I'm constantly expected to "admit" I'm wrong when the facts show that I'm not. Is everyone who argued with me when news of this lawsuit first broke and insisted that I admit to being "wrong" about how this would turn out (and why it would turn out that way) going to show up here and admit that they were, in fact, wrong? After all, it turned out exactly as I said it would; and for the very reasons I stated.
Somehow, though, the whole lot of trolls who like to try to pick me apart here will still insist that I was wrong, I'm sure.
And the judge was absolutely correct in this case: the wording on the package did not imply a contract; and the codes, being facts, are not protected by copyright.
I forwarded your remarks to the proper authorities and they've requested that I post the following on their behalf.
I'm pretty sure he's right. -US Constitution
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Wasn't one of the key reasons for copyright to enrich the public wealth of culture by encouraging the creation of artistic works to eventually be released into the public domain by granting time-limited exclusivity to the creator? Doesn't its use, now, to keep artistic works out of the public domain and, effectively, cause them to cease to exist, fly in the face of the spirit of copyright? On those grounds alone, the gaming industry should be given a swift kick in the ass by the courts; and I say this as someone who makes his entire living on copyright law.
No, he stated that the price difference isn't a factor. The meaning you claim his statement held would have been worded "No one is really buying SSD in the enterprise, based on it's price vs HDD." Note how that's two separate clauses; that comma does change the meaning to what you state, but that comma wasn't present in the original comment.
- Search for cat in Google images
- Left-click first image in results, for me an allegedly 5360x3560 image from pexels.com
- Right-click > Show image in new tab, shows 276x183 thumbnail from cache
Funny, when I do the same (for example, here), I do see a handful of examples of that issue (including your 5360x3560 gray and white cat hosted be Pexels) but, by and far, right-clicking and selecting View Image takes you to the original. It may well be that all of the images I've ever grabbed using this method have been pointing directly to the original (as the vast majority do) as I've honestly never seen this before today.
In either case, by your own admission the View Image button provided by the addon isn't linking to the original either.
Go review the source code for the extension. I did and it's sourcing the URL for the "View Image" button from the preview image. If the right-click method won't take you to the true original image, neither will the extension. As for the now-removed View Image button, I don't know if it actually behaved differently than the extension because I never used it. But, again, do actually review the source code for the extension.
As for whether or not I "know how to internet", I'm a developer, I've been programming literally since the age of 5 and have been doing web development since the 90's. I know very well "how to internet", thank you.
If you're insinuating that what's worked just fine for me since before the "View Image" button was even ever implemented "doesn't work" then... no, it does not. And, if it does, the code on Github is not the code that goes into the extension, because the code in Github is doing exactly what I said above.
Clicking the thumbnail opens the image details, where the View Image button (and the preview image) would originally have been. Left clicking the preview image will take you to the source page, but right clicking it will let you view it. That is the image from which the extension sources the URL for the View Image button, so clicking the button gives you the very same image. It is true that some larger images are replaced with smaller ones for preview, but the method the extension uses to source the original can't work around that, either. Both methods are functionally equivalent.
Left-click on the image so it opens into the larger image where "view image" button used to be.
Now right-click on the larger image and select "view image".
So, step one given in that post is to left click the thumbnail. Step two is to right click the image (after clicking the thumbnail to reveal the image) and click "View Image". Yeah, those are the steps I gave. I wasn't quite as explicit about clicking the thumbnail but, then, I didn't think I needed to be since it had already been said.
Try a little humility once in a while, it's a better look for you (and, indeed, most people) than arguing against facts.
The extension grabs the image URL from that preview image, jackass. Here are lines 30 and 31 of the extension itself:
// Retrive the image;
var image = object.querySelector('img');
and just a little farther down, on line 73, we set the URL for the View Image button we're putting back on the page:
viewImageLink.setAttribute('href', image.src);
Oh, look at that, we're using the src attribute of the preview image.
I've been doing it manually, the way I described in my previous posts, for years. Much longer than that button has existed, mind you, and I will continue doing it that way now that the button is gone.
Now that your better has pointed out that the extension is literally doing the exact same thing as right clicking the image and clicking View Image, do you want to go sit down and shut the fuck up?
I just went back and read the thread again and I think the misunderstanding started a bit before I posted, then. innocent_white_lamb, who you replied to initially, gave the same steps I did.
"View Image" in the context menu doesn't take you to the page the image is on, it takes you to the image. See here for simple steps to try this for yourself.
Oh? So when I click the thumbnail of the first image on this page, then right click the preview image and click "View Image" and am taken to this URL, that's not the original image?
Perhaps try it yourself before you tell me I'm rong?
