Same here. For me the fonts are even completly unique (the "one in x browsers have this value" column is >840'000). Yet I'm using a fairly standard install (I can't remember installing any fonts). Maybe some programs install a font automatically, making you uniquely identifiable quite easily.
Looks great! The only thing that bugged me was the position indicator, as it didn't have a very predictable motion. Sometimes it goes very fast, other times it just stops. I understand that it's impossible to make the speed constant, but at the moment it really doesn't look natural.
It goes at the speed of the music, depending on how long notes are held. I've been experimenting with that animation...it does seem kinda uncanny valley somehow
I noticed that too. I'm not sure if there's a better way to do it or not; as a piano player myself, it might seem more intuitive to me to have a visual indicator at each beat in the measure, and then just highlight each note (via color or something) as it's played. I think the reason it seems off is because it's so irregular, even though it does match with the music itself.
I'd suggest a combination of both mcav and cpr's suggestions. Highlight the notes themselves instead of the area around them. Drop the jumpy marker and replace it with a smoothly moving, constant speed vertical marker. It's a commonly recognized and understood element (used in pretty much any and every audio production / recording software). It also gives the viewer a better sense of the tempo. Remember, tempo can change drastically over the course of a song; the current marker doesn't demonstrate the difference between playing shorter notes at a slower tempo and longer notes at a faster tempo.
Maybe have a constant-speed thin vertical cursor along with (behind) the jerky highlight? That would help to smooth things out and get out of the "valley."
Well, I might be wrong, but it's probably not the first time a gadget site gets a gadget before it's released. In many cases, that gadget should have been returned to the original owner, not to a journalist. But, again, as far as I know, no company has actually "sent the police in" (or even asked for any investigation) over such a matter. Apple did, it wasn't wrong of them (I mean, it's still a crime), but they were (one of) the first (only?) to do so.
Can you provide other examples where a gadget site pays money to a 3rd party who happens to have an unreleased development model of a future product? I can't think of any...
Don't be disingenuous. The exchange of money here is the least of the transgressions. I would think that someone sending Gizmodo a 'lost' iPhone prototype without the exchange of money would have gotten them into hot water too if they didn't try to return it first (before publishing the internals).
In the past, most leaks have been information (specs,photos,etc) not the actual device.
Right. But the bit where they don't give it to Apple immediately makes it theft.
Which is worse, buying stolen property, or stealing property? If they couldn't be accused of the former, they would be accused of the latter.
You seem to forget the very basis on which this was declared buying stolen property: the theft itself. The theft itself would have occurred no matter whether it was bought or not, and both parties would be guilty if it was just handed over.
Since when is finding something in a bar "theft"? There was a good article about this topic somewhere, about where journalists used to have balls, and the corporate victims were unhappy, but never before did they call the police and bust the door down.
Apple lost a phone. And the police busted someone's door down. I've read many stories of lost phones where the original owner, via software, has given the exact address of where the phone is, and what did the police do?? Nothing.
Since when is it the JOB OF THE POLICE to enforce self-inflicted violations of an individual corporations IP? This is not the role of the police in our society, it is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what is right or wrong, legal or illegal, they are not supposed to be prosecuting this type of thing.
"One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft."
So true, I actually had to search a little moment for the quoted text even though it isn't placed in a strange place. The brain apparently concludes that ads=noise.
Well, when you put it in the search bar, your intention is to send the information to the search provider, after all, that's the whole point of the search box. However, with Chrome, as the two boxes are merged, the autocomplete function sends every keystroke to the search provider even when you wanted to go to a website directly, information that the search provider doesn't need at all and that is maybe private.
It is a great starting point to make Trotsky-duck disappear on Stalin's orders. http://i.imgur.com/xK6Jl.jpg
The wealth of free tools is just amazing these days.
Well, it's still quite obvious that something is missing there, as the central area of the picture is visibly less blurred than its surrounding. I guess you could fix that easily by just blurring it with ordinary gimp blur. (But great start indeed, comrade. :o))
Another technique is to normal-crop out the sky and the distant grass that is so blurry, "content-aware" crop out the duck, then paste back in the stuff you originally cropped out. The white bits at the bottom are sky. The blurry bits are where grass far in the background was stitched in.
But I still wonder how fast the birthday paradox/problem would hit such an identification system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem)