You have -R and -L mixed up. -L [local port]:[host]:[remote port] makes the local machine listen on [local port], and tunnel all communications to originate from the SSH server destined for [host]:[remote port]. -R [port]:[host]:[host port] makes the SSH server listen on [port] and tunnel any communications to [host]:[host port], originating from your ssh client.
Also, instead of many -L -L -L phrases, try out -D [port], then set local software to use [port] as a socks proxy.
If you're running Linux (and OSX if you do some work), you can even use tSocks to automatically tunnel some or all software through a socks proxy without that software even knowing its being tunneled.
An old job I was at blocked most Internet communications, but permitted outbound SSH. SSH -D 1080 + tsocks loaded in/etc/ld.preload = a system which automatically tunneled all non-local (192.168.0.0/16, 10.0.0.0/8) traffic through the SSH client.
I don't know whether keyloggers like this exist, but unless you physically toggled the power, you may have only thought you rebooted the system. Even still it's possible a false BIOS was installed which lies about the boot order, with a hypervisor booted off a small partition which runs your live CD inside a VM.
But anyway: Hardware-based keyloggers. Even if you check the keyboard cable, it could still be installed inside the case - a lot of USB ports aren't soldered to mainboard. Or it could even be installed in the keyboard itself.
In short, if you want to be super paranoid, you have to assume that any keystroke you make will be captured.
Maybe a system involving single-use SSH keys would be feasible. I'm surprised there isn't some sort of RSA token solution for personal use.
The laws have changed in recent years, I think you can now deduct the price of a computer and its software at the time it's purchased, though I'm not certain about that.
But for sure in the past you could amortize the cost of the purchase over three years, which acknowledges that computers become obsolete (according to the IRS, at a rate of once every three years, individual uses of computers obviously vary - game developers need new computers more often, administrative assistants less often).
Huh? What's that got to do with the subject at hand?
I also voted for Bush â" twice
That you're apparently proud of voting twice for the man who doesn't believe the constitution and other founding principles of this country should apply to him puts you so far in the right wing that you're, well, at least in the 22% minority who still believe Bush is doing an adequate job. It's too bad that in 2004, our choices were between Republican Bush (George "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far" Bush) and Democrat Bush (John "I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough" Kerry). I wrote in Nader (who was off the ballot in my state), not because I actually wanted Nader in office, but because best the way for me to spend my vote was to do so reinforcing the idea of a two-party system being too limited. There was no candidate running who I felt would do what was necessary in office. In 2008, I do, and I think he's in jeopardy because of the Clinton mongering machine.
[RE: worst presidency to date.] Only in jest they are â" and only the most partisan Lefties among them.
Well, a university-sponsored study finds differently (but maybe you missed it). Modern historians are saying Bush's presidency was worse than Truman's, and the Vietnam fiasco can't really be attributed to a single presidency - Eisenhower, Kenedy, Johnson, and Nixon each had their part to play in this, whereas if the whole of our direct involvement in Vietnam had fallen under a single president, you might be right about the result of the above study coming out differently.
[RE: Apathy] No, only you, dear. Only you and your band of fellow Illiberals[sic, or ad hominem]...
So every American who doesn't vote Republican sucks and is apathetic? I see it the other way around - the majority of people who still openly support Bush are apathetic - they can't be bothered to concern themselves with looking into the facts involved in the situation, and instead are sticking with what they know. Frankly it's the same reason most Hillary supporters are in that camp - they don't look past "Bush sucks, Clinton by comparison didn't, Hillary 2008."
It's unfortunate, your comments reinforce your comment's grandparent's stereotype. You're the stereotype he carries, and it's that same stereotype which has gone so far to spend America's good will these last 8 years. Well, let me state, in case FatSean reads this, that's the minority in the US. Some of us believe in change.
Based on the tense of your sentence, I can assume you're not American yourself. Therefore I'll engage in a little uninsightful, inaccurate stereotyping and trolling myself: Foreigners assume all Americans are idiots, sheep, and agree with all government actions.
In reality: George Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president in American history, ever. Historians are saying his presidency will be remembered as the worst presidency to date.