Considering that you can still right-click and select View Image from the context menu (two clicks vs the one the button on the page allowed for), I'd say yes, anyone interested in this extension is probably too lazy to click twice.
Who's gonna be too lazy to right-click and image and choose "View Image" from the resulting dropdown, but not too lazy to seek out and install an extension?
Yeah, the button on the page was great, it gave lazy people a one-click option, but the two-click option still works.
Of course I was talking law. We were talking about 4 people being arrested (in the article linked in the first comment I replied to), which would be something that happens on the basis of law, not language.
It wasn't the murder they were planning that got them arrested, it was the planning of the murder. It's a subtle but important difference. The charge would have been the same had they been planning to rob a liquor store or mug a little old lady.
The page content loads before the video player, so they're not actually doing #1. #2, the auto-playing video, fails the obnoxiousness test on a site intended to display auto-playing video. I don't see the cynicism.
Alternately, you could, you know, like, maybe, think about displaying ads that aren't a potential vector for scams and malware and don't start making noise unexpectedly and startle your users. Maybe? Just a chance?
I think it's a fine line but allowing auto-playing video ads on pages where auto-playing video is expected is the right side of the line to fall on, from the perspective of a company who makes money from those. It also seems reasonable from the perspective of the intelligent user who is annoyed by auto-playing video ads on pages where they're not expecting video; I'm much less likely to be startled and (overly) annoyed by an auto-playing video on a site where watching auto-playing videos is the whole reason I'm there than I am on a site I went to in order to read something.
That means there is some context involved in deciding whether a particular type of ad is obnoxious (and should be blocked) or not. On a page intended to display text, auto-playing videos are obnoxious (whether they're ads or not); on a page intended to display auto-playing video, they're not.
That is indeed the case and I wouldn't argue that they should change. However, that doesn't make it any more right.
Personally, I don't run a Linux desktop (servers are another issue, but they're not affected by this) and this still signals to me that, perhaps, I should avoid this company's products. It's got nothing to do with open source and everything to do with questioning why something that should be so simple for them to release is such a problem. Are they hiding malicious intent, incompetence, or vulnerability? Either way, I wish to avoid it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm constantly expected to "admit" I'm wrong when the facts show that I'm not. Is everyone who argued with me when news of this lawsuit first broke and insisted that I admit to being "wrong" about how this would turn out (and why it would turn out that way) going to show up here and admit that they were, in fact, wrong? After all, it turned out exactly as I said it would; and for the very reasons I stated.
Somehow, though, the whole lot of trolls who like to try to pick me apart here will still insist that I was wrong, I'm sure.
And the judge was absolutely correct in this case: the wording on the package did not imply a contract; and the codes, being facts, are not protected by copyright.
I'm pretty sure he's right. -US Constitution
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Wasn't one of the key reasons for copyright to enrich the public wealth of culture by encouraging the creation of artistic works to eventually be released into the public domain by granting time-limited exclusivity to the creator? Doesn't its use, now, to keep artistic works out of the public domain and, effectively, cause them to cease to exist, fly in the face of the spirit of copyright? On those grounds alone, the gaming industry should be given a swift kick in the ass by the courts; and I say this as someone who makes his entire living on copyright law.
No, he stated that the price difference isn't a factor. The meaning you claim his statement held would have been worded "No one is really buying SSD in the enterprise, based on it's price vs HDD." Note how that's two separate clauses; that comma does change the meaning to what you state, but that comma wasn't present in the original comment.
- Search for cat in Google images
- Left-click first image in results, for me an allegedly 5360x3560 image from pexels.com
- Right-click > Show image in new tab, shows 276x183 thumbnail from cache
Funny, when I do the same (for example, here), I do see a handful of examples of that issue (including your 5360x3560 gray and white cat hosted be Pexels) but, by and far, right-clicking and selecting View Image takes you to the original. It may well be that all of the images I've ever grabbed using this method have been pointing directly to the original (as the vast majority do) as I've honestly never seen this before today.
In either case, by your own admission the View Image button provided by the addon isn't linking to the original either.
Go review the source code for the extension. I did and it's sourcing the URL for the "View Image" button from the preview image. If the right-click method won't take you to the true original image, neither will the extension. As for the now-removed View Image button, I don't know if it actually behaved differently than the extension because I never used it. But, again, do actually review the source code for the extension.
As for whether or not I "know how to internet", I'm a developer, I've been programming literally since the age of 5 and have been doing web development since the 90's. I know very well "how to internet", thank you.
