that's what my laptop is for.
I went through with my new years resolution to remove google from all my browsers. I use kmail - if I wanted a web-based mail (I don't), I can self-host either on my hosting server or on my home server. I have never used google docs, and never will.
Google won't go out of business... but by the same token, while they are desperately trying to get into new markets, they're still a one-trick pony when it comes to generating profits.
One of my implied points was that most lawyers don't have much in the way of "domain knowledge". You'd be surprised at just how stupid/not up to to date/whatever most lawyers are in terms of what the law actually is at any point in time. They use the same tools you or I use, and most of them have surprisingly weak logic skills, which is why they went into lawyering instead of programming.
Any experienced troll can, with a bit of research, usually run rings around them in court.
Slashdot Mirror
Your claims about having a clue as to what constitutes a home theatre were debunked by a jury of your peers.
Not one of the 36 responses thinks that an end-of-the-line crt from the 1990s is a home theatre.
BTW - have you cleaned up that room yet? As I pointed out ...
All gleaned from the reflection of the room that you can plainly see on the "30 inch CRT home theatre" screen.
Even 5 years ago, 42" was the minimum people would consider as a home theatre - in a small room. Today, it better be 1080p, high-refresh-rate, nice sound system, and the room better be laid out so that people can actually experience it as "theatre in the home" and not "tv".
All I know is that there are a lot of us who like the brand. Back when the first RAZRs came out, I knew someone who had been on an incompatible network for a decade - $800 a month was his usual cell-phone bill - they couldn't carry the RAZR, so he went out and bought one ($1k) and switched networks.
*THAT* is brand loyalty.
When push comes to shove, the US is going to find that even if ACTA passes, it won't change much in Canada. Any legislation that requires the circumvention of both provincial and federal privacy laws (IPs have been held to be personally-identifiable information in court cases against Videotron and Bell in Quebec and Ontario respectively), isn't going to be enforceable.
It's going to be a case of "yes, the law is there, but there's no effective means of enforcing it through a simple request for an IP address - you'll need to get a warrant, and if you make a false declaration to get that warrant, you're going to pay for it because the provincial privacy commissioner, not the person you are going after, will be suing for damages + costs on their behalf.
So you won't see the bogus DMCA "good-faith belief" rubber-stamping. Even judges have been smacked down for "rubber-stamping." It used to be that piles of traffic tickets that weren't contested would be brought to the clerk, and the clerk would sign off on the conviction. The judges got caught doing this, and the convictions reversed. Judges HAVE to review every request, just like they have to review every ticket, not leave it to their clerks to rubber-stamp.
Sure, the procedure takes a bit more time, but it saves time in the long run because it results in fewer abuses of the system, and fewer appeals of those abuses.
Good for you. The "no servers" rule is stupid, and more people should violate it; ISP contracts are contracts of adhesion, and vulnerable to legal challenges if they're too capriciously arbitrary.
Two points:
Run the services on unprivileged ports. Mail on 2525. Http on 8000 or 8080. FTP? Run it on the same port used by XBox Live.
Total bullshit and an attempt to rewrite history by known troll who can't even tell the difference between a bargain-basement television and a home theatre system.
And TPB was NEVER forced to obey a DCMA notice. They WERE forced to obey an order issued by the courts in Sweden. Sweden does not issue DMCA notices. They also don't recognize DMCA notices.
You want your files safe from google responding to a DMCA notice? Don't host them with google.
Want your files safe from DMCA notices? Host them outside the USA.
So the modern-day equivalent of Inuk is an aging Canadian rock band star from Bachman Turner Overdrive?
Do like 95% of the world, get a hosting provider located outside the USofA, and not subject to the DMCA.
A simple search for "Canada web hosting" will work. Here's one that pretty much anyone can afford. The servers are located in Canada, not the US.
Look at your sig (for those whe aren't logged in, it says "I'm sorry, I'm Canadian.") and realize that what you say is only true for 5% of the worlds population. 95% of the world will not respond to a DMCA notice since it's outside their jurisdiction. They just have to look north of the US border.
Also, there's nothing to prevent anyone from self-hosting in a server sitting in their closet. A good cable-modem and either an existing dyndns or create a redirect from a cheap hosting provider along the lines of "<?php header('location:12.34.56.78:8000'); ?> Add #Listen 8000 to apache and then apache2clt restart and you're good to go. Multiple computers at home? Configure your wireless router to port-forward all external requests to the internal ip of your server. $50 routers have a nice web interface for doing this.
This way, all your content is safe and sound at home.
The point being that using a real provider, and not google, gives you lots of options, including the ability to just dump everything on another machine if you find your hosting provider is acting stupid.
Here's what really happened.
The pilot, a registered Republican, woke up from his nap (pilots cat-nap as much as they can because of the new budget-saving schedules), saw the guy, and mistook him for Michael Moore.
If you're going to invest years into something, there's no reason why you can't also invest a few dollars a month into a hosting plan.
There are plenty of plans out there that let you do a one-click install of whatever sort of content management or blogging software you could reasonably need, and you get to customize it. And one-click backups and restores, for both the database backend and the site itself.
Plus you get your own domain name.
And you don't have to worry about "someone else already has that email / user name" crap.
