He's had health problems for years (Wikipedia says 2004ish).
He's had health problems for 2004 years?!
;-P
On a serious note, what does someone have to do to have immunity from criticism? Even if something someone has done is great, that doesn't mean their other (more recent) actions shouldn't be open to criticism, if it is warrented. Or does it depend on the type of criticism?
If instead of preventing the drunk driver from starting the car at all, what if the car would start but be limited to 5MPH? That would allow for simple maneuvers similar to what you described, and if someone did try to then drive somewhere, it would be at a significantly less dangerous speed than if there was no limiting factor.
For everyone who loves the toll collectors, I bet there are hundreds who hate them.
Why? What have they done. Or is it because they are the minions of the people who put the rules in place? In that case, is it OK to hate the military people for doing the same?
Because then I am confused, because I admire what they do but hat why they do it.
I don't drive (or live in the USA), but I would assume its less what they've done and more the simple fact that they are the person who is there preventing them from getting to work/home/other faster because they have to stop and wait. It is the toll collector who is slowing down their journey (or it may be perceived that way). I wont try to think of an example of a soldier's action that you would dislike them for doing for risk of hyperbole.
TL;DR: I doubt its personal, its just they're the one who is there doing it (like how people get annoyed at someone in a call centre).
Do notice that they -didn't censor anything! All they did is hide certain terms from the auto-complete
Wouldn't that be/partial/ censoring?
Yup, removing terms from auto-complete and instant search, a feature most people on slashdot seemed to be completly against and wanted disabling as soon as possible, would count as partial censoring. But if slashdotters have disabled the functionality they would see little difference.
I did this once as part of the 'download all your info from facebook' thing they have, and was shown about 4 or 5 photos at once (the first one I didn't know who it was as it was someone face down I think, but the other photos were all of the same person so I deducted that I was going to be shown 5 photos which all contain the same person and I had to decide who was common to all photos).
The "social login" is going to cause issues for people who have no idea what their "friends" look like. Or with friends with other subjects in their pictures.
Regarding the 'other subjects in the pictuers' aspect, I uploaded some photos a little while back and part of the process suggested a number of areas of the photos it had recognised as a face asking if I wanted to tag someone. I would assume they may be using somehing similar here (i.e. only show a photo if their face recognition notices there is a face there). It would also be sensible if they didn't show photos that had over a certain number of people tagged in it (for example, old class photos with 30 people in it could be a large number of people on your friends list). I guess in theory it would be best to only use photos that have only one person tagged in it to reduce mistaking it for someone else (if all the photos shown are of two people and you have them both on your list, which do you choose as correct?)
Of course, social login won't last long when they realize most of their users can't ID most of the people in their "friend" list.
I may have used this or an early version of it (I saw the option to 'download all your Facebook information' and that was a requirement to check you were definatly the account holder). There was the option to 'Skip' users you weren't sure about (would also help for people tagged in random pictures that don't actually have them in it at all), but it was a limited number. That won't help too much if people only know about 100 of the 4000 people they've added of course, depends on the ratio of known people and random unknown people.
You didn't say which browser you are using. The article states that the facebook/twitter detects don't work in IE or Opera.
They didn't work in Firefox for me. Had to disable AdBlock and the Facebook one still didn't work (but thats blocked at work). Twitter worked after disabling ad block though even though I've not been on it today.
You missed the point where he was targeting porn fileshareres, so presumably he was attempting to target people who would settle rather than go in to court to explain why they downloaded "Daddy's Little Girl #6" from a Torrent.
I don't think they were targeting porn file sharers exclusively. Also some music files (I can't remember what at the moment though).
You only have to pay money to the BBC for a TV licence, and no one's forcing you to do that.
You can't be fucking serious, as someone who owns a TV only for playing video-games I can tell you this isn't true. I think paying the bastards for something you technically don't use or being taken to court and fined a grand or more is a close to being forced as you can get short of them holding a loaded gun to your head. Especially when you can barley afford the license and you certainly can't afford the fucking fine.
Hmmm
That is incorrect, as long as you do not receive or record broadcast transmissions using that television (or any other device in that household) then you do not have to purchase a license for it. The bbc even has a form you can complete to inform them of that fact. I informed the bbc of the fact that I only have my tv hooked up to a games console years ago, every few years (3 I believe), they send me a new form....
I can confirm this. When I first went to Uni (5 and a half years ago now...) in the UK I checked on the TV licenseing website. Their FAQ said "you don't need a license if you dont watch anything". I only wanted to play on the PS2 occasionally and didn't even have an arial so was fine.
A year or so ago we had the TV licensing people look around the house (we had no license and hadn't informed them we weren't watching anything). When looking in my room they asked about the TV in the corner that had an old VCR taped to it, to which I replied I only used it for videos and the games console. They were fine about it and went their way. Didn't hear from them again.