Very few Americans would agree that the war in Iraq was the right thing. Most of us agree though that it would be irresponsible to just yank our troops out at this point, we need to stay around at least long enough to mitigate the damage done at this point.
Most Americans are of the mindset that Bush and many in the current administration should be indicted for war crimes for the likes of Gitmo, water boarding, and numerous violations of constitutionally protected rights both against enemies of the state as well as US citizens.
"You voted him back in office," you may say. Well, this was four years ago, we don't know much of what we know today. This was also during a time of war - America has never changed presidents during a time of war. Bush wasn't voted back into office because people agreed with him, he was voted back in office because people were afraid. Many people state they wanted him out of office, but voted for him because they were afraid of what would happen if they didn't. Even still he barely won.
"You should rise up in rebellion against the government," you may say. This is not an impossible outcome, but people in America believe in the process we have set up. Overthrowing a long-stable government has many consequences which outlast the one or two years of governmental change it evokes. Assuming we started a full-scale rebellion four years ago, it's unlikely the rebellion would yet be successful, but even assuming really massive support throughout the country, best case scenario we could assume two years ago we'd have won, so we're looking at discarding two centuries worth of progress to save two years of tyranny. It wouldn't be that successful though, as too many people believe too strongly in what America stands for, even if right now it's managed to find its way into the crapper.
As to those other consequences: consider right now people in foreign countries are up in arms because America is converting some of its crop land into ethanol production, which has repercussions on world food supply. Do you think we're going to be exporting food during civil war? Consider that if America pulled all its troops out of Iraq tomorrow, the country would be in a worse state than it ever has. Do you think a government under attack would continue to maintain troops on foreign soil? No, they'd be pulled out and used on US soil.
So what are Americans dissatisfied with the current administration to do? Engage in the democratic process. Why do you think Barack Obama is so well regarded? He's got ideas for change, he proposes change, and people love it. The only reason Clinton - the hate mongering, mud slinging, lying, lobbyist-money-taking, wish-washy candidate that she is - does as well against him is simply because our news media does too poor of a job covering real political issues (see recent ABC debate) and instead focuses on unimportant things like, "Do you believe in the American flag," (do I believe it exists? Sure), "Do you think Jeremiah Wright is more or less patriotic than you," "Do you think your rival candidate has a chance to win." This leaves too many people without any real sense of what the issues are, or where the politicians stand on issues. They've learned to (apparently foolishly) depend on the media to expose relevant issues. So in the absence of any real issues to concern themselves with, they focus on things like, "Her husband was better than bush, so she's probably good too."
The current elections getting ready for this November are, I believe, the single most important electio
It's been a couple of years since I looked at it, and it may be that the license has changed, but all the guys involved in the project I was working on agreed that the clause we discovered was fatal.
It may have something to do with the termination clause coupled with the sharing clause.
Termination: Wizards or its designated agents may terminate this agreement at any time by notice to you via email or surface mail. If this agreement is terminated, you agree to remove any electronic versions of this conversion under your control from distribution, and to destroy any printed versions of this conversion in your possession immediately. Once terminated, your right to continue to use the trademarks and Product Identity outlined in this Agreement terminate as well.
They can revoke your license to use it at any time for any reason, while retaining their right to use what you produced. I'd say two apparently unrelated clauses which open an attack avenue such as this qualifies as "buried."
I haven't read the details of this new license, but if it's anything like the license for D20, then it's not free at all, it only looks like it's free. Let me explain.
A project I was working on some months back was game-related, and we figured we'd use the D20 system because if someone is going to know how to make a compelling game engine, it's going to be the makers of Dungeons & Dragons.
So we researched the license for D20, were really excited for a while, but eventually found a sentence or two buried deeply in the license which brought us to a screeching halt.
D20 allows you to use the game rules defined by the D20 engine for pretty much any purpose you want, royalty free; I think with some attribution clauses or the like. You never have to pay WotC a dime.
However that one little clause deep in the license basically grants WotC the right to choose to seize the exclusive rights to anything you produced surrounding the D20 system. It grants them full and unrestricted access to all source materials, and it grants them the right to resell and distribute the goods produced from it. Further, it grants them the right to revoke the license from you, barring you from further use.
Essentially the system is open and free for as long as you don't turn into a juicy target for WotC, who reserves the right to take whatever you produced away from you and sell it themselves, and keep you from selling or even using it any longer.
When you have a litigatious-happy company like WotC offering an olive branch, you must watch out for any poison-tipped thorns contained in it, and at least for D20, there is one, and it is deadly.
No, it's my point which remains. There's nothing you can do to absolutely guarantee you never get your computer infected other than never connecting it to a network and never installing any software on it, and also never buying any peripherals for it.
External hard drives sometimes come preloaded with malware, one of the guys in your office might have sent you an infected attachment which he thought was clean, and sometimes you're bitten by a zero-day exploit for which there's no patch, and which requires no action on your part to exploit.
Windows is a bigger install base, so it's going to have more exploits in the wild against it than other OS's. As long as this remains true, and as long as programmers remain fallible, Windows will need more attention than other OS's. Note, I'm not making a value judgment about code quality or number of vulnerabilities. Windows is a juicier target, so there's going to be more effort made to exploit it.
Nope, I agree that this should be treated as if it was a new photo taken and displayed in a public gallery.
If they were trespassing or taking photos of things which they are not entitled to photograph, then they should make repercussions in accordance.
However, if what they were photographing is visible from space considered public (and in the absence of obvious signs and/or barriers to the contrary), then it is permissible both to photograph it and to display that photograph publicly as long as the intent is not wholesale reproduction of a copyrighted work. Their use is clearly derivative, so that's not the case.
In a followup article we see that a neighbor had the van drive down their driveway right up to their house. It does seem as if the drivers of the Google van were overstepping their bounds. Even still that's not necessarily illegal.
It's worth noting that the Compiz offers a plugin called Color Filter, which enables you to convert your whole screen to green on black in real time (among other themes).
CRT pixels do not line up precisely with their r, g, and b light emission points, at least on most CRTs. If you look at a single white pixel on a field of black through a lupe, you'll see it's composed of a number of red, green, and blue dots, not one dot for each color. Look at a different pixel, and the exact pattern will be different (shifted a little).
They use a couple of electromagnetic coils in the rear of the tube to guide an electron beam to the right point on the CRT's surface, but it is not so precise on most models (though maybe some really high end stuff for scientific work) as to be able to exactly hit specific phosphorescent spots.
This is why sub-pixel rendering works on LCDs but not CRTs (which turn on and off [or shade] specific color points digitally), because we know the exact shape and color layout of each pixel.
Red, being the longest wavelength of visible light (that lines up with a color receptor), carries farther especially in foggy, snowy, rainy, or other inclement conditions. This is why stop lights, stop signs, and tail lights are all red.
Blue, being the shortest wavelength of visible light (that lines up with a color receptor), is seen more vividly and in greater detail than other colors. "Ultra white" paper is actually tinted blue because of this, and many whitening laundry soaps are reactive on ultraviolet (which tickles the blue receptors without being visibly blue).
If you use a color calibration sensor, such as professional printers use, you will find that paper which is truly white in the scientific sense (equal strength responsiveness across the spectrum) seems kind of yellowish and bland compared to this ultra white stuff with it's big blue and ultraviolet spike.
I think this is why police lights are red and blue, red to carry in inclement conditions, blue to get your attention.
The same is true of conventional bricks such as are used to build buildings, though you might also have to rearrange some of the protons inside the atoms.
You do know that major trustworthy websites such as Kelly's Blue Book have served malware-infected advertisements and otherwise been compromised such that simply viewing the page in IE would get you infected, right?
User operations which are supposed to be safe are not necessarily.
Ok, so now you have his computer squared away, but 75 other computers are now infected. Also maybe he clicked it at home, and brought his laptop in already infected.
Except that Google has no obligation to honor those requests, while you do have a legal obligation to honor the dent in my car. Your analogy assumes Google did something wrong in the first place, which they did not necessarily (though it's possible if they were knowingly trespassing when the photos were taken, otherwise they are completely within their rights, and any offer to remove an image is done at their choice).
This was called a private road, not a private driveway. Driveways are assumed to be private, and roads are assumed to be public. If you wish to have one of these constructs which doesn't act this way, then it's up to you to make it obvious enough that it cannot be mistaken otherwise. Posting a 4"x12" placard to the side doesn't count, putting an automatic gate with a keypad in front of it does.
The article doesn't go into the details of how the road was marked. I'm saying, if the owners posted a placard, this is not enough given that it's called a road. Roads are assumed public. If the owners put up a gate, and Google's van tailgated someone else through the gate, then they have a case.
You're right, $25,000 probably will only cover legal fees, and you're right, they're probably mostly trying to send a message, but in the absence of further details, I can say that I find it unlikely the people driving the Google van cared enough to try to circumvent obvious privacy protections, and it's more likely that they failed to notice a sign to the side.
As a side note, I was once hollared at when lost in a suburb - I'd turned down a street that apparently was posted as private. Not that I cared that much about being yelled at, but the "posting" was as I described, a 4"x12" bronze-on-brown placard placed in a garden at the entrance (where you'd typically expect it to be the name of the organization which owns the garden, or perhaps a placard memorializing something for which the garden was planted).
In the absence of laws to the contrary (and I am quite certain there are no laws to the contrary), yes. Very nearly all uses of photos taken in public places are fair game except where they fall afoul of other laws which are not photography specific. For example, defamation of character if for example you posted a photo of a political figure walking past a strip club with the intent to imply he had been visiting that club (presuming this was damaging to him as a person in some way such as if he platformed on morality). Likewise, photographing copyrighted works with the intent to reproduce the work (ie, without it being a derivative artistic work, but a wholesale reproduction).
Fair use of photography is pretty broad. It basically comes down to this: you cannot fall afoul laws not targeting photography. If you can see it from a public place, you can do almost anything you want with it. You are merely capturing and reproducing information which was freely made available (in a form where there can be no required license) to you.
Photography in the US is permitted in public places, and does not require permission in advance. From The Photographer's Bill of Rights:
The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.
Google is going above and beyond by offering to remove any objected photos, at their expense, and without the need to raise legal action.
Roads are considered public places. I don't know whether roads marked as private are considered public or not (it takes more than the posting of a sign to make something so), this probably depends on the municipality, and whether or not the road itself is actually private property (and as such they'd have to pay themselves for plowing and other maintenance). In that case, Google's mistake might have simply for their driver to have failed to notice the sign labeling it as private. In such a case, I think you'd have to prove Google knowingly and willingly chose to act in the face of knowledge that what they did was incorrect. Because this is such an unusual circumstance (very very few roads are private which don't have some sort of gate on the end) that the burden should be on the owners to protect themselves from unwitting violation of their atypical case.
Regardless, these people are exposing themselves to a serious Streisand Effect by trying to make such a public issue of the complaint. If instead they had emailed Google and requested the removal, Google would have quietly complied, and no one would have even noticed. Guaranteed, if they see other people looking at their home as a way to devalue it (which I cannot see), then any publicity they generate for themselves will be far more damaging than the mere existence of an image mixed in among millions of others.
Presumably in-game ads like this aren't going to measure performance by click rates, since clicking would take you out of the game. They may measure it by camera focus time (ie, if the ad occupies at least 25% of the screen for 10 or more seconds).
I echo the GP sentiment. If the game I enjoy is having financial trouble, my reading ads contributes to their ability to remain in business, which in turn contributes to my ability to continue to play. I would stay opted in for as long as the ads were not obnoxious. It would not take many annoying ads for me to opt out though, and if opting out was no longer an option, it would not take many annoying ads to make me cancel my subscription.
Even still very few people work either with large enough images or large enough quantity of images to really make use of 3 gig of ram.
64 bit support will be good for people designing billboards, 300 dpi posters, and for people who have a hundred files open at once, but honestly most users never get Photoshop's memory usage over 500 meg.