It should be labeled "Where stupid people waste their money."
The weak point was the plug at the bottom for the charger - it stopped working properly a few weeks ago. 10 minutes with the point of a kitchen knife to scrape off the accumulated gunk and it's good as new!
You use that word, but you don't understand what it means.
Look up the meaning of rational.
Here's the first definition I found: "having reason or understanding". If it is beyond reason or understanding, it is by definition NOT rational.
The whole creation + adam and eve + original sin + god condemns us + jesus saves (s, which team is he the goalie for) is irrational.
The "Webster Dictionary" is not copyrighted. Anyone is free to make their own "Webster's Dictionary". The ONLY portions that are copyrightable are any additions, like a modern guide to pronunciation, etc.
You can't copyright a fact, such as "1+1=2". You can't copyright trivialities, such as "Hello, world!\n"; You don't even have exclusive copyright to movie titles, which is why there are movies with the same title and completely different stories.
Hey you! Stop "sampling" my work. I own the rights to ALL those words, and all the remixes, you thieves!
signed: Daniel Webster
So, tell me again how my mail isn't portable.
What? Losing almost $2 million dollars a day, year after year? It's a terrible idea. They lost billions on YouTube, developed the "want" for people to watch online video, and now NetFlix and Hulu are the ones profiting from it.
Normally it's the 800 pound gorilla that lets the smaller monkeys take the risks of developing the market, then moves in and crushes them with its greater weight. I think Google needs to hire some more ex-Microsofties.
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
Dortor: "Then stop doing it, stupid!"
Same thing. You can either create multiple versions, or stop supporting IE6. I've refused to write browser-sniffing code for years. If it fails in IE6, that's not my problem - that's the users. The resources that are devoted to "IE compatibility" would be more profitably used to add new features, rather than trying to cover people still stuck on Win2k.
"Oh, but my users are stuck on Win2k."
Then they have other issues as well. Recognize this as your chance to make some money by helping them upgrade to linux instead of whining.
"But they don't want to upgrade."
That's their option. Recognize it, and move on.
"But I want them as a customer."
Then be prepared for lots of misery - and that your "custom" version will be outdated sooner, and that someone else will then eat your lunch because they support the "new stuff" while you've already branded yourself as a Neanderthal.
Life is full of compromises. Bring your music player, and have "You Can't Always Get What You Want" ready to play ... then take to the white board and make a case for them dropping IE6, IE7, whatever ... because it's about showmanship, not technical excellence. The person who can SHOW why, in a 15-minute presentation on a whiteboard (not power point - powerpoint makes you stupid) will get the work, not the person who sits in front of the computer composing a 10-point email.
Google is losing half a billion a year on youtube. Initially, "The Great Idea" was to acquire it, and use the supposed synergies to not only enhance the google brand, but get youtube to make a profit.
Competitors will always be able to present the same content for lower cost because they aren't also hosting non-paying content, so even if google does start a hulu-like service, they won't have the same operating margins their competitors will.
You'll notice that Step 2 is missing. There is no way to get from step 1 to step 3 as long as other competitors don't have the extra overhead of supporting a free "video-blogging" service.
Simple - use the KISS formula. Don't try to use html+css as a page layout program or as the ONLY way to deliver an application, and +99% of your problems simply disappear.
Some simple scenarios, taken from real life:
My response to that is "Who gives a sh*t?" Really. If your site is dependent on "to-the-pixel positioning", then why not go all the way and publish it either as an imagemap or a pdf? Because you obviously think that content takes a back seat to presentation.
Response: "You're being stupid!"
"Well, talk about the pot calling the kettle black
"Then make it into a network-enabled Java or python or tck/perl or whatever application, because the browser isn't the best platform for that
"But I want it to run in a browser!"
"And I want a bazillion dollars. And a pony!"
"Because that version has a bug."
"But it HAS to work in that version! Work around it!" (translation - that's the version *I* use)
"Well, Sunshine, you go file a bug report and convince them to fix it. This is a documented bug, and they can't/won't fix it for me and for the million other people who are having problems with it, but I'm sure they'll listen to you
"Look again - they're NOT doing what you said. You just assumed
Browsers are not necessarily the optimal platform for every networked application. Unfortunately, too many "programmers" are one-trick web-monkeys. When all you have is a browser, everything looks like it needs to be hammered into a web page.
That is going to change over the next decade ... the problem being that, like most paradigm shifts, people won't recognize it until after it's well under way.
All my apps are already portable - that's what my laptop is for.
I went through with my new years resolution to remove google from all my browsers. I use kmail - if I wanted a web-based mail (I don't), I can self-host either on my hosting server or on my home server. I have never used google docs, and never will.
Google won't go out of business ... but by the same token, while they are desperately trying to get into new markets, they're still a one-trick pony when it comes to generating profits.
One of my implied points was that most lawyers don't have much in the way of "domain knowledge". You'd be surprised at just how stupid/not up to to date/whatever most lawyers are in terms of what the law actually is at any point in time. They use the same tools you or I use, and most of them have surprisingly weak logic skills, which is why they went into lawyering instead of programming.
Any experienced troll can, with a bit of research, usually run rings around them in court.