There has to be some reasonable solution that would let you correct stupid mistakes without being too revisionist.
You mean like previewing a comment before submitting it? Case in point, I seemed to have messed up the end quote tag in this comment, noticed it in the preview, so went back to correct before actually submitting (which I will do so now so long as I don't see any other errors)
"We would like to offer you a job -- were it not for the fact that your morals are clearly not compatible with ours or our customers."
Are these the same moral that allow Lush to charge premium prices for what is essential home made soap.
I think its mostly hand made. Surprisingly human workers cost more than machines.
Besides, most things of a 'premium' brand will have a large mark-up. I've heard that for trainers (sneakers? Is that the American term?) they don't get much better in quality past the £50 point, but companies still have ones that cost over twice that because if they didn't someone else would sell them for that much, and people would buy them (percieved high quality from spending more)
Someone thought that slashdotting the site would help more...
The site is mainly text with a couple of images. No adverts (I don't think). More likely to stand up to a large influx of visitors compared to a site that is half flashy adverts, due to transferring less data.
Why were these teenagers hacking the Lush website anyway? Are they some sort of evil company that needs to be destroyed?
I wouldn't really call them evil. They notified all their online customers that their details may have been compromised and to take precautions (my girlfriend was one of them), as opposed to keeping it quiet, not telling anyone, and hope everything blows over.
My girlfriends often tells me how ethical they are as a company, they stopped using plastic packaging for their products wherever possible, and allow customers to return empty pots back to them for a discount on their next purchase (and they then re-use the pots). As its a cosmetic retailer, the only evil thing they do in my eyes is having all their strongly smelling soaps, bath bombs and other products out on display, so when I get dragged in with my girlfriend there's a wall of flowery smells to mess up with my breathing. Most girls don't seem to mind it though.
1. Get an external hard drive. I'm sure there are many comments available for good solutions for this
2. Get some of those digital photo frames, load up some SD cards/USB sticks and keep them around the house. You could have one photo frame for one holiday, another frame for a special birthday or other event, etc.
This way, you have your main back up in the form of a hard drive somewhere, and a visual back-up/reminder of the events for which you took photos for/of to remember.
Flaw #2 concerns me more. It is (one of) the same problem(s) as with most DRM - what happens when this key server goes poof? Now all your images are unreadable.
So long as they hang around for more than a few months, that's not a flaw, its a feature!
I can't see it being that much of a problem, it just means its not available online, assuming the user has the original (or a back up) on their computer/phone/etc. so can be re-uploaded if necessary. And if they don't have a back up, worse that will happen is their picture gets removed from internet viewing a bit earlier than they expected, but they were planning on having it removed anyway
The "killer feature" of Firefox, at least for me, is Live Bookmarks. I subscribe to nearly a hundred webcomics, and Live Bookmarks is my favorite way to read them. I've tried other systems, but they just don't feel right.
I have about 30ish webcomics I read daily. I have them in a Bookmark folder called 'Webcomics'. In Firefox and Chrome I can click on the Bookmarks menu, and middle click on the Webcomics folder. This opens each bookmark in a separate tab. As I only check once a day, and I don't think any of the comics I read update more than once a day, it works for me, although I did sort it so the first two of three are from sites with a minimal page load (xkcd and irregularwebcomic), so I can read those while the other pages are loading. After having a certain number together in the folder, I am prompted "Are you sure you want to open so many tabs?" whenever I do it.
Its a standard OS feature I thought (maybe not OS but it works in most things that use text). Double click some text selects the word you double clicked. Triple click selects the entire paragraph (between line breaks I suspect). In a text input field, there is only one line so that is everything that will be selected.
Unfortunatly, due to the long time taken before catching on, I would consider adding:
4. Habit
People in general don't like to change how they do things (this applies to lots of things, not just music and computers), if someone is used to getting stuff off bittorrect, they probably know how to do it quick and efficiently, knowing where to search and what for, etc. and would be resistant to any new "Now you can go to this site instead and do these different things to get the same file"
How about letting people download encrypted TV shows in advance to computers, with commercials, and then releasing the key at the moment the show airs?
I think you can do that with the BBC iPlayer Desktop in the UK (without adverts). Slight downside with the BBC iPlayer is that it only stays on your system for a week or so after you've watched it before getting deleted.
Slashdot Mirror
He's had health problems for years (Wikipedia says 2004ish).
He's had health problems for 2004 years?!
;-P
On a serious note, what does someone have to do to have immunity from criticism? Even if something someone has done is great, that doesn't mean their other (more recent) actions shouldn't be open to criticism, if it is warrented. Or does it depend on the type of criticism?
Microsoft is going to patent hesitation
Google would have got in first but didn't want to rush it.
