972 posts • joined 3 Dec 2009
Your RSS is grass: Mozilla euthanizes feed reader, Atom code in Firefox browser, claims it's old and unloved
Re: re: I read this news first from the RSS feed
Same here too. It was FF breaking my RSS reader in FF 56+ that caused me to no longer update the damn thing. OK so FF whines that "You Firefox is critically out of date ... blah blah blah" but they can fuck right off.
Couldn't roll out ...
... a gov version of OAUTH, after 7 years, but will be 100% certain to get an import and export tax system up and running within 6 months.
Re: "Google may reportedly pay Apple $9bn to ensure it is the default search engine in the iPhone"
Hey if the Google search engine was that much better than the rest they wouldn't need to be paying $9 billion to have it set as the default.
Re: Another One Bites The Dust
I normally get voted down for this but ... the internet is ephemeral and you are unwise to buy into any web based service as it could be gone tomorrow. For individual users that isn't to much of a probelm exceptfor the time wasted on the service, bitter experience says that user forums and the data put on them get trashed every day.
Systems that you build a workflow around are particularly sucky. Mozilla changed the way that addins have to be built and relied upon addins were trashed (no updates of firefox despite the daily nagging). Website content management systems change and render a bunch of modules useless, I've still not got my drupal 6 site fully working with drupal 7 as modules weren't updated. God knows how much will break with D8. Is it any wonder that people don't update web sites? As an aside they broke the Date module so that it no longer works with dates < 1000CE.
"they have to get over a woman being the new Dr.Who."
But will they ever get over her being from Yorkshire?
Top Euro court: No, you can't steal images from other websites (too bad a school had to be sued to confirm this little fact)
Re: New internet standard...
"Given that we're only talking about a handful of bytes here, I can't see any legitimate reason for stripping EXIF copyright data. It is an evil practice."
True. However, some people insert 100s of KB in the EXIF and IPTC data. Still one could strip most of the stuff and leave behind the copyright, author, photographer, and owner fields.
Not only is it evil it is also a violation of DRM.
Re: New internet standard...
"What can be done and should be made illegal to remove, is placing that information into the EXIF"
It is already illegal it falls under the prohibition against the removal of digital rights information under the DRM and is separate from circumventing copy protection:
Penalties for this in the US for registered works are $2,500 to $25,000 per infringement.
Google was guilty of this, so is flickr, and of course wikipedia actively strips and clones out watermarks. It just needs someone with deep pockets to screw them over.
Re: That old legal 'stealing' chesnut
You may have your dates a decade or so off. TWOC was part of section 12 of the 1968 Theft Act. There is case law going back to the mid 1960s.
Re: New internet standard...
"Why should the onus be on a website to put countermeasures inplace?"
I agree it shouldn't. Suppose I license an images under a creative commons license the website is obliged to to add any technological measures to stop the copying. If a website can't employ tech measures to ensure it isn't misused by some one not adding attribution etc then what becomes of the legal bases of CC?
Anyway we should be suing the W3C over the IMG tag.
That old legal 'stealing' chesnut
Theft has many definitions that don't necessarily require 'permanently depriving someone of their property'. For example if I take a car from outside someone's house and drive it from Lincoln to Grantham and abandon it outside Grantham police station, there is no intent of "permanently depriving" the owner can always collect it from the cops. However, I could be arrested for Taking Without the Owner's Consent which is part of the UK theft act.
The City of Cordoba
Didn't create the image with a specific viewpoint in mind, nor arrange for the specific weather/lighting to occur at the precise time that the photog was there, they didn't organize the post-processing of the image, and besides most of the objects in the image where created 100s of years ago.
Not a joke
Finding out the photographer of an image that was taken in recent time isn't hard. If the photog is a professional the contact data is bound to be in the EXIF. Otherwise locating other sites that use the image will almost certainly give you information wrt the photographer, you may even find the photogs website. Requesting a license isn't expensive it involves an email in most cases. If you can't get permission for the specific image, or the payment required is too much then there are almost certainly alternatives that are under a CC license.
Re: Prepare for...
"Well, I'm sure every school in the world will be able to afford ..."
Its not that hard. If the attribution wasn't on the original site, they could have a) asked the site for contact data, b) looked at the DRM in the image, c) used tineye or something similar, d) got an alternative image from wikipedia commons, or searched flickr for a CC licensed one
Re: Has anyone been informed by FB?
"I had to relogin this morning ..."
And you did? That was your opportunity to dump.
Re: Technology that doesn't exist
Just more of the Unicorns that BoJo, Fox, Mogg, and IDS have come to believe in. Though this one seems to be part of May's Dogma and Disarray as well.
Re: As usual Andrew hates Google
Google lost. Guess they'll have to get a new business model that is adequate for the modern world, alternatively they can just fuck off.
Ah yes 1 billion correct take downs are out weighed by a 100,000 possible over reaches.
By your logic one would never take an aspirin, for rear of sudden death.
In another time ...
