Comment Re: They didn't know he also... (Score 1) 403
I... actually almost said something slightly different and linked that video, but decided against it.
I... actually almost said something slightly different and linked that video, but decided against it.
With that in mind I cannot see how anybody could think it was an acceptable move from Yahoo.
Without saying Yahoo was in the right or wrong here (I don't have a very strong opinion on that point), you don't see why Yahoo would take down a site arguing implicitly "it's okay to commit suicide"?
From what I read of it, he was talking about his personal feelings and opinions.
His site was explaining why he committed suicide. Basically by definition, that's him explaining why he felt that suicide was the best option in his case -- which is implicitly explaining why he thinks that suicide is the best option ever, which if you look at it the right way, is promoting suicide. It's not promoting suicide in the sense of "Hey Fred... you really oughta go kill yourself" or in the sense of "you should consider suicide in these cases
I would speculate it's not a question of how he committed suicide. Had he had a Star Wars fan site or something, it would have been left up. But that's not what it was: it was a site that, in part, explained why he committed suicide. And it may be at least somewhat reasonable for Yahoo to interpret that as promoting suicide, and quite reasonable for it to take down the site for that reason.
That depends on what it means to be written in HTML5.
For instance, does it mean that the YouTube app would have to use the same video player that Google serves to desktop visitors? Because if so, perhaps MS wanted it to be possible to have an experience that isn't awful. Seriously: I've used multiple browsers on multiple desktop platforms, and I don't know how by far the biggest video website in its genre has a player that is so bad.
If you look around the thread, you'll see some people (e.g. DrXym) who comment that the native apps' experience on Android and iOS is substantially better than using m.youtube.com in the platform's web browser. It's totally possible that Google's "use HTML5 OMG!" demand makes it impossible to make an app that works as well.
I'd love to see a Google rebuttal to the MS blog post, and hear what the other side has to say.
Google asked Microsoft to move away from Flash as the delivery mechanism
There's almost no way they're using Flash. It's probably just a normal video player with some addon features specific to YouTube.
It wasn't OCRing, just compressing badly, so that a block of the image with one number that looked close enough to another block with a different number (say a 6 and an 8) was being replaced by the second block. This is why it only showed up on text that was already quite small.
This exact thing happened a few years ago to another provider, Hushmail.
How do you know that? Because you don't know what lavabit was ordered to do or provide.
Suppose Lavabit was ordered to install software or turn over information (e.g. SSL key) that would potentially compromise all users of the service. It is certainly conceivable that they were ordered to do so. And that would be a hell of a lot different from turning over information on a few specific targets.
As a WI resident, Feingold was freaking awesome. His was the one loss I was really sad about in 2010.
Because there was another story on it four stories earlier.
Uh oh! Fairbanks, Alaska is in play now! It's been 72 hours, and San Diego to Fairbanks is only 61 hours' drive! Better send an AMBER alert to Fairbanks!
Euros are money. Does that mean the SEC can regulate them?
IANAL, but I suspect if you tried running a ponzi scheme while in the US but only took Euros, the latter fact wouldn't help you much against the SEC. That'd be a pretty huge loophole (admittedly diminished by the fact that "you must give me Euros to participate" would be a bit of a tell -- but I bet you could disguise that fact reasonably well).
As for what happens here to cause Apple to do this - cheap adapters are cheap. There is often ZERO regard to safety, including things like basic creepage and clearance
IMO Apple's stance exacerbates that problem, not solves it. It makes legitimate "made for iPhone" adapters more expensive and thus makes cheapass counterfeit crap more attractive by comparison.
Youc an convert a standard USB charging charger to an Apple one with a few resistors, and an Apple one to a standard just as easily.
You consider modding your charger "easily"? I wouldn't trust a $500 piece of equipment to my handiwork, especially considering we're talking about good and bad chargers! I've soldered a few things before, and I suspect Cheapass Counterfeit Crap, LLC would have a better chance at producing a safe charger than me.
If every single comment was exactly about the article at hand, you'd have a point, but there also wouldn't be much discussion.
But they're not, nor should they be. And this particular thread was started by someone asking "why does Apple like to use proprietary chargers/connectors so much in the first place".
And like I said, my comment applies equally to chargers as it does to cables. Apple isn't the only company capable of making decent gadgets.
I'm sure there are people working on that. But it's not like you can snap your fingers and the bed bug fairy will deliver a fix. In the meantime, people have to rely on traditional extermination methods, and traditional extermination methods require that you be aware that traditional extermination methods are necessary. And that's what the work described by the article is addressing...
With your bare hands?!?