Maybe they should patent procrastination.
If instead of preventing the drunk driver from starting the car at all, what if the car would start but be limited to 5MPH? That would allow for simple maneuvers similar to what you described, and if someone did try to then drive somewhere, it would be at a significantly less dangerous speed than if there was no limiting factor.
The distinction between the two is artificial at best.
Indeed. I think the term 'computer' originally meant "someone who computes" and there were rooms of people doing mathmatical calculations.
Why? What have they done. Or is it because they are the minions of the people who put the rules in place? In that case, is it OK to hate the military people for doing the same?
Because then I am confused, because I admire what they do but hat why they do it.
I don't drive (or live in the USA), but I would assume its less what they've done and more the simple fact that they are the person who is there preventing them from getting to work/home/other faster because they have to stop and wait. It is the toll collector who is slowing down their journey (or it may be perceived that way). I wont try to think of an example of a soldier's action that you would dislike them for doing for risk of hyperbole.
TL;DR: I doubt its personal, its just they're the one who is there doing it (like how people get annoyed at someone in a call centre).
It is very hard to stuff a cat back into a cat carrier. It is even harder to stuff a cat back into a bag.
I guess it depends on whether or not you want to keep the cat alive. ;-)
Spent some time with Schrödinger, have you?
Do notice that they -didn't censor anything! All they did is hide certain terms from the auto-complete
Wouldn't that be /partial/ censoring?
Yup, removing terms from auto-complete and instant search, a feature most people on slashdot seemed to be completly against and wanted disabling as soon as possible, would count as partial censoring. But if slashdotters have disabled the functionality they would see little difference.
I did this once as part of the 'download all your info from facebook' thing they have, and was shown about 4 or 5 photos at once (the first one I didn't know who it was as it was someone face down I think, but the other photos were all of the same person so I deducted that I was going to be shown 5 photos which all contain the same person and I had to decide who was common to all photos).
The "social login" is going to cause issues for people who have no idea what their "friends" look like. Or with friends with other subjects in their pictures.
Regarding the 'other subjects in the pictuers' aspect, I uploaded some photos a little while back and part of the process suggested a number of areas of the photos it had recognised as a face asking if I wanted to tag someone. I would assume they may be using somehing similar here (i.e. only show a photo if their face recognition notices there is a face there). It would also be sensible if they didn't show photos that had over a certain number of people tagged in it (for example, old class photos with 30 people in it could be a large number of people on your friends list). I guess in theory it would be best to only use photos that have only one person tagged in it to reduce mistaking it for someone else (if all the photos shown are of two people and you have them both on your list, which do you choose as correct?)
Of course, social login won't last long when they realize most of their users can't ID most of the people in their "friend" list.
I may have used this or an early version of it (I saw the option to 'download all your Facebook information' and that was a requirement to check you were definatly the account holder). There was the option to 'Skip' users you weren't sure about (would also help for people tagged in random pictures that don't actually have them in it at all), but it was a limited number. That won't help too much if people only know about 100 of the 4000 people they've added of course, depends on the ratio of known people and random unknown people.
I like your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I subscribe to the newsletter, it doesn't come out very often. Something about "writer's block" apparently.
You didn't say which browser you are using. The article states that the facebook/twitter detects don't work in IE or Opera.
They didn't work in Firefox for me. Had to disable AdBlock and the Facebook one still didn't work (but thats blocked at work). Twitter worked after disabling ad block though even though I've not been on it today.
You missed the point where he was targeting porn fileshareres, so presumably he was attempting to target people who would settle rather than go in to court to explain why they downloaded "Daddy's Little Girl #6" from a Torrent.
I don't think they were targeting porn file sharers exclusively. Also some music files (I can't remember what at the moment though).
(/. changes to a brightly colored colored theme moderated by llamas)
I thought the "OMG! PONIES!" theme was only on an April Fools day...
You only have to pay money to the BBC for a TV licence, and no one's forcing you to do that.
You can't be fucking serious, as someone who owns a TV only for playing video-games I can tell you this isn't true. I think paying the bastards for something you technically don't use or being taken to court and fined a grand or more is a close to being forced as you can get short of them holding a loaded gun to your head. Especially when you can barley afford the license and you certainly can't afford the fucking fine.
Hmmm
That is incorrect, as long as you do not receive or record broadcast transmissions using that television (or any other device in that household) then you do not have to purchase a license for it. The bbc even has a form you can complete to inform them of that fact. I informed the bbc of the fact that I only have my tv hooked up to a games console years ago, every few years (3 I believe), they send me a new form....
I can confirm this. When I first went to Uni (5 and a half years ago now...) in the UK I checked on the TV licenseing website. Their FAQ said "you don't need a license if you dont watch anything". I only wanted to play on the PS2 occasionally and didn't even have an arial so was fine.
