It supports setting the zoom level through its progressive encoding: a prefix of the lossless FLIF bitstream can be interpreted as a low-res FLIF. As for pan, a set of FLIFs in an array (as with the "Click and Drag" xkcd comic or any Internet mapping program) could fix that.
It's designed to be "progressive". This means the prefix of any lossless file is a lossy file. In fact, the more graceful degradation of truncated progressive FLIF compared to truncated progressive PNG is touted as an advantage over PNG.
Unless you're basing a business model on distributing to people with Internet connections not suited for gigabyte transfers, such as dial-up, ISDN, satellite, or cellular, what will make users choose your distribution for a fee over someone else's distribution without charge?
Implicit in "Obligatory xkcd #927" comments is "I do not think this proposed standard will cause at least two standards to cease competing." What about FLIF keeps it from displacing the existing standards?
From the paragraph on that page recommending a permissive license: "Some libraries implement free standards that are competing against restricted standards". Against which restricted standard for lossless image coding is FLIF competing?
If none, then it goes on to state: For libraries that provide specialized facilities, and which do not face entrenched noncopylefted or nonfree competition, we recommend using the plain GNU GPL." So the question is one of whether FLIF "provide[s] specialized facilities".
A codec incorporates not only coding techniques but what a 0 represents in each circumstance and what a 1 represents. By the logic of the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Oracle v. Google, the particular senses for bitstream elements chosen in FLIF would be the expression of the general idea of a lossless still image codec incorporating particular techniques. The question of whether copying these senses is fair use has been remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
True, passwords used by users to authenticate to site A need to be hashed with salt and key stretching when stored on site A. But the only way to let site A perform actions on site B on the user's behalf is to store a "password" for site B on site A's servers. For example, an RSS reader application may need to log into other sites to retrieve non-public feeds to which the user has subscribed.
Other than a sacrifice of your time when you discover that several consecutive results from your search engine all produce pages that fail to load without scripts. Or other than a sacrifice of your ability to reply meaningfully to an e-mail message containing a link that a friend shared with you but which fails to load without scripts.
Probably because autistics are more likely to accidentally offend somebody, in turn because they find it more difficult to pick up social rules that aren't explicitly taught.
That's about as much of a grievance as a Game of Thrones fan complaining that "Dothraki" isn't in a spell checker's dictionary. If you'll be making references to holidays invented by the writers of Seinfeld, you could just add it to the personal dictionary instead of your list of grudges. If you do choose to hold a grudge, make it against the trademark and copyright laws that discourage addition of well-known elements from popular non-free media franchises to spell checking software in the first place.
If a website allows scripts to be placed on their pages from unknown parties without even looking at the scripts, then it's going to invite malware. I trust Yahoo.com to not write malware on their own pages
Implicit in this is a policy of rejecting scripts and the like that are hotlinked from a different website. But how would a browser determine whether a request belongs to "a different website"? You can't just go by whether the public suffix matches, especially when a site serves its own static resources from its CDN on a different, cookieless domain.
You claim that "no SWF objects and no Java applets" is insufficient. In your opinion, what policy short of disconnecting from the Internet is sufficient to block malicious software and why?
Whether the ad exists or not, you pay the same phone+internet monthly bill unless you're a heavy user who uses up every last byte of monthly capacity.
A lot of people whose only available home ISPs are cellular or satellite end up being that type of user.
Make ads text-based or vector-graphics based or something else that uses less bandwidth.
Except that the demise of Flash Player, which doesn't work on recent Android and has never worked on iOS, has driven advertisers to pre-render their SWF vector graphics ads to video, which uses more bandwidth.
What about just blocking ads while using a metered service such as data?
Because some people have metered service at home. In rural areas and parts of Seattle, the only ISPs faster than the 128 kbps of ISDN are cellular and satellite, which are metered.
They are objectionable yet so common that avoiding them takes sacrifice. How do you configure a web search engine to filter sites using animated ads or requiring script to view the entire page out of results so that you don't end up wasting time visiting eight sites in a row only to have to click the back button?
After I buy a product, I see ads for it. That's a complete waste of time and bandwidth.
How is it "a complete waste of time and bandwidth" to attempt to convince you to buy more for your friends and family, or to buy replacements for a consumable item such as food or printer paper?
Which is why you unblock what actually makes the site function while cutting out all the pointless junk it tries to load alongside it
Until "what makes the site function" crashes because it raises an exception when querying "the pointless junk". This has happened with an HTML5 Pac-Man game that someone recommended to me in a comment to a story about the demise of Flash. Normally I use the tracking protection that Firefox exposes through about:config, and I had to click the back button because the error console showed a ReferenceError: _gaq is not defined when the site failed to properly catch the failure to load Google Analytics. This caused me to feel embarrassed to myself when I couldn't offer my opinion on it.
Slashdot Mirror
It supports setting the zoom level through its progressive encoding: a prefix of the lossless FLIF bitstream can be interpreted as a low-res FLIF. As for pan, a set of FLIFs in an array (as with the "Click and Drag" xkcd comic or any Internet mapping program) could fix that.
Did you even read the title of the article?
It's a lossless format
It's designed to be "progressive". This means the prefix of any lossless file is a lossy file. In fact, the more graceful degradation of truncated progressive FLIF compared to truncated progressive PNG is touted as an advantage over PNG.
Unless you're basing a business model on distributing to people with Internet connections not suited for gigabyte transfers, such as dial-up, ISDN, satellite, or cellular, what will make users choose your distribution for a fee over someone else's distribution without charge?
Implicit in "Obligatory xkcd #927" comments is "I do not think this proposed standard will cause at least two standards to cease competing." What about FLIF keeps it from displacing the existing standards?
Nikon cameras produce raw images in NEF format. Couldn't you just patch your NEF to PNG converter to support NEF to FLIF as well?
From the paragraph on that page recommending a permissive license: "Some libraries implement free standards that are competing against restricted standards". Against which restricted standard for lossless image coding is FLIF competing?
If none, then it goes on to state: For libraries that provide specialized facilities, and which do not face entrenched noncopylefted or nonfree competition, we recommend using the plain GNU GPL." So the question is one of whether FLIF "provide[s] specialized facilities".
A codec incorporates not only coding techniques but what a 0 represents in each circumstance and what a 1 represents. By the logic of the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Oracle v. Google, the particular senses for bitstream elements chosen in FLIF would be the expression of the general idea of a lossless still image codec incorporating particular techniques. The question of whether copying these senses is fair use has been remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The GPL does not prevent you from learning from the source code to implement a compatible version under a different license.
That depends on the outcome of the forthcoming fair use defense phase of Oracle v. Google.
True, passwords used by users to authenticate to site A need to be hashed with salt and key stretching when stored on site A. But the only way to let site A perform actions on site B on the user's behalf is to store a "password" for site B on site A's servers. For example, an RSS reader application may need to log into other sites to retrieve non-public feeds to which the user has subscribed.
Avoiding the ads takes no sacrifice at all.
Other than a sacrifice of your time when you discover that several consecutive results from your search engine all produce pages that fail to load without scripts. Or other than a sacrifice of your ability to reply meaningfully to an e-mail message containing a link that a friend shared with you but which fails to load without scripts.
Why I should have a... paint-like "webapp"?
Because you're using a computing platform to which the native version of the online whiteboard has not yet been ported.
In the other hand, [autistic people are] less likely to obsess over or even care what others think of them.
Unless they're trained to care, such as by school personnel or by employers.
How does your system determine whether a newly seen URI is that of an ad?
Probably because autistics are more likely to accidentally offend somebody, in turn because they find it more difficult to pick up social rules that aren't explicitly taught.
Did you mean a Juris Doctor? A juvenile delinquent? Or a Juris Doctor retained by a juvenile delinquent?
That's about as much of a grievance as a Game of Thrones fan complaining that "Dothraki" isn't in a spell checker's dictionary. If you'll be making references to holidays invented by the writers of Seinfeld, you could just add it to the personal dictionary instead of your list of grudges. If you do choose to hold a grudge, make it against the trademark and copyright laws that discourage addition of well-known elements from popular non-free media franchises to spell checking software in the first place.
If a website allows scripts to be placed on their pages from unknown parties without even looking at the scripts, then it's going to invite malware.
I trust Yahoo.com to not write malware on their own pages
Implicit in this is a policy of rejecting scripts and the like that are hotlinked from a different website. But how would a browser determine whether a request belongs to "a different website"? You can't just go by whether the public suffix matches, especially when a site serves its own static resources from its CDN on a different, cookieless domain.
"FaceYelp" was predicted by Randall Marsh of Cracked.com in 2012. Cracked.com later ran an entire Photoplasty contest of online customer reviews for people.
The downside is that it would make life very hard for people on the autistic spectrum in a world of people who don't understand the autistic spectrum.
You claim that "no SWF objects and no Java applets" is insufficient. In your opinion, what policy short of disconnecting from the Internet is sufficient to block malicious software and why?
Is this all merely about how it recently got a little easier for iOS users?
I'm pretty sure that the recent release of iOS was the catalyst for this media attention.
Whether the ad exists or not, you pay the same phone+internet monthly bill unless you're a heavy user who uses up every last byte of monthly capacity.
A lot of people whose only available home ISPs are cellular or satellite end up being that type of user.
Make ads text-based or vector-graphics based or something else that uses less bandwidth.
Except that the demise of Flash Player, which doesn't work on recent Android and has never worked on iOS, has driven advertisers to pre-render their SWF vector graphics ads to video, which uses more bandwidth.
What about just blocking ads while using a metered service such as data?
Because some people have metered service at home. In rural areas and parts of Seattle, the only ISPs faster than the 128 kbps of ISDN are cellular and satellite, which are metered.
animated ads are automatically objectionable
They are objectionable yet so common that avoiding them takes sacrifice. How do you configure a web search engine to filter sites using animated ads or requiring script to view the entire page out of results so that you don't end up wasting time visiting eight sites in a row only to have to click the back button?
After I buy a product, I see ads for it. That's a complete waste of time and bandwidth.
How is it "a complete waste of time and bandwidth" to attempt to convince you to buy more for your friends and family, or to buy replacements for a consumable item such as food or printer paper?
Which is why you unblock what actually makes the site function while cutting out all the pointless junk it tries to load alongside it
Until "what makes the site function" crashes because it raises an exception when querying "the pointless junk". This has happened with an HTML5 Pac-Man game that someone recommended to me in a comment to a story about the demise of Flash. Normally I use the tracking protection that Firefox exposes through about:config, and I had to click the back button because the error console showed a ReferenceError: _gaq is not defined when the site failed to properly catch the failure to load Google Analytics. This caused me to feel embarrassed to myself when I couldn't offer my opinion on it.