 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.xkcd.com/626/
*sigh*
When will XKCD start being entertaining again? It seems like it's been
ages...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> When will XKCD start being entertaining again? It seems like it's been
> ages...
You didn't get the reference. Notice the sunglasses.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > When will XKCD start being entertaining again? It seems like it's been
> > ages...
>
> You didn't get the reference. Notice the sunglasses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sarYH0z948
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4a8eb889@news.povray.org>,
Invisible wrote:
> http://www.xkcd.com/626/
>
> *sigh*
>
> When will XKCD start being entertaining again? It seems like it's been
> ages...
LOL! This was fun! Had never seen Newton wearing sun glasses before.
But let's make an analogy on the issue. Check Paul Graham. He's there
writing his 100-year language. Just check it. There he is; writing his
100-year language. Why is even changing the name? It's just like Lisp
and Scheme. He's only changing the notation. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sarYH0z948
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36WEn-9zs1U
Bwa ha ha!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sarYH0z948
Does anyone know of a fancy trick to get around that uberstupid
"This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions"?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:08:55 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> http://www.xkcd.com/626/
>
> *sigh*
>
> When will XKCD start being entertaining again? It seems like it's been
> ages...
I laughed at it. :-) And I'm not a math geek. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:50:34 -0400, Warp wrote:
> triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sarYH0z948
>
> Does anyone know of a fancy trick to get around that uberstupid
> "This video is not available in your country due to copyright
> restrictions"?
TOR. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:01:53 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> When will XKCD start being entertaining again? It seems like it's been
>> ages...
>
> You didn't get the reference. Notice the sunglasses.
OK, that bit I didn't understand.....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sarYH0z948
>
> Does anyone know of a fancy trick to get around that uberstupid
> "This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions"?
Yes. Get your country to pass draconian copyright laws that nobody but the
big media companies think are a good idea. Then we'll let you see our stuff.[1]
On another note, if you're going to write an article about leaked
copyrighted information, WTF would you post it on youtube to host it?
http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2009/8/22/teaser-trailer-for-inception-leaked-online.html
[1] SCFTHI
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Yes. Get your country to pass draconian copyright laws that nobody but the
> big media companies think are a good idea. Then we'll let you see our stuff.[1]
I don't think many countries have more draconian copyright laws than
Finland currently. (Although I hear that Canada is passing, or has already
passed, a copyright law that makes Finland look like the promised land of
global public domain in comparison.)
Anyways, I don't think it should be that hard to fool youtube to think
you come from another country, by using some kind of anonymizer proxy or
whatever.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:06:48 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I don't think many countries have more draconian copyright laws than
> Finland currently. (Although I hear that Canada is passing, or has
> already passed, a copyright law that makes Finland look like the
> promised land of global public domain in comparison.)
I don't know about the laws in Finland, but have you looked at (in depth)
the US copyright laws?
> Anyways, I don't think it should be that hard to fool youtube to think
> you come from another country, by using some kind of anonymizer proxy or
> whatever.
It isn't - as I said, TOR (The Onion Router) is good for this.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:06:48 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > I don't think many countries have more draconian copyright laws than
> > Finland currently. (Although I hear that Canada is passing, or has
> > already passed, a copyright law that makes Finland look like the
> > promised land of global public domain in comparison.)
> I don't know about the laws in Finland, but have you looked at (in depth)
> the US copyright laws?
Not really. The only thing I have heard about the US is RIAA harassing
individuals with exorbitant fines for each illegally downloaded song,
making it a more severe crime than eg. murder.
In Finland you won't get fined with 2 million dollars for 20 songs,
but you might get fined quite vast sums nevertheless (tens of thousands
of euros, which is way more than the average citizen owns). And this even
if the "Finnish RIAA" owns zero rights to those songs. It gets compensation
for music which it does not own in any way. (Yes, it has happened in
practice.)
And in Finland if I tell you that you can bypass DVD copy protection by
using mencoder, at least in theory I could get jailed. Not only is the act
of bypassing copy protections illegal, but even discussing with someone how
to do it is illegal.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> but even discussing with someone how
> to do it is illegal.
I think the DCMA has similar provisions. That's how they get web sites taken
down that link to DeCSS and things like that.
My apologies. I had remembers you having described the Finnish system as
rather reasonable, but maybe I was recalling Finnish patent law rather than
copyright law, or something like that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://www.xkcd.com/626/
>
> *sigh*
>
> When will XKCD start being entertaining again? It seems like it's been
> ages...
