I don't think you're meant to take that literally. The point is an application written in flash will be written once and run on phones, tablets, computers, TVs... there is nothing that comes anywhere near it in terms of compatibility.
I find it amazing people who use OOXML and PDF documents without a second thought are all of sudden outraged at this piece of propietary software and can't wait to replace it with a technology that is still being born.
I will oppose any format that tries to become a standard that is held closed by a private organization, where that organization is the sole gatekeeper of using that standard. Even PDF isn't in that category.
And from its sub-pixel resolution, to its developer tools, to its 'write once, play everywhere' functionality, Flash has too much going for it to fall by the wayside.
What write once, play everywhere functionality?!?!
Agreed. Why when I go to http://dailyshow.com/ (or any comedy central site) and I click on a video, instead of playing the video the flash app says "Error loading stylesheet. RSL http://media.mtvnservices.com/global/flex/rsl/framework_3.2.0.3958.swz failed to load. Error #2046?" Why, when I go to Hulu, does it have no problem streaming the ads, but then when it tries to play the content the flash app says "Sorry, we were unable to stream this video. Please check your Internet connection and try again?" Why did it take O'Reilly and Associates so long (finally, 8 months later, the site works) to come up with a Flash-based Safari Online Bookshelf site that actually worked under Linux?
It's because Flash isn't a fully open standard, the play everywhere functionality doesn't exist, and OS and bitness (32-bit vs 64-bit) dependencies are built into sites, and Adobe appointed someone who is actively hostile to Linux as their lead Linux developer for Flash.
I'd definitely recommend World of Warcraft modding if he's already into the game.
It's based on LUA which is its own programming language that I've heard is similar to Ruby. Anyway, even just going through popular mods and studying what they do can give you insight on basic programming techniques.
The problem with this position is that the "gourmet" approach is often one and the same as the utilitarian approach. Many top chefs advocate "nose to tail" eating, where every part of the animal is used. They have no problems enjoying things that many people consider "gross" as delicacies.
Yeah. