Not really. A great example is when you get tickets via Fandango: at the end of the sale, you get a "save X on your purchase! click here for details!" If you do, you get taken to the web site where you have to sign up. When I looked it was pretty clear that I was signing up for a service that I would need to pay for. I didn't want it, so I didn't find out if there was additional work needed to re-enter credit card, etc... probably not, but that really doesn't matter. There's not really any question that you're signing up for a separate service and that it's not free.
The best I've found is either...
a) windowed mode or b) set your video card (maybe in the bios) to disable scaling, so that you play it at the original resolution. It's small, but crisp...
Heh. An idea based on the misconceptions of a century ago, the one that says women can't really enjoy these things for their own sake in the way that a man can... though it's true that the pressures of "acceptable" in our society make it much harder for such a male robot to be viable.
Mm. Not really. Mono pushes their own libraries - which means you often can't take a mono executable and run it on a windows box without first installing mono libraries. Kind of an ironic twist, really...
it sounds like you... care about any copyright protection they have
Do you see what selective quoting is capable of? Kind of like how you removed the section about him being happy to pay directly for their copyrighted works....
THere's a huge gap between saying "I will pay for this music if I like who is selling it, otherwise I shall take it." and saying "I do not like who is selling this music, therefore I shall do without."
Whether or not he is happy to pay directly is completely irrelevant. If he truly respected the copyright he claimed to be in favor of, he would not be "pirating" at all -- it's not a conditional kind of thing.
I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection, but really the moment the last of them is dead, it should go to the public pretty soon after.
...
All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music t
...
No, I'd say it sounds like you wouldn't care about any copyright protection they have, one way or the other...
These private URL shortening sites shouldn't exist anyway. They're just a hack to support long urls on mediums that can't handle proper html-style linked text (aka hypertext). Those mediums are buggy should be upgraded (if only by footnote style guidelines).
Could you clarify this? How does what you're suggesting help me read a long URL over the phone? Or type one from memory? Or paste one into an IM or IRC chat window?
because the only reason that I can think of to use an URL shortener is to conceal what you're actually linking to.
FTFY. There are a lot of situations in which it's simply easier to use a short URL - the simplest example that comes to mind is when there's a URL you have to type manually or recite by voice - in both cases a short URL is much easier to understand and use.
We were forced to stop using the term "fat client' here at Big Bank; our end-users got offended when they heard the term, apparently they thought we were talking about the/users/ and not the systems... Instead, we must call it "thick client"* -- which is odd, since if they interpret it the same way it's just as insulting from another direction.
Thanks again - what's your forum name? I'm pretty heavily involved in the server-side of Neverwinter Nights 2, and had some additional questions that might be better handled there than in a slashdot conversation:)
Obama scares the crap out of me, and I think we're going to feel the pain of his administration in many ways over the coming years.
That being said: every time someone brings up "Hussein" when criticizing a behavior or policy of Obama's, my eyes glaze over and I ignore pretty much stop reading whatever you're saying. If you have to resort to implicit fear-mongering to make your point, I really have no interest in what you're saying -- because clearly you're trying to play on emotions in lieu of making a rational case. Perhaps even worse -- assuming that nobody recognizes that tactic for what it is shows a disrespect for whomever you're trying to convince.
"to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user."
Oh please, pull the other one....we all know what cookies are ultimately used for.
Don't even try to feed us that line that this is needed for "proper feedback"
This isn't the 90's anymore....
Yes, it's used for stateful sessions among other things. Which often have nothing to do with advertising or tracking at all.
Cool, thanks for speaking on behalf of the billions of Internet users out there! I feel much better now,I shall completely disable session-based cookies because I know you have approved of any resulting inconvenience to my users;) *
* No, I don't use them for tracking. Just to manage server-side transactional state. If you don't have them enabled, there is functionality you just can't use.
Nuanced because apparently the city believes it does not have the rights to the content itself - rather, these rights are owned by the third-party contractor; essentially it's the contractor that is doing this. Though why the city signed off on such a bone-headed agreement, I'll never understand. FTA:
That's why the city has contracted with a national company called General Code for about $20,000 to create a comprehensive, searchable electronic version of the code that eventually will be posted on the Web and available to all.
City employees have access to the current electronic version through General Code, but "that is strictly proprietary and copyrighted," Van Norden said. "They own the electronic code and we use it under an electronic licensing agreement."
Empahsis added, essentially "General Code" is making the claim of copyright ownership here and not the city.
This is aside from the fact that the laws are still available in paper form, and are in progress of being made available electronically for free via the web site. Still... bone-headed.
Indeed; it just seems like this is not a Flash issue, but a domain-level authorization issue: when you have a security model that relies only on originating domain, you're bound to get them. So0meone implant a malicious javascript file the same way, and get access to the same things that the Flash app could get.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. A great example is when you get tickets via Fandango: at the end of the sale, you get a "save X on your purchase! click here for details!" If you do, you get taken to the web site where you have to sign up. When I looked it was pretty clear that I was signing up for a service that I would need to pay for. I didn't want it, so I didn't find out if there was additional work needed to re-enter credit card, etc... probably not, but that really doesn't matter. There's not really any question that you're signing up for a separate service and that it's not free.
