While I whole heartedly agree with the message the FSF is conveying here, I wish that there were some way for it to sound a little less reactionary. People who don't have the technical savvy to smell the raw evil dripping out of every one of Microsoft's products will simply discount this type of thing as the expected response from sore losers instead of the well-intentioned civic effort that it actually is.
Many people in big business whose choice to use Microsoft software hurts them the most would never consider using any other product simply because they feel that the cutthroat, dishonorable, destructive practices must be better than any others because well... who is clearly winning in market saturation and profitability?
Also, just sayin'... being too smug about being right in class often got me beat up on the playground later.
I agree with you. The long-term solution is to grade everyone on a level playing field. As a society we are a long way from this but I feel that we also are actively inhibiting fair competition between genders simply because of historical stereotypes based on genetic profiling that was never expected to change but is now obviously changing rapidly.
Yea I agree with the parent post; that is a weak defense against what is clearly a mutant super-human track star. If you're trying to escape he/her by running away you're doomed.
You're wrong - they're pretty rare but they exist. They however are usually surgically altered early on in childhood and this discussion is entirely irrelevant because it is far more likely (still not very likely) for an individual to still have all-male or all-female genitalia while still having a few distinctly cross-gender genetic traits. Humans (both sexes) are evolving to become tougher. Sports themselves are not immaterial to this process. Deal with it, creationists./me braces for right-wing wrathful impact
No there is another question you can ask instead; How fair is it to disqualify/qualify *humans* based on gender as we evolve as a species towards more mixed-gender traits. It is reasonable to assume that since reproduction includes FUCKING EACH OTHER that the DNA of the resultant pairings would not eventually start to include more and more of the strongest traits of each half of such pairings, right???
Sure historically there are gender-based assumptions about what is "right"/"wrong" for each gender in society but isn't it equally likely that as society progresses these assumptions will also change?
As a trans woman yourself, do you mind if I ask you a serious question?
Please forgive my ignorance as well as the fact I am going to ask in this same post without permission anyway; Do you think that we are doing the LONG-TERM future of competitive sports an injustice by not just completely removing gender segregation entirely from sports and finding a more fair type of skill stratification based on actual strength and endurance testing rather than naive and sometimes incorrect gender/chromosome-based assumptions?
Sorry, but the parent post (probably satirically as well as unwittingly) has suggested the only real way to actually solve all such issues in the long-term. Real gender equality means you gotta compete directly with the men on equal footing, ladies. Sorry but no level of segregation can be entirely fair, ever.
The interesting thing I find here is everyone is so concerned with entirely subjective levels of visual quality (which 99% of real end-users don't *actually* care about even though they think they do because they don't have a trained eye or properly calibrated display equipment) and not even remotely concerned with practical issues like the amount of CPU load it takes to actually encode video for a given codec or down-to-the-byte actual bandwidth usage comparisons between different resolutions/quantifiable visual quality levels. I've worked at companies that wholly embraced proprietary codecs like ON2's VP6 for the superior visual quality at higher resolutions but I can tell you that if you're interested in LIVE streams good luck finding any CPU core today capable of encoding even one HD stream in real time, let alone multiple; even more so because multi-pass encoding is mandatory for realizing the full capability of most such codecs.
And this statement doesn't even address the fact that visual artifacts of entirely different codecs will have entirely different visibility depending on display dot-pitch and CRT vs LCD technology choice. Try it... take your favorite awesome codec and compare it with Theora at the same high bit-rate on both an LCD monitor and a high-end high-dot-pitch CRT monitor and tell me if the tables don't turn on effective visual quality.
I guess what I'm saying here is the trivialization of practical concerns other than perceived visual quality comparisons disturbs me. I agree with all the statements of the parent posts in this thread but I think you guys are sill missing the bigger picture - no pun intended. Youtube may be able to pick whatever codec they want but many smaller business entities companies may actually be currently being excluded from the market by lack of adoption of codecs like Theora that can perform well (forgive me here) "ghetto style."
I dunno but I think "bites the dust" is a bit of a hyperbolic overstatement, don't you? I mean, I doubt Theora's market relevance or market saturation is on any sort of *decline* even if it clearly isn't catching up to h264 in any strategically important way either.