If you're insinuating that what's worked just fine for me since before the "View Image" button was even ever implemented "doesn't work" then... no, it does not. And, if it does, the code on Github is not the code that goes into the extension, because the code in Github is doing exactly what I said above.
Clicking the thumbnail opens the image details, where the View Image button (and the preview image) would originally have been. Left clicking the preview image will take you to the source page, but right clicking it will let you view it. That is the image from which the extension sources the URL for the View Image button, so clicking the button gives you the very same image. It is true that some larger images are replaced with smaller ones for preview, but the method the extension uses to source the original can't work around that, either. Both methods are functionally equivalent.
You're doing it wrong.
Left-click on the image so it opens into the larger image where "view image" button used to be.
Now right-click on the larger image and select "view image".
So, step one given in that post is to left click the thumbnail. Step two is to right click the image (after clicking the thumbnail to reveal the image) and click "View Image". Yeah, those are the steps I gave. I wasn't quite as explicit about clicking the thumbnail but, then, I didn't think I needed to be since it had already been said.
Try a little humility once in a while, it's a better look for you (and, indeed, most people) than arguing against facts.
var image = object.querySelector('img');
and just a little farther down, on line 73, we set the URL for the View Image button we're putting back on the page:
viewImageLink.setAttribute('href', image.src);
Oh, look at that, we're using the src attribute of the preview image.
I've been doing it manually, the way I described in my previous posts, for years. Much longer than that button has existed, mind you, and I will continue doing it that way now that the button is gone.
Now that your better has pointed out that the extension is literally doing the exact same thing as right clicking the image and clicking View Image, do you want to go sit down and shut the fuck up?
I just went back and read the thread again and I think the misunderstanding started a bit before I posted, then. innocent_white_lamb, who you replied to initially, gave the same steps I did.
"View Image" in the context menu doesn't take you to the page the image is on, it takes you to the image. See here for simple steps to try this for yourself.
Oh? So when I click the thumbnail of the first image on this page, then right click the preview image and click "View Image" and am taken to this URL, that's not the original image?
Perhaps try it yourself before you tell me I'm rong?
And if, indeed, the untrustworthy party is Asus, how can he trust their hardware?
Okay, so how were you seeing the View Image button in the first place, then?
All that changes here is that you have to right click before you left click now.
Considering that you can still right-click and select View Image from the context menu (two clicks vs the one the button on the page allowed for), I'd say yes, anyone interested in this extension is probably too lazy to click twice.
Who's gonna be too lazy to right-click and image and choose "View Image" from the resulting dropdown, but not too lazy to seek out and install an extension?
Yeah, the button on the page was great, it gave lazy people a one-click option, but the two-click option still works.
Of course I was talking law. We were talking about 4 people being arrested (in the article linked in the first comment I replied to), which would be something that happens on the basis of law, not language.
It's much easier to deal with 10-20% of your systems being down due to a vendor fuckup than 100%, so I's say yeah that's probably true in this case.
Uh... Where the hell do you live? Conspiracy need involve only two people... conspiring to commit a crime.
4 people. Planning. Together.
That's conspiracy.
It wasn't the murder they were planning that got them arrested, it was the planning of the murder. It's a subtle but important difference. The charge would have been the same had they been planning to rob a liquor store or mug a little old lady.
The page content loads before the video player, so they're not actually doing #1. #2, the auto-playing video, fails the obnoxiousness test on a site intended to display auto-playing video. I don't see the cynicism.
Alternately, you could, you know, like, maybe, think about displaying ads that aren't a potential vector for scams and malware and don't start making noise unexpectedly and startle your users. Maybe? Just a chance?
I think it's a fine line but allowing auto-playing video ads on pages where auto-playing video is expected is the right side of the line to fall on, from the perspective of a company who makes money from those. It also seems reasonable from the perspective of the intelligent user who is annoyed by auto-playing video ads on pages where they're not expecting video; I'm much less likely to be startled and (overly) annoyed by an auto-playing video on a site where watching auto-playing videos is the whole reason I'm there than I am on a site I went to in order to read something.
That means there is some context involved in deciding whether a particular type of ad is obnoxious (and should be blocked) or not. On a page intended to display text, auto-playing videos are obnoxious (whether they're ads or not); on a page intended to display auto-playing video, they're not.
That is indeed the case and I wouldn't argue that they should change. However, that doesn't make it any more right.
Personally, I don't run a Linux desktop (servers are another issue, but they're not affected by this) and this still signals to me that, perhaps, I should avoid this company's products. It's got nothing to do with open source and everything to do with questioning why something that should be so simple for them to release is such a problem. Are they hiding malicious intent, incompetence, or vulnerability? Either way, I wish to avoid it.