Oh, I don't know... I've enjoyed quite a few of them lately :)
http://www.xkcd.com/626/
http://www.xkcd.com/624/
http://www.xkcd.com/623/
http://www.xkcd.com/622/
http://www.xkcd.com/619/ (this one was especially good :) )
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:30:18 -0400, Warp wrote:
> And in Finland if I tell you that you can bypass DVD copy protection
> by
> using mencoder, at least in theory I could get jailed. Not only is the
> act of bypassing copy protections illegal, but even discussing with
> someone how to do it is illegal.
As Darren said, DMCA here is very similar. But the other rather
insidious part of copyright is how "big copyright holders" continue to
extend the terms of copyright in the US. Just have a look at the
copyrights Disney holds on Mickey Mouse and see how that lobby has pushed
(and continues to push) the extension of copyrights.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> When will XKCD start being entertaining again? It seems like it's been
>> ages...
>
> Oh, I don't know... I've enjoyed quite a few of them lately :)
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/626/
> http://www.xkcd.com/624/
> http://www.xkcd.com/623/
> http://www.xkcd.com/622/
> http://www.xkcd.com/619/ (this one was especially good :) )
Of these, only 624 was actually amusing. The others either fail to make
sense, or they make sense but just aren't very amusing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> When will XKCD start being entertaining again? It seems like it's
>>> been ages...
>>
>> Oh, I don't know... I've enjoyed quite a few of them lately :)
>>
>> http://www.xkcd.com/626/
>> http://www.xkcd.com/624/
>> http://www.xkcd.com/623/
>> http://www.xkcd.com/622/
>> http://www.xkcd.com/619/ (this one was especially good :) )
>
> Of these, only 624 was actually amusing. The others either fail to make
> sense, or they make sense but just aren't very amusing.
I disagree :)
I will admit, however, that sometimes the references can be pretty
difficult to get in which case the jokes aren't funny.
OK, new one's up: http://www.xkcd.com/627/
If you have EVER done tech support for family, this nails it perfectly :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Of these, only 624 was actually amusing. The others either fail to
>> make sense, or they make sense but just aren't very amusing.
>
> I disagree :)
>
> I will admit, however, that sometimes the references can be pretty
> difficult to get in which case the jokes aren't funny.
Well, take 622. It's pretty self-explanatory: sleep deprevation does
weird things to your brain. *yawn*
> OK, new one's up: http://www.xkcd.com/627/
>
> If you have EVER done tech support for family, this nails it perfectly :)
It's true, but it's not especially funny.
Hell, even 518 was funnier.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 06:48:00 -0700, Chambers wrote:
> OK, new one's up: http://www.xkcd.com/627/
>
> If you have EVER done tech support for family, this nails it perfectly
> :)
Yes! :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:52:04 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> Of these, only 624 was actually amusing. The others either fail to
>>> make sense, or they make sense but just aren't very amusing.
>>
>> I disagree :)
>>
>> I will admit, however, that sometimes the references can be pretty
>> difficult to get in which case the jokes aren't funny.
>
> Well, take 622. It's pretty self-explanatory: sleep deprevation does
> weird things to your brain. *yawn*
>
>> OK, new one's up: http://www.xkcd.com/627/
>>
>> If you have EVER done tech support for family, this nails it perfectly
>> :)
>
> It's true, but it's not especially funny.
>
> Hell, even 518 was funnier.
I'll send my mom your way the next time she has a problem, then. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> OK, new one's up: http://www.xkcd.com/627/
>>>
>>> If you have EVER done tech support for family, this nails it perfectly
>>> :)
>> It's true, but it's not especially funny.
>>
>> Hell, even 518 was funnier.
>
> I'll send my mom your way the next time she has a problem, then. ;-)
Tech support for non-tech people isn't funny. It's not even slightly
funny. It's DEPRESSING.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:28:32 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>> I'll send my mom your way the next time she has a problem, then. ;-)
>
> Tech support for non-tech people isn't funny. It's not even slightly
> funny. It's DEPRESSING.
You haven't tried helping my mom, then....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-8-2009 17:39, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:28:32 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>>> I'll send my mom your way the next time she has a problem, then. ;-)
>> Tech support for non-tech people isn't funny. It's not even slightly
>> funny. It's DEPRESSING.
>
> You haven't tried helping my mom, then....
Does she do stand up comedy while you work at it?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 21:05:19 +0200, andrel wrote:
> On 24-8-2009 17:39, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:28:32 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>>> I'll send my mom your way the next time she has a problem, then. ;-)
>>> Tech support for non-tech people isn't funny. It's not even slightly
>>> funny. It's DEPRESSING.
>>
>> You haven't tried helping my mom, then....
>
> Does she do stand up comedy while you work at it?
She perhaps doesn't think she does....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