It sounds to me like you're saying here that just because the Ogg Theora team might be somewhat deluded about their codec's visual quality or market potential in the immediate future that it is proof they should just all give up and switch back to MJPEG.
Sure, it would take a lot more for large established companies like youtube to switch to Theora but that doesn't mean that h264 is flawless and everyone should just give up and surrender the entire market to it either. There is a value to the consumer simply in having a variety of video codecs available to choose from, especially ones that are free and tuned to conserve bandwidth.
Just try it. Get 10-15 minutes of sun during the hours of noon-3pm (if you're lucky enough to live somewhere in view of the sun) and just see if that doesn't massively boost your mood.
Seriously... The biggest technical blunders of society can be easily avoided by teaching Star Trek in schools. Come on someone who has seen "Elementary, Dear Data" back me up on this.
Seriously? You're thinking about this now AFTER they've put the whole network up with all remote access enabled?
What the hell makes you think they can't steal all your crap in person? Even if you assigned someone to watch every move they make it would be difficult for novices to even be able to recognize data theft happening as they watched if it happened through a command-line interface.
The right question to be asking is whether we can then use said chips to augment our own brain capacity and perhaps some day achieve complete crossover to machine form.
They aren't, as such. What we know as a "halo" is more of a Hanna-Barbera cartoon knock-off of something that appears in a lot of early Christian art as a nimbus - a sort of glowing aura around Jesus and sometimes an accompanying Lamb. According to this wikipedia page the concept was used earlier in a lot of other historical religious art too before becoming bastardized by pop culture's somewhat clumsy literal interpretation.
Re:True; Strict is stricter than Transitional
on
XHTML 2 Cancelled
·
· Score: 1
Oh. I actually didn't realize there was a strict version of HTML4. If there will actually be an XHTML5 that makes me a lot more comfortable with the concept. In my head the "X" is the part that adds the sanity.
Slashdot Mirror
While I whole heartedly agree with the message the FSF is conveying here, I wish that there were some way for it to sound a little less reactionary. People who don't have the technical savvy to smell the raw evil dripping out of every one of Microsoft's products will simply discount this type of thing as the expected response from sore losers instead of the well-intentioned civic effort that it actually is.
Many people in big business whose choice to use Microsoft software hurts them the most would never consider using any other product simply because they feel that the cutthroat, dishonorable, destructive practices must be better than any others because well... who is clearly winning in market saturation and profitability?
Also, just sayin'... being too smug about being right in class often got me beat up on the playground later.
I agree with you. The long-term solution is to grade everyone on a level playing field. As a society we are a long way from this but I feel that we also are actively inhibiting fair competition between genders simply because of historical stereotypes based on genetic profiling that was never expected to change but is now obviously changing rapidly.
Yea I agree with the parent post; that is a weak defense against what is clearly a mutant super-human track star. If you're trying to escape he/her by running away you're doomed.
I would mod you +5 insightful if it were allowed.
You're wrong - they're pretty rare but they exist. They however are usually surgically altered early on in childhood and this discussion is entirely irrelevant because it is far more likely (still not very likely) for an individual to still have all-male or all-female genitalia while still having a few distinctly cross-gender genetic traits. Humans (both sexes) are evolving to become tougher. Sports themselves are not immaterial to this process. Deal with it, creationists. /me braces for right-wing wrathful impact
No there is another question you can ask instead; How fair is it to disqualify/qualify *humans* based on gender as we evolve as a species towards more mixed-gender traits. It is reasonable to assume that since reproduction includes FUCKING EACH OTHER that the DNA of the resultant pairings would not eventually start to include more and more of the strongest traits of each half of such pairings, right???
Sure historically there are gender-based assumptions about what is "right"/"wrong" for each gender in society but isn't it equally likely that as society progresses these assumptions will also change?
As a trans woman yourself, do you mind if I ask you a serious question?
Please forgive my ignorance as well as the fact I am going to ask in this same post without permission anyway; Do you think that we are doing the LONG-TERM future of competitive sports an injustice by not just completely removing gender segregation entirely from sports and finding a more fair type of skill stratification based on actual strength and endurance testing rather than naive and sometimes incorrect gender/chromosome-based assumptions?
Sorry, but the parent post (probably satirically as well as unwittingly) has suggested the only real way to actually solve all such issues in the long-term. Real gender equality means you gotta compete directly with the men on equal footing, ladies. Sorry but no level of segregation can be entirely fair, ever.
The interesting thing I find here is everyone is so concerned with entirely subjective levels of visual quality (which 99% of real end-users don't *actually* care about even though they think they do because they don't have a trained eye or properly calibrated display equipment) and not even remotely concerned with practical issues like the amount of CPU load it takes to actually encode video for a given codec or down-to-the-byte actual bandwidth usage comparisons between different resolutions/quantifiable visual quality levels. I've worked at companies that wholly embraced proprietary codecs like ON2's VP6 for the superior visual quality at higher resolutions but I can tell you that if you're interested in LIVE streams good luck finding any CPU core today capable of encoding even one HD stream in real time, let alone multiple; even more so because multi-pass encoding is mandatory for realizing the full capability of most such codecs.
And this statement doesn't even address the fact that visual artifacts of entirely different codecs will have entirely different visibility depending on display dot-pitch and CRT vs LCD technology choice. Try it... take your favorite awesome codec and compare it with Theora at the same high bit-rate on both an LCD monitor and a high-end high-dot-pitch CRT monitor and tell me if the tables don't turn on effective visual quality.
I guess what I'm saying here is the trivialization of practical concerns other than perceived visual quality comparisons disturbs me. I agree with all the statements of the parent posts in this thread but I think you guys are sill missing the bigger picture - no pun intended. Youtube may be able to pick whatever codec they want but many smaller business entities companies may actually be currently being excluded from the market by lack of adoption of codecs like Theora that can perform well (forgive me here) "ghetto style."
I dunno but I think "bites the dust" is a bit of a hyperbolic overstatement, don't you? I mean, I doubt Theora's market relevance or market saturation is on any sort of *decline* even if it clearly isn't catching up to h264 in any strategically important way either.
It sounds to me like you're saying here that just because the Ogg Theora team might be somewhat deluded about their codec's visual quality or market potential in the immediate future that it is proof they should just all give up and switch back to MJPEG.
Sure, it would take a lot more for large established companies like youtube to switch to Theora but that doesn't mean that h264 is flawless and everyone should just give up and surrender the entire market to it either. There is a value to the consumer simply in having a variety of video codecs available to choose from, especially ones that are free and tuned to conserve bandwidth.
Just try it. Get 10-15 minutes of sun during the hours of noon-3pm (if you're lucky enough to live somewhere in view of the sun) and just see if that doesn't massively boost your mood.
Seriously... The biggest technical blunders of society can be easily avoided by teaching Star Trek in schools. Come on someone who has seen "Elementary, Dear Data" back me up on this.
Oooh good idea.
Seriously? You're thinking about this now AFTER they've put the whole network up with all remote access enabled?
What the hell makes you think they can't steal all your crap in person? Even if you assigned someone to watch every move they make it would be difficult for novices to even be able to recognize data theft happening as they watched if it happened through a command-line interface.
This is all well and good but what I really want to know is can I install emacs?
The right question to be asking is whether we can then use said chips to augment our own brain capacity and perhaps some day achieve complete crossover to machine form.
You can even blame it on me.
M-x firehose :)
They aren't, as such. What we know as a "halo" is more of a Hanna-Barbera cartoon knock-off of something that appears in a lot of early Christian art as a nimbus - a sort of glowing aura around Jesus and sometimes an accompanying Lamb. According to this wikipedia page the concept was used earlier in a lot of other historical religious art too before becoming bastardized by pop culture's somewhat clumsy literal interpretation.
please make it true please make it true please make it true
... welcome our new zombie bot-net overlords.
Isn't this something that you can accomplish with OpenBSD packet filter?
If you need a mouse you're doing it wrong.
Oh. I actually didn't realize there was a strict version of HTML4. If there will actually be an XHTML5 that makes me a lot more comfortable with the concept. In my head the "X" is the part that adds the sanity.
Someone mod this coward up.