... I was working in the night shit production control in a chemical factory and senior trade unionist I'd been called in early as the afternoon shift was ill so I'd been there since about 9pm. At about 0745 I was shattered and part dozing on a stool, and waiting for my relief to come in at 0800.In walks the deputy works manager, whose first words were "I thought you said you were really busy." Cheeky bastard is going to pay I thought. Shrugs shoulders and said "Oh I'm glad your here I've got something to show you." Walks into other office and show him some floor tiles that are coming loose. "Those need attention before they become a trip hazard." So he's down on his knees pulling them up, and I'm standing over him smiling and thinking: I may be dog tired but I can still get you on your hands and knees like the bitch you are. He looks up sees the smile realizes what has happened and mutters bastard.
I doubt I'm the only one that is annoyed with those FB ads that are all over TV at the moment. Don't we have some advertising standards bod that is responsible for removing bullshit and lies from ads?
Re: Flash is still used on a bunch of
There are some excellent educational websites that use flash, the content may have been written a decade or more ago, but they are still both relevant, and better than content written in other systems. And those that wrote the originals may no longer be about, having retired, or moved onto other things, schools, etc.
This just goes to show that much of the data on the internet is ephemeral.
Some mistake here ...
... I think you have miss spelled Dr Pangloss.
Re: Upgrade your Lifestyle with Microsoft!
I have a NERO backit up version circa 2008 that is more useful than the current version of the software. Indeed I could install the entire 2008 suite of software and wouldn't really miss anything from the latest offering.
I know of a major aerospace company that uses manufacturing software from about 2010 because it works and the cost of re-certifying the latest release is prohibitively expensive.
I have a version of PhotoImpact (c2006) which was replaced by PaintShop Pro it has functionality that is not available in the PaintShop version.
As I said originally a wordpressor. spreadsheet, database, and powerpoint app from the 1990s contains all the functionality you really need.
I doubt that if were to install a 1980s version of emacs on any of my machines that I would notice any real functionality changes.
File formats are irrelevant. I can work with lotus lpw files all day without encountering any issues. I don't generally need to read docx files and if I do I can always use a docx viewer. It is the idiots that are buying into new file format versions that are the cause of trouble.
HEVC / x.265 encoding why would I need that I'm not that stupid to pay for some bullshit 4K screen. Jeez just how dumb are people. Remind me what the figures are, something like needing to be within 5 feet of an 80 inch screen to resolve the difference between a 4K screen and a 1080p one. Most people using 4K screens have the display set to 150-200% just to see the text.
Re: Upgrade your Lifestyle with Microsoft!
Hardware fails and becomes obsolete far quicker than software. I have a 1999 CD containing the Lotus suite of software, spreadsheet, wordprocessor, presentation manager, etc for windows 98. All of those apps still work today on a win10 machine. I used the presentation (freelance graphics) just the other day. I have an install of Windows Live Essentials 2011 because I still prefer the photo gallery thing that came with it.
From a home user's perspective one rarely needs the latest update of anything. It is why we all dread it when some software we use on a regular basis gets updated/upgrade as we never know how much of our existing workflow will be broken as a result.
I suspect that it the main driver to subscription based models for software companies. They need to get you locked in to forking out regular payments.
Re: At least it's not BING
Everything Google want to know about a user is for advertisement and product selling.
Not so they gave up trying to understand the meta content of the web a decade ago. If you look carefully all the search engines now throw up a couple of wikipedia links, and sites they know you've visited in the past. They have also got better at detecting content free spam sites.
Once you've got past the layout differences the search results are equivalent.
"No one else has anywhere near the richness of data (and metadata) that Google Maps has"
That will be because they are charging people to put listing there, and scrapping sites like yelp, tripadvisor, and other such databases. Once you get an effective monopoly you can start charging.
In the early days of GM they scrapped images with geodata from flickr to tart up their map pages. Their streetview pages contain still images, the photographer won't have licensed their images for that. I know because I've found a number of my photos on streetview and there is no way to get Google to remove them. Except by kill the flickr URL and removing metadata. This is one of the reasons why you won't see any of my photographs of Google Images they are robot meta banned from indexing my site.
Put site:professor-moriarty.com into a GIS and see the difference in a bing images search. Its not perfect theycan still show up if they are linked to from elsewhere on the web.
And not just metric and imperial...
You've forgotten Groats, Fathings, Crowns, and Guineas.
apple wont let anyone else make an apple phone.
Yeah and Ford will let anyone else make a Ford car, and I don't recall seeing a Bosch washing machine not made by Bosch, etc.
Re: At least it's not BING
Bing, vs Google -> not much difference.
Re: You can't fork Android
I don't want any Google shite apps on the phone. I have an old S3 which has crap like Google Play Books, Google Play Newsstand, Google+, gmail, etc. I'm never going to use any of that stuff so why should it be there taking up memory? I want rid of it. For several weeks the phone kept wanting to download some update and constantly failing. Today apparently its no longer doing that maybe it eventually managed to do the update I don't care I just wanted it not to do it anyway.
