Hard News: All your copyright are belong to us
58 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
So the PS3 won't play back Quicktime files, (isn't Quicktime a proprietary Apple thing?) but it will play DivX files like it's 360 bretheren.
You sure? So the problem might be that the PS3 doesn' trecognise (or even see) the .avi files because they're identified on my computer as belong to QuickTime? Hmmm ...
-
And I should have to say this, but here goes:
Of course, anyone seeking political office -- especially the highest one their nation has to offer -- should be subject to rigorous scrutiny of their political record, policy and public statements from all sides. Obama doesn't get a pass on that score, and I'd say his campaign hasn't exactly been sterile when it comes to unfair and misleading charges laid at Clinton's feet.
But there is a real line between legitimate differences of interpretation that are open to debate, and blatant unspinnable deception. The latter is never tolerable in my view, but I guess if this ad has created the (misleading) impression of Obama's record and views in the minds of a few thousand South Carolina Democrats who cares? It did what it was intended to do, just as the vile and dishonest attack ads and robocalls deployed against McCain in the same state eight years ago did theirs.
-
but Obama has been comparing himself to Reagan. That is not a lie. It's a deliberate strategy on his part.
But that's not what the ad says or does. As the text quoted by Craig demonstrates, it deliberately misrepresents a direct quote. It's not even subtle. They've just cut off the sentence.
They actually started on this line before the ads ran. Check this:
Hillary Clinton, Jan 18:
"My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years."
Bill Clinton, Jan 18:
"(My wife's) principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas....I'm not making this up, folks."
Trouble is, he didn't say that. I think there's an ugly sense of entitlement showing up in the Clinton campaign.
-
Regarding the H2GO/photo thing, is there actually any right in NZ *not* to have one's photo taken in public and used for any purpose?
I know in the US you can sue (and presumably win - one can *try* and sue for anything) if somebody uses a photograph for commercial purposes without a model release. But NZ?
Is this a Privacy Act thing, or a common law tort?
-
I/S - I should have said I thought your original post was a good one but was interested in how growth is coupled with emissions and what the underlying trends relating to GDP were.
First, I wouldn't wipe my arse with that Wikipedia data; the listed emissions bear no relation at all to NZ's actual emissions according to the UNFCCC (and looking at their methodology, its easy to see why). Always use the Inventory Report.
Fair enough. If I understand your figures we have increase efficiency by about 12% over the period you mention.
On the Clinton / Obama thing, on the basis of the above points I withdraw any implied defence of Clinton :-)
-
I think there's an ugly sense of entitlement showing up in the Clinton campaign.
I picked up on that during the misting up. If Obama gets the Democratic nom the country will go backward ... seriously? Won't go forward enough, sure, but electing Obama would actually be a backward step!?
-
I know in the US you can sue (and presumably win - one can *try* and sue for anything) if somebody uses a photograph for commercial purposes without a model release. But NZ?
From what I can tell the T&Cs require the photographer to indemnify Yahoo!Xtra. So if that dumb but amusing picture of cousin turns up on a billboard, and he's get angry, it's your problem.
Participating in the billboard thing is voluntary. But it also seems predatory. Yahoo!Xtra does not need to take your copyrights.
-
The only backward step would be electing another Republican at this point.
-
Regarding the H2GO/photo thing, is there actually any right in NZ *not* to have one's photo taken in public and used for any purpose?
There is such a right. My memory of the discussion I had with someone is that you have rights over your image and its use for certain purposes. When it comes to commercial purposes, news media have some exemptions, but companies can't just take a photo of some hot woman drinking their product and then use it for advertising.
-
Re political nastiness
I was reading an essay (in David Foster Wallace's Consider the Lobster) about a wekk in the McCain 2000 nomination campaign; the bit where Bush started getting despicable and McCain, initially, responded by coming out swinging.
The analysis among the camera crews (as opposed to the confused ideas of the pundits) was that: the establishment candidate (Bush) had the most to win by lowering the tone. McCain's appeal to the disenfanchised etc to come out and vote were more likely to fail if the political process was disgusting.
Other things that stuck in my mind:
- McCain was apparently hugely inspiring in his conversational, unscripted Q&A - almost enough to override the alarming thing he said in his policy speeches.
- I hadn't absorbed the whole POW story. After months sat in a horrible cell partially treated for various near-deadly injuries he gets offered freedom after daddy got made Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command. He turns it down, because going out before people who went in before you would be against the code of conduct. Say what you like about the platform, you gotta respect that. Plus, for Wallace it makes a lot of talk that would be glib rhetoric from any other politician kind of believable. -
This is bullying, unnecessary and just dumb PR.
Par for the course for Telecom. I know criticising Telecom is "shooting fish in a barrel" territory, but their blatant, flagrant, unrelenting arrogance really sticks in my craw something rotten.
I could really biatch and moan about them 'til the cows come home, but I wouldn't be telling you anything you didn't already know, sadly.
They really are an obnoxious, objectionable outfit.
They epitomise the cliche of someone (or something, in their case) who knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.
-
MP4, MP4... interesting. The PSP supports the MP4 codec so I can't see why the PS3 won't. Sony doesn't force you to use it's proprietary video codec (if it has one). In fact, I'd say Sony is the most open console out there (you just buy standard USB cables to charge the controllers, you can put any 2.5" SATA drive inside the PS3, you can install Linux on it, etc).
When you plug in your hard drive, try pressing Triangle then going to Display All. Then everything will be displayed.
Go to http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/current/video/filetypes.html to see what file types are supported.
You can also try using Windows Media Player 11 (or Windows Vista as is I believe has DNLA) and enable media sharing. Your PS3 should then pick it up and you can use that! TVersity is another application which I keep hearing good things about, and it will even encode unsupported movie files on the fly so you can play almost any file type.
-
Actually, it's not even a codec, it's a container format. Though .mp4 files usually are encoded using the H.264 codec which the PS3 supports (Sony supported this in PSP to compliment it's RSS video podcast feature). DivX (and Xvid though not advertised) are also supported.
-
The only backward step would be electing another Republican at this point.
Well, if this is a taste of what another Clinton Administration is going to be like I might well be serving you a well-done crow with a big side of humble pie to follow. In my view, at least a McCain-Obama race would be one between adults (despite my substantive policy differences with both men). If the party bases run to expectations (and I pray I'm wrong) and serve up Clinton vs. Romney or Huckabee. Forget the US general election being a circus, think seriously skanky freak show.
I picked up on that during the misting up. If Obama gets the Democratic nom the country will go backward ... seriously? Won't go forward enough, sure, but electing Obama would actually be a backward step!?
Well, you vote for Obama the terrorists win!
-
Trouble is, he didn't say that. I think there's an ugly sense of entitlement showing up in the Clinton campaign.
Indeed - and while every campaign needs a surrogate to throw out the red meat on your behalf, perhaps Senator Clinton might want to choose someone who sends out significantly less mixed messages than her husband.
-
If I understand your figures we have increase efficiency by about 12% over the period you mention.
15%. But given the lack of policy, that just seems to be business as usual. We need to really drive that figure upwards if we are to get on top of this.
Fortunately, sticking a price on emissions should do exactly that.
-
...it deliberately misrepresents a direct quote. It's not even subtle
and Obama's response was to claim "Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected." - hardly true but I would call it a typical flight of rhetoric for a politician. I wouldn't call it a lie exactly.
They have both tried to misrepresent the words and positions of the other. That's politics.
As for "entitlement", where does this come from exactly? Why is it that it is only HRC who comes in for this treatment? So she thinks she can win, she's probably got a very robust ego. Wouldn't that apply to any of the candidates? It would just be the necessary pre-requisite to survive such a process.
An ambitious Obama - no problem. An ambitious HRC - suddenly it's "ugly".
-
An ambitious Obama - no problem. An ambitious HRC - suddenly it's "ugly".
Well, Neil, since you went there.. Its a lovely evening, and the rest of Dorkland anniversary weekend looks like being equally fine, so I'm NOT going to give your poorly coded allegation of a sexist - nay, misogynistic - double standard the handbagging it deserves.
But please commt the following to memory:
Senator Clinton has a ve-jay-jay.
Senator Obama has a pee-pee.
Whatever.Senator Clinton has skin the colour of fresh-whipped cream.
Senator Obama has skin the colour of sweet dairy milk chocolate.
Whatever.Senator Clinton's campaign issued an outright deceptive radio ads that took five words so far out of context they're not on the same planet any more. I find that despicable
If Obama follows suit, I'll find that equally despicable and you'll hear all about it.
We crystal clear on that?
-
I commmit. And on the topic of lyrics - The Ballad of Bill And Hill:
Well now its time to say good by to Bill and all his kin.
And they would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin in.
You're all invited back a gain to this locality
To have a heapin helpin of their hospitalityHillybilly that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.
Y'all come back now, y'hear?.
-
When you plug in your hard drive, try pressing Triangle then going to Display All. Then everything will be displayed.
It just worked! I thought everything was right before, but thanks ...
Playback is better than the 360, and of course it's quieter.
-
Regarding the H2GO/photo thing, is there actually any right in NZ *not* to have one's photo taken in public and used for any purpose?
There is such a right. My memory of the discussion I had with someone is that you have rights over your image and its use for certain purposes. When it comes to commercial purposes, news media have some exemptions, but companies can't just take a photo of some hot woman drinking their product and then use it for advertising.
And a year or two ago a family complained (I don't recall if they sued in court or went to the Broadcasting Standards tribunal) about being filmed while trapped in their car and having it used for a TV show (**not** the News).
They had been in a car accident and were pinned in their car for an extended period of time and had to be cut free from the car. Mama was wailing away and in great pain/distress. The camera crew who filmed it were not working for the news but a TV show (Motorway Patrol or similar). The family did not want the footage included in a commercial/entertainment programme and felt the TV show had no right to compound their suffering by rebroadcasting the incident.
Whoever judged this complaint acknowledged the programme makers__ were__ operating for commercial gain, but that the public benefit (of learning from the accident and its aftermath) outweighed the private suffering of the family. So the footage could be aired.I don't agree with the decision.
-
I think there's an ugly sense of entitlement showing up in the Clinton campaign.
O please god, jesus, the holy spirit and the fucken angels on high... she's not actually going to win is she?
-
Whoever judged this complaint acknowledged the programme makers were operating for commercial gain, but that the public benefit (of learning from the accident and its aftermath) outweighed the private suffering of the family. So the footage could be aired.
I don't know what the story is with those types of 'reality' shows. But I presume lots of criminals don't want their faces appearing on cops, but that fuzzy face thing they do must move it into a different box. Was that how it was shown?
They shouldn't have worried too much. I don't know anyone who watches Motorway Patrol.
-
I don't know anyone who watches Motorway Patrol.
I'd agree with the qualification that I don't know anyone who admits to watching Motorway Patrol et. al. But someone must be, otherwise there's a cabal of 'reality show' producers and a filing cabinet stuffed with truly horrendous dirt files out there.
-
Anyhow, in good news from South Carolina: Clinton gets owned by a twenty-eight point margin.
And after watching shit like this, you've got to wonder whether Bill Clinton is working on the down-low for Obama. It's the only rational explanation I can come up with...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.