The best I've found is either... a) windowed mode or b) set your video card (maybe in the bios) to disable scaling, so that you play it at the original resolution. It's small, but crisp...
Heh. An idea based on the misconceptions of a century ago, the one that says women can't really enjoy these things for their own sake in the way that a man can... though it's true that the pressures of "acceptable" in our society make it much harder for such a male robot to be viable.
Mm. Not really. Mono pushes their own libraries - which means you often can't take a mono executable and run it on a windows box without first installing mono libraries. Kind of an ironic twist, really...
Except mine is actually what the person said. But the baby thing may have a grain of truth to it.
Do you see what selective quoting is capable of? Kind of like how you removed the section about him being happy to pay directly for their copyrighted works....
THere's a huge gap between saying "I will pay for this music if I like who is selling it, otherwise I shall take it." and saying "I do not like who is selling this music, therefore I shall do without."
Whether or not he is happy to pay directly is completely irrelevant. If he truly respected the copyright he claimed to be in favor of, he would not be "pirating" at all -- it's not a conditional kind of thing.
Zero day means only that the attack was published before the vendor could fix the issue.
The article isn't clear on the specifics, but this write-up explains it well.
I don't personally have a problem with them continuing to have copyright protection, but really the moment the last of them is dead, it should go to the public pretty soon after.
...
All us "pirates" that refuse to pay for music t
... No, I'd say it sounds like you wouldn't care about any copyright protection they have, one way or the other...
These private URL shortening sites shouldn't exist anyway. They're just a hack to support long urls on mediums that can't handle proper html-style linked text (aka hypertext). Those mediums are buggy should be upgraded (if only by footnote style guidelines).
Could you clarify this? How does what you're suggesting help me read a long URL over the phone? Or type one from memory? Or paste one into an IM or IRC chat window?
because the only reason that I can think of to use an URL shortener is to conceal what you're actually linking to.
FTFY. There are a lot of situations in which it's simply easier to use a short URL - the simplest example that comes to mind is when there's a URL you have to type manually or recite by voice - in both cases a short URL is much easier to understand and use.
There's just no way to win... hefty? sizeable? hmmm, "standalone" might work but is also rather ambiguous in technical meaning...
In vista/7 to open Firefox I: Click the windows button. push the f key hit enter.
Even better - hit the Windows key instead of pressing the button. Saves that nasty mouse click...
Thin client -> fat client -> thin client -> fat client. *yawn*
We were forced to stop using the term "fat client' here at Big Bank; our end-users got offended when they heard the term, apparently they thought we were talking about the /users/ and not the systems... Instead, we must call it "thick client"* -- which is odd, since if they interpret it the same way it's just as insulting from another direction.
*go ahead, laugh, but it really happened!
Thanks again - what's your forum name? I'm pretty heavily involved in the server-side of Neverwinter Nights 2, and had some additional questions that might be better handled there than in a slashdot conversation :)
Obama scares the crap out of me, and I think we're going to feel the pain of his administration in many ways over the coming years.
That being said: every time someone brings up "Hussein" when criticizing a behavior or policy of Obama's, my eyes glaze over and I ignore pretty much stop reading whatever you're saying. If you have to resort to implicit fear-mongering to make your point, I really have no interest in what you're saying -- because clearly you're trying to play on emotions in lieu of making a rational case. Perhaps even worse -- assuming that nobody recognizes that tactic for what it is shows a disrespect for whomever you're trying to convince.
Hm, you mean like "Disable all cookies"? And "Disallow third party cookies"? I'll bet no one ever thought of that...
"to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user." Oh please, pull the other one....we all know what cookies are ultimately used for. Don't even try to feed us that line that this is needed for "proper feedback" This isn't the 90's anymore....
Yes, it's used for stateful sessions among other things. Which often have nothing to do with advertising or tracking at all.
Um... dude? Just don't accept the cookies. He only has what rights you grant him.
* No, I don't use them for tracking. Just to manage server-side transactional state. If you don't have them enabled, there is functionality you just can't use.
Idunno. What kind of a sociopath divides the entire world into the "clueless", the "losers", and the "sociopaths"?
Clearly the kind who is a clueless loser...
That's why the city has contracted with a national company called General Code for about $20,000 to create a comprehensive, searchable electronic version of the code that eventually will be posted on the Web and available to all. City employees have access to the current electronic version through General Code, but "that is strictly proprietary and copyrighted," Van Norden said. "They own the electronic code and we use it under an electronic licensing agreement."
Empahsis added, essentially "General Code" is making the claim of copyright ownership here and not the city.
This is aside from the fact that the laws are still available in paper form, and are in progress of being made available electronically for free via the web site. Still... bone-headed.
You know, when CDs and DVDs came out, they claimed they would last 50 years. I have yet to find one that lasts longer than 5.
I've CDs that I bought back in the mid 80s, still working without any problems.
Unrelated: what is it about slashdot that makes people feel compelled to disparage any new idea...
Surely any code could have code copied in breach of copyright in it?
But if it's closed source, then the only people who know about it are the perpetrators... making it difficult to get sued over it.
Indeed; it just seems like this is not a Flash issue, but a domain-level authorization issue: when you have a security model that relies only on originating domain, you're bound to get them. So0meone implant a malicious javascript file the same way, and get access to the same things that the Flash app could get.