They have two bugs
1. My workflow addons don't work since they changed the scheme so I had to go back to an earlier release.
2. They keep whining about the version of the browser being out of date.
I know its out of date 'cos you bastards at FF screwed up the later releases.
Re: ...not have the best grasp of tech...
I don't think advising on getting a sexually transmitted disease is the correct thing to do.
Re: The people who run Wikipedia
They will all be sockpuppets of this one:
Re: The problem I have so far...
"or using our work without our permission to promote ideas or organisations we object to, then we tend to get a bit shirty"
Indeed one of the memes currently being used by the supporters of Masnick, DFoctrow, the EFF and others has been so adopted by racists and anti-Semites that the creator has dropped the character from his comic.
Re: The problem I have so far...
"practice of slapping dumb jokes on random photos"
This can be a major problem when a photographer takes an iconic photo which perchance is appropriated by the dumbfucks on the interwebs. The result being that the photo is debased and whatever value it had for the photographer is sucked out. An example is supplied by the cretinous Google shill Masnick here
the problem being that the meme cause the photographer to be unable to license the photo because who wants to buy a license for something that is used as a joke?
Switching to Wales, I don't think he has ever seen an example of IP theft that he didn't approve of. His organization has also been known to bully and threaten a 12 yo kid for several weeks over a butterfly photo, turning it into an existential threat to the site itself:
Just a minute ...
Kenneth Williams speaking on JAM on the subject of Cults.
I am a cult, I am. I often hear people say as I walk past "Ooooh look at him, he's a right cult."
Buzzed for repetition of "I'm"
Re: bad for small sites
Don't be daft. The vast majority of the ones rejected are because they URL has already been reported. IOW they aren't malicious they are duplicates, the URL in question has already been removed.
Re: bad for small sites
Multiple flaws here:
1. A small website won't have millions of uploads by users requiring automatic checking.
2. There is no requirement for a website to check the validity of a takedown request.
3. The number of malicious takedown requests are (according to Google) extremely small.
I doubt that one could point to more than a few dozen in the last 20 years.
4. There is no penalty for an uploader mistakenly thinking that their use is OK.
Re: Throw in others and...
True. When I cared, I blocked all signups to the company user forum from gmail, hotmail, and yahoo. Spammer signups dropped from 200+ per day to about a dozen a month. We made exceptions for genuine users (about 10 over a 4 year period).
Re: Waiting for the other shoe to drop
Wait on the EFF are getting involved on behalf of Perens ... that has got to be the kiss of death.
"many of Google's arguments were reiterated by independent academics and organisations"
I thought that many of "independent academics and organisations" turned out to be paid shills for big tech, or nothing more than astroturfing shell organisations.
"At which point her Majesties cabinet would be transported to Guantanamo Bay."
Is there a down side to that?
"it does, however, mean bad security practices"
No it doesn't. Seems you have swallowed a whole bunch of Google crap.
Had another phone call from web host yesterday wanting to sell me some SSL cert. Whining about lack of said site would cause it to be downgraded by Google search. Being as the site has no user login, no user commenting, no sales cart, and is linked to by Washington State University, University of Texas, University of North Carolina, Oxford University, National Academy of Science SF, National Academy of Science Mexico City, British Parliament, University College London, Natural History Museum London, Natural History Museum Venice, etc, etc, it is most likely not going to be downgraded unless Google want to degrade their search.
You are on to something there. When a French ISP blocked Google ads, Google whined that it was costing them $millions a week.
Re: Pub Fight
Just chuck Zuck down an oubliette, and tell Trump that Russia was all Zuck's fault. Job done.
Re: Still I don't understand why Russian doesn't allow full tests.
Both of them need to keep Alex Jones frothing at nothing at all.
Re: how long before...
OK this is how stupid the EFF and Doctrow are being about this. Without the classics act the copyright protection is not one single Federal statute but is based on State by State protection and some of States do indeed have perpetual copyright terms. The EFF and Doctrow should careful that they don't get what they ask for.
Re: RIAA factoid #17: the Missing Mozarts
Of the top of my head both Schubert and Handel made a shed load of money from copyright.
Re: Crony Capitalism at it's best
"I'm reminded of a lyric from David Bowie's Life on Mars:"
I'm reminded that Bowie's estate can now claim license for each time Spotify et al stream that song. Odd that had he recorded it in 1972 they would have been no issues. But hey lets have the EFF etc tell us why a song recorded in on 01/01/1972 get a Federal copyright but one recorded on 31/12/1971 doesn't.
"Curiously, 14 years is also what some (modern) économistes have found to be the ideal copyright duration..."
The LOTR was published in 1955 a film version was produced some 56 years later and 38 years after JRRT's death. Accordingly it should have just been a freebie to Hollywood?
"Hang on, that can't be right as it is the opposite of how Google are selling their services....I'm so confused"
Just because that can do X doesn't mean that X is effective. It used to be that tobacco companies advertised their products as good for your throat etc, one wonders why it is that tech companies don't have to prove their claims?