Certainly not web designers, and fairly unlikely print designers. Maybe stock photo companies who are going through hundreds of images, but even then they are probably using photo workflow software like Lightroom, and dropping into Photoshop only for periodic edits.
One other demographic I can see using this: photo restoration specialists - people who scan negatives or old photos at 4000 dpi on a drum scanner, then clean it up after. But more people are going to be more enamored by the idea of 64 bit than actually take real advantage of it.
I hear you on that. Further, it's happened a few times with the current administration already. People who make it public knowledge that there's a locked room in an AT&T backbone data center which a spliced fiber runs into, giving the government access to all data moving across that line, whether or not they have a right to access it, and without any sort of check or balance in place to make sure that they only access what they should.
But it should be noted that in light of the PATRIOT act, even revealing that a request was made is a crime of the magnitude which gets you disappeared. Whistleblower protection only applies if you are given due process, and even US citizens are no longer eligible for due process if a suit at the FBI/CIA/NSA uses the words, "national security," or, "terrorism."
I believe I read an article a few days ago which described that he cobbled together a new driver by combining parts of the Vista driver with parts of the XP driver. I can't recall where I read that now though, so I guess I'll just assume I dreamed it.
Slashdot Mirror
You have -R and -L mixed up. -L [local port]:[host]:[remote port] makes the local machine listen on [local port], and tunnel all communications to originate from the SSH server destined for [host]:[remote port]. -R [port]:[host]:[host port] makes the SSH server listen on [port] and tunnel any communications to [host]:[host port], originating from your ssh client.
/etc/ld.preload = a system which automatically tunneled all non-local (192.168.0.0/16, 10.0.0.0/8) traffic through the SSH client.
Also, instead of many -L -L -L phrases, try out -D [port], then set local software to use [port] as a socks proxy.
If you're running Linux (and OSX if you do some work), you can even use tSocks to automatically tunnel some or all software through a socks proxy without that software even knowing its being tunneled.
An old job I was at blocked most Internet communications, but permitted outbound SSH. SSH -D 1080 + tsocks loaded in
I don't know whether keyloggers like this exist, but unless you physically toggled the power, you may have only thought you rebooted the system. Even still it's possible a false BIOS was installed which lies about the boot order, with a hypervisor booted off a small partition which runs your live CD inside a VM.
But anyway: Hardware-based keyloggers. Even if you check the keyboard cable, it could still be installed inside the case - a lot of USB ports aren't soldered to mainboard. Or it could even be installed in the keyboard itself.
In short, if you want to be super paranoid, you have to assume that any keystroke you make will be captured.
Maybe a system involving single-use SSH keys would be feasible. I'm surprised there isn't some sort of RSA token solution for personal use.
The laws have changed in recent years, I think you can now deduct the price of a computer and its software at the time it's purchased, though I'm not certain about that.
But for sure in the past you could amortize the cost of the purchase over three years, which acknowledges that computers become obsolete (according to the IRS, at a rate of once every three years, individual uses of computers obviously vary - game developers need new computers more often, administrative assistants less often).
It's unfortunate, your comments reinforce your comment's grandparent's stereotype. You're the stereotype he carries, and it's that same stereotype which has gone so far to spend America's good will these last 8 years. Well, let me state, in case FatSean reads this, that's the minority in the US. Some of us believe in change.
Based on the tense of your sentence, I can assume you're not American yourself. Therefore I'll engage in a little uninsightful, inaccurate stereotyping and trolling myself: Foreigners assume all Americans are idiots, sheep, and agree with all government actions.
In reality: George Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president in American history, ever. Historians are saying his presidency will be remembered as the worst presidency to date.
Very few Americans would agree that the war in Iraq was the right thing. Most of us agree though that it would be irresponsible to just yank our troops out at this point, we need to stay around at least long enough to mitigate the damage done at this point.
Most Americans are of the mindset that Bush and many in the current administration should be indicted for war crimes for the likes of Gitmo, water boarding, and numerous violations of constitutionally protected rights both against enemies of the state as well as US citizens.