A year or so ago we had the TV licensing people look around the house (we had no license and hadn't informed them we weren't watching anything). When looking in my room they asked about the TV in the corner that had an old VCR taped to it, to which I replied I only used it for videos and the games console. They were fine about it and went their way. Didn't hear from them again.
There has to be some reasonable solution that would let you correct stupid mistakes without being too revisionist.
You mean like previewing a comment before submitting it? Case in point, I seemed to have messed up the end quote tag in this comment, noticed it in the preview, so went back to correct before actually submitting (which I will do so now so long as I don't see any other errors)
"We would like to offer you a job -- were it not for the fact that your morals are clearly not compatible with ours or our customers."
Are these the same moral that allow Lush to charge premium prices for what is essential home made soap.
I think its mostly hand made. Surprisingly human workers cost more than machines.
Besides, most things of a 'premium' brand will have a large mark-up. I've heard that for trainers (sneakers? Is that the American term?) they don't get much better in quality past the £50 point, but companies still have ones that cost over twice that because if they didn't someone else would sell them for that much, and people would buy them (percieved high quality from spending more)
Someone thought that slashdotting the site would help more...
The site is mainly text with a couple of images. No adverts (I don't think). More likely to stand up to a large influx of visitors compared to a site that is half flashy adverts, due to transferring less data.
Why were these teenagers hacking the Lush website anyway? Are they some sort of evil company that needs to be destroyed?
I wouldn't really call them evil. They notified all their online customers that their details may have been compromised and to take precautions (my girlfriend was one of them), as opposed to keeping it quiet, not telling anyone, and hope everything blows over.
My girlfriends often tells me how ethical they are as a company, they stopped using plastic packaging for their products wherever possible, and allow customers to return empty pots back to them for a discount on their next purchase (and they then re-use the pots). As its a cosmetic retailer, the only evil thing they do in my eyes is having all their strongly smelling soaps, bath bombs and other products out on display, so when I get dragged in with my girlfriend there's a wall of flowery smells to mess up with my breathing. Most girls don't seem to mind it though.
1. Get an external hard drive. I'm sure there are many comments available for good solutions for this
2. Get some of those digital photo frames, load up some SD cards/USB sticks and keep them around the house. You could have one photo frame for one holiday, another frame for a special birthday or other event, etc.
This way, you have your main back up in the form of a hard drive somewhere, and a visual back-up/reminder of the events for which you took photos for/of to remember.
Flaw #2 concerns me more. It is (one of) the same problem(s) as with most DRM - what happens when this key server goes poof? Now all your images are unreadable.
So long as they hang around for more than a few months, that's not a flaw, its a feature!
I can't see it being that much of a problem, it just means its not available online, assuming the user has the original (or a back up) on their computer/phone/etc. so can be re-uploaded if necessary. And if they don't have a back up, worse that will happen is their picture gets removed from internet viewing a bit earlier than they expected, but they were planning on having it removed anyway
The "killer feature" of Firefox, at least for me, is Live Bookmarks. I subscribe to nearly a hundred webcomics, and Live Bookmarks is my favorite way to read them. I've tried other systems, but they just don't feel right.
I have about 30ish webcomics I read daily. I have them in a Bookmark folder called 'Webcomics'. In Firefox and Chrome I can click on the Bookmarks menu, and middle click on the Webcomics folder. This opens each bookmark in a separate tab. As I only check once a day, and I don't think any of the comics I read update more than once a day, it works for me, although I did sort it so the first two of three are from sites with a minimal page load (xkcd and irregularwebcomic), so I can read those while the other pages are loading. After having a certain number together in the folder, I am prompted "Are you sure you want to open so many tabs?" whenever I do it.
Its a standard OS feature I thought (maybe not OS but it works in most things that use text). Double click some text selects the word you double clicked. Triple click selects the entire paragraph (between line breaks I suspect). In a text input field, there is only one line so that is everything that will be selected.
I was thinking pretty much that. There would be no "piracy concern" today if they caught on a long, long time ago.
What makes people copyright infringers? Now, there are three reasons:
1. Price.
2. Availability
3. "Because it's possible".
Unfortunatly, due to the long time taken before catching on, I would consider adding:
4. Habit
People in general don't like to change how they do things (this applies to lots of things, not just music and computers), if someone is used to getting stuff off bittorrect, they probably know how to do it quick and efficiently, knowing where to search and what for, etc. and would be resistant to any new "Now you can go to this site instead and do these different things to get the same file"
How about letting people download encrypted TV shows in advance to computers, with commercials, and then releasing the key at the moment the show airs?
I think you can do that with the BBC iPlayer Desktop in the UK (without adverts). Slight downside with the BBC iPlayer is that it only stays on your system for a week or so after you've watched it before getting deleted.