"Store all your personal data on other peoples' computers," they said. What could possibly go wrong?
"Store all your personal data on other peoples' computers," they said. What could possibly go wrong?
Interesting points there, and you've swayed my opinion a bit, but I think I'm still weighted against such policies. I remember when record labels paid out millions over such a minimum pricing scheme for CDs. I saw that as a consumer victory (if only a short-lived one; they were sued again for artificially inflating the price of downloads). Record stores didn't really compete on service or customer satisfaction, even with minimum prices in force. Sure, the clerk at the mom 'n pop place might share a joint with you in the back room, but it was still just racks full of CDs priced the same as every other store with racks full of CDs. I guess some industries are better suited to minimum pricing strategies than others.
Curiously Amazon has itself listed as both Amazon and Amazon.com, I have no idea why.
It's easy, you see, Amazon.com is a wholly-owned Irish subsidiary of Amazon, which purchases all of its goods and services directly from Amazon, which is a wholly-owned Irish subsidiary of Amazon.com, who contracts to Amazon through a 5-person office in Ireland operated under a franchise agreement through Amazon.com, an Irish corporation which is a holding company with exclusive license to all rights owned by Amazon, an Irish company.
Minor accounting matter, nothing to worry about.
What is the collected data? last time MS responded, the data collected was no more than what you search engine collects.
1. I don't recall Microsoft ever detailing exactly what data is being collected.
2. It's encrypted, so we can't examine it for ourselves.
3. Microsoft has been deceptive and even telling outright lies since the beginning of the Windows 10 rollout.
I have yet to hear a case where this collection of data was detrimental to an individual.
See 2, above. No one can look and see what data Microsoft is collecting from their Windows 10 PC, so how is one to know whether or not they've been harmed? Your argument is the same one NSA uses to claim they can't be sued over warrantless wiretapping. "No one can prove they specifically were wiretapped, so no one has any standing to sue." I say bullshit to that argument.
Pfft.. too little, too late. JPEG is "good enough" and I don't want a huge clusterfuck of incompatibility problems with my libraries.
In terms of widespread adoption, I think you're right, Joe's Image Viewer is unlikely to ever come with Lepton support. But I wouldn't dismiss this so quickly, as large sites might force the issue into the browser space.
Take Facebook as an example, think of the trillions of photos they store (they claim 2 billion are uploaded each day). Facebook archives older, infrequently-accessed photos to Blu-Ray and has an army of jukeboxes ready to swap in discs when someone actually tries to load that family reunion pic from 8 years ago. Gaining another 20% on compression means not just 20% less live storage, but also 20% fewer optical discs, 20% smaller backups, 20% fewer disc-swapping robots, 20% less square footage to lease and cool... We're talking millions and millions of dollars in savings. Facebook would be stupid not to hand Mozilla a chunk of that money and say "Lepton, implement it." Google and Microsoft would realize their own enormous cost savings by putting Lepton capability into their respective browsers.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Cool, glad they're moving away from Flash. The TV station websites are still pointing at the Flash video player, maybe I'll email them and see if it does any good.
Unfortunately, most NOAA/NWS radar products still require Flash. Livestream, which powers my local TV news broadcasts, also uses a Flash based player. There are a few other use cases for me personally, most of them being government entities.
Am I the only one who actively avoids videos whenever I'm not specifically seeking them out? If I'm looking to watch a movie or TV show or someone's recording of a concert, great, show me the video in glorious HD. Otherwise, please no. On the desktop, auto-playing videos and janky players annoyed me so much I installed a browser extension to force them all to prompt before playing. If I'm on mobile, videos chew through both my battery and my data plan much faster than I'd like. On Twitter where I follow lots of NOAA/NWS accounts, I'm not going to play the little tornado videos they post, I don't see how a 15 second 5MB clip offers compelling added value over a 300KB still photo.
I see multiple negatives and no real upside to communicating this way. I'd rather have fewer videos, not more. Annotating every inane social media comment with a video clip is just pollution. It's bad enough reading through some of that stuff through my own head-voice, I really don't want to experience it all in yours.
Google is good because it interprets what you search for better than other search engines.
And it's good at doing that because it builds its index based upon context and what people are linking to. If you go to Google Images and search for Comcast, you'll see swastikas, a hammer and sickle, and other "inaccurate" images among the top results. That isn't because Google thinks Comcast is run by communist nazis, it's because many other sites out there have posted these images alongside text that refers to Comcast. Likewise, if searching for "three black teenagers" brings up mugshots among the top results, that isn't because Google is racist. It's because many other sites out there have posted those images alongside text that refers to three black teenagers.