"You voted him back in office," you may say. Well, this was four years ago, we don't know much of what we know today. This was also during a time of war - America has never changed presidents during a time of war. Bush wasn't voted back into office because people agreed with him, he was voted back in office because people were afraid. Many people state they wanted him out of office, but voted for him because they were afraid of what would happen if they didn't. Even still he barely won.
"You should rise up in rebellion against the government," you may say. This is not an impossible outcome, but people in America believe in the process we have set up. Overthrowing a long-stable government has many consequences which outlast the one or two years of governmental change it evokes. Assuming we started a full-scale rebellion four years ago, it's unlikely the rebellion would yet be successful, but even assuming really massive support throughout the country, best case scenario we could assume two years ago we'd have won, so we're looking at discarding two centuries worth of progress to save two years of tyranny. It wouldn't be that successful though, as too many people believe too strongly in what America stands for, even if right now it's managed to find its way into the crapper.
As to those other consequences: consider right now people in foreign countries are up in arms because America is converting some of its crop land into ethanol production, which has repercussions on world food supply. Do you think we're going to be exporting food during civil war? Consider that if America pulled all its troops out of Iraq tomorrow, the country would be in a worse state than it ever has. Do you think a government under attack would continue to maintain troops on foreign soil? No, they'd be pulled out and used on US soil.
So what are Americans dissatisfied with the current administration to do? Engage in the democratic process. Why do you think Barack Obama is so well regarded? He's got ideas for change, he proposes change, and people love it. The only reason Clinton - the hate mongering, mud slinging, lying, lobbyist-money-taking, wish-washy candidate that she is - does as well against him is simply because our news media does too poor of a job covering real political issues (see recent ABC debate) and instead focuses on unimportant things like, "Do you believe in the American flag," (do I believe it exists? Sure), "Do you think Jeremiah Wright is more or less patriotic than you," "Do you think your rival candidate has a chance to win." This leaves too many people without any real sense of what the issues are, or where the politicians stand on issues. They've learned to (apparently foolishly) depend on the media to expose relevant issues. So in the absence of any real issues to concern themselves with, they focus on things like, "Her husband was better than bush, so she's probably good too."
The current elections getting ready for this November are, I believe, the single most important electio
I find it unlikely they'd accept your ad.
It may have something to do with the termination clause coupled with the sharing clause.
They can revoke your license to use it at any time for any reason, while retaining their right to use what you produced. I'd say two apparently unrelated clauses which open an attack avenue such as this qualifies as "buried."
I haven't read the details of this new license, but if it's anything like the license for D20, then it's not free at all, it only looks like it's free. Let me explain.
A project I was working on some months back was game-related, and we figured we'd use the D20 system because if someone is going to know how to make a compelling game engine, it's going to be the makers of Dungeons & Dragons.
So we researched the license for D20, were really excited for a while, but eventually found a sentence or two buried deeply in the license which brought us to a screeching halt.
D20 allows you to use the game rules defined by the D20 engine for pretty much any purpose you want, royalty free; I think with some attribution clauses or the like. You never have to pay WotC a dime.
However that one little clause deep in the license basically grants WotC the right to choose to seize the exclusive rights to anything you produced surrounding the D20 system. It grants them full and unrestricted access to all source materials, and it grants them the right to resell and distribute the goods produced from it. Further, it grants them the right to revoke the license from you, barring you from further use.
Essentially the system is open and free for as long as you don't turn into a juicy target for WotC, who reserves the right to take whatever you produced away from you and sell it themselves, and keep you from selling or even using it any longer.
When you have a litigatious-happy company like WotC offering an olive branch, you must watch out for any poison-tipped thorns contained in it, and at least for D20, there is one, and it is deadly.
No, it's my point which remains. There's nothing you can do to absolutely guarantee you never get your computer infected other than never connecting it to a network and never installing any software on it, and also never buying any peripherals for it.
External hard drives sometimes come preloaded with malware, one of the guys in your office might have sent you an infected attachment which he thought was clean, and sometimes you're bitten by a zero-day exploit for which there's no patch, and which requires no action on your part to exploit.
Windows is a bigger install base, so it's going to have more exploits in the wild against it than other OS's. As long as this remains true, and as long as programmers remain fallible, Windows will need more attention than other OS's. Note, I'm not making a value judgment about code quality or number of vulnerabilities. Windows is a juicier target, so there's going to be more effort made to exploit it.
Nope, I agree that this should be treated as if it was a new photo taken and displayed in a public gallery.
If they were trespassing or taking photos of things which they are not entitled to photograph, then they should make repercussions in accordance.
However, if what they were photographing is visible from space considered public (and in the absence of obvious signs and/or barriers to the contrary), then it is permissible both to photograph it and to display that photograph publicly as long as the intent is not wholesale reproduction of a copyrighted work. Their use is clearly derivative, so that's not the case.
In a followup article we see that a neighbor had the van drive down their driveway right up to their house. It does seem as if the drivers of the Google van were overstepping their bounds. Even still that's not necessarily illegal.
It's worth noting that the Compiz offers a plugin called Color Filter, which enables you to convert your whole screen to green on black in real time (among other themes).
CRT pixels do not line up precisely with their r, g, and b light emission points, at least on most CRTs. If you look at a single white pixel on a field of black through a lupe, you'll see it's composed of a number of red, green, and blue dots, not one dot for each color. Look at a different pixel, and the exact pattern will be different (shifted a little).
They use a couple of electromagnetic coils in the rear of the tube to guide an electron beam to the right point on the CRT's surface, but it is not so precise on most models (though maybe some really high end stuff for scientific work) as to be able to exactly hit specific phosphorescent spots.
This is why sub-pixel rendering works on LCDs but not CRTs (which turn on and off [or shade] specific color points digitally), because we know the exact shape and color layout of each pixel.
Red, being the longest wavelength of visible light (that lines up with a color receptor), carries farther especially in foggy, snowy, rainy, or other inclement conditions. This is why stop lights, stop signs, and tail lights are all red.
Blue, being the shortest wavelength of visible light (that lines up with a color receptor), is seen more vividly and in greater detail than other colors. "Ultra white" paper is actually tinted blue because of this, and many whitening laundry soaps are reactive on ultraviolet (which tickles the blue receptors without being visibly blue).
If you use a color calibration sensor, such as professional printers use, you will find that paper which is truly white in the scientific sense (equal strength responsiveness across the spectrum) seems kind of yellowish and bland compared to this ultra white stuff with it's big blue and ultraviolet spike.
I think this is why police lights are red and blue, red to carry in inclement conditions, blue to get your attention.
The same is true of conventional bricks such as are used to build buildings, though you might also have to rearrange some of the protons inside the atoms.
You do know that major trustworthy websites such as Kelly's Blue Book have served malware-infected advertisements and otherwise been compromised such that simply viewing the page in IE would get you infected, right?
User operations which are supposed to be safe are not necessarily.
Ok, so now you have his computer squared away, but 75 other computers are now infected. Also maybe he clicked it at home, and brought his laptop in already infected.
Except that Google has no obligation to honor those requests, while you do have a legal obligation to honor the dent in my car. Your analogy assumes Google did something wrong in the first place, which they did not necessarily (though it's possible if they were knowingly trespassing when the photos were taken, otherwise they are completely within their rights, and any offer to remove an image is done at their choice).
This was called a private road, not a private driveway. Driveways are assumed to be private, and roads are assumed to be public. If you wish to have one of these constructs which doesn't act this way, then it's up to you to make it obvious enough that it cannot be mistaken otherwise. Posting a 4"x12" placard to the side doesn't count, putting an automatic gate with a keypad in front of it does.
The article doesn't go into the details of how the road was marked. I'm saying, if the owners posted a placard, this is not enough given that it's called a road. Roads are assumed public. If the owners put up a gate, and Google's van tailgated someone else through the gate, then they have a case.
You're right, $25,000 probably will only cover legal fees, and you're right, they're probably mostly trying to send a message, but in the absence of further details, I can say that I find it unlikely the people driving the Google van cared enough to try to circumvent obvious privacy protections, and it's more likely that they failed to notice a sign to the side.
As a side note, I was once hollared at when lost in a suburb - I'd turned down a street that apparently was posted as private. Not that I cared that much about being yelled at, but the "posting" was as I described, a 4"x12" bronze-on-brown placard placed in a garden at the entrance (where you'd typically expect it to be the name of the organization which owns the garden, or perhaps a placard memorializing something for which the garden was planted).
In the absence of laws to the contrary (and I am quite certain there are no laws to the contrary), yes. Very nearly all uses of photos taken in public places are fair game except where they fall afoul of other laws which are not photography specific. For example, defamation of character if for example you posted a photo of a political figure walking past a strip club with the intent to imply he had been visiting that club (presuming this was damaging to him as a person in some way such as if he platformed on morality). Likewise, photographing copyrighted works with the intent to reproduce the work (ie, without it being a derivative artistic work, but a wholesale reproduction).
Fair use of photography is pretty broad. It basically comes down to this: you cannot fall afoul laws not targeting photography. If you can see it from a public place, you can do almost anything you want with it. You are merely capturing and reproducing information which was freely made available (in a form where there can be no required license) to you.
Roads are considered public places. I don't know whether roads marked as private are considered public or not (it takes more than the posting of a sign to make something so), this probably depends on the municipality, and whether or not the road itself is actually private property (and as such they'd have to pay themselves for plowing and other maintenance). In that case, Google's mistake might have simply for their driver to have failed to notice the sign labeling it as private. In such a case, I think you'd have to prove Google knowingly and willingly chose to act in the face of knowledge that what they did was incorrect. Because this is such an unusual circumstance (very very few roads are private which don't have some sort of gate on the end) that the burden should be on the owners to protect themselves from unwitting violation of their atypical case.
Regardless, these people are exposing themselves to a serious Streisand Effect by trying to make such a public issue of the complaint. If instead they had emailed Google and requested the removal, Google would have quietly complied, and no one would have even noticed. Guaranteed, if they see other people looking at their home as a way to devalue it (which I cannot see), then any publicity they generate for themselves will be far more damaging than the mere existence of an image mixed in among millions of others.
Presumably in-game ads like this aren't going to measure performance by click rates, since clicking would take you out of the game. They may measure it by camera focus time (ie, if the ad occupies at least 25% of the screen for 10 or more seconds).
I echo the GP sentiment. If the game I enjoy is having financial trouble, my reading ads contributes to their ability to remain in business, which in turn contributes to my ability to continue to play. I would stay opted in for as long as the ads were not obnoxious. It would not take many annoying ads for me to opt out though, and if opting out was no longer an option, it would not take many annoying ads to make me cancel my subscription.
Even still very few people work either with large enough images or large enough quantity of images to really make use of 3 gig of ram.
64 bit support will be good for people designing billboards, 300 dpi posters, and for people who have a hundred files open at once, but honestly most users never get Photoshop's memory usage over 500 meg.
Certainly not web designers, and fairly unlikely print designers. Maybe stock photo companies who are going through hundreds of images, but even then they are probably using photo workflow software like Lightroom, and dropping into Photoshop only for periodic edits.
One other demographic I can see using this: photo restoration specialists - people who scan negatives or old photos at 4000 dpi on a drum scanner, then clean it up after. But more people are going to be more enamored by the idea of 64 bit than actually take real advantage of it.
I hear you on that. Further, it's happened a few times with the current administration already. People who make it public knowledge that there's a locked room in an AT&T backbone data center which a spliced fiber runs into, giving the government access to all data moving across that line, whether or not they have a right to access it, and without any sort of check or balance in place to make sure that they only access what they should.
But it should be noted that in light of the PATRIOT act, even revealing that a request was made is a crime of the magnitude which gets you disappeared. Whistleblower protection only applies if you are given due process, and even US citizens are no longer eligible for due process if a suit at the FBI/CIA/NSA uses the words, "national security," or, "terrorism."
I believe I read an article a few days ago which described that he cobbled together a new driver by combining parts of the Vista driver with parts of the XP driver. I can't recall where I read that now though, so I guess I'll just assume I dreamed it.