Neither of these are Google's problem to "fix," they're examples of Google being good at what it does, as you said. If you don't like Google's results, maybe it's time to ask why the words "three black teenagers" coincide with mugshots so frequently.
I think it's just an odd choice of phraseology on behalf of the petition creator. EFF has filed a number of lawsuits against companies that do harm to consumers, so that's probably the goal here. Count me in.
Yes, it does. We put George W. Bush in charge of something and that didn't work out too well either.
Treason is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".
Senator Cotton tried to PREVENT Obama from giving aid and comfort to the Iran.
One, Iran is not "the enemy." They might not be our BFF, but we aren't at war and we have open diplomatic relations with them.
Two, Senator Cotton demonstrated allegiance and fealty to a foreign leader (Netanyahu) before America. If Tom Cotton likes Israel so much, maybe he ought to move there.
Is it durable enough to survive cache purging when you close the browser?
For the average reasonable person, the files would likely persist across browser sessions. The browser purging its cache on exit is not default behavior, I had to dig around and enable that myself. Joe Sixpack's computer might store the cache files into tomorrow, or next week, or the next time his computer-savvy nephew comes to visit.
Going forward, could YouTube cure this by adding a notice above the fold to all logged-out video views and periodically to logged-in views? "Use of the YouTube service is subject to the YouTube Terms of Service. Read the Terms"
My issue isn't so much with where the notice is located, it's that (IMHO, IANAL) merely transmitting that notice doesn't bind the end user to a contract. YouTube could place a link to their terms at the top of the page in 100 point font, but if the user isn't required to affirm anything, I don't see an agreement being enforceable. The user could have their browser configured in a manner such that the notice doesn't display for them, no matter where the site intends for it to appear.
As an analogy, Slashdot offers an option to disable seeing other users' signatures. My sig is snarky, but suppose I intend it seriously and I have an army of lawyers working for me. Do you think you should be bound to the terms of my signature if you see it? What if you have signatures disabled on Slashdot and you don't see it? I could easily argue that I put it there, so it's your own fault you didn't read it. You could easily argue that you never saw it. I could argue that if you suppressed it, it's because you went out of your way to use a non-default configuration to bypass my legal notice. The whole thing quickly becomes asinine, as you never really agreed to anything, and I can't possibly prove that you did.
I can think of two scenarios where an agreement could potentially be enforced.
One, when any logged-out user clicks a link to a YouTube video, an interstitial dialog could appear. "To view the video you requested, you must agree with the following terms: [insert 30 pages of legalese]" with a checkbox for "I Agree." If you don't affirm your agreement, you don't get to watch the video. A user whose browser can't properly render and handle the interstitial isn't allowed to access the content.
Two, YouTube could simply require registration and logging in before being able to watch any videos. If you aren't logged in, you can't see shit. I don't have a YouTube account but I'm guessing part of their user registration process already includes the 30 pages of legalese and the "I Agree" checkbox. This way everyone who watches a video is likely to have agreed to the terms at some point, even if they didn't actually read them.
I recall they tried requiring a login in order to view comments, back when they were pushing Google+ like crazy, but they quickly abandoned that tactic. Most people don't want to bother signing up and logging in just to view stuff.
By the way, this is one of the more fruitful discussions I've had on Slashdot in a long time, thanks for that.
The video started playing, not downloading to durable storage.
If it wound up in my browser cache, it downloaded to durable storage. I'm actually not sure whether YouTube videos end up in the cache or not. I know when I use Comcast's streaming service, it generates hundreds of megs worth of cached video files, so streaming can definitely do so. I only notice those because the browser, set to empty the cache on exit, takes a long time to purge those files. I don't really watch anything large enough on YouTube that I'd notice it being purged.
The video playback page you visited also contained a link to the terms of service in a place where it is standard practice to place legal notices.
I'd like to see that hold up in court, the notion that the presence of a link to the terms of service somewhere on a web page I visited constitutes any agreement or consideration on my part. Assuming you're referring to the page footer, when I load a YouTube link I never even scroll down far enough to see a link there. I just see the video player and some "related videos" in the right-hand gutter.
Take an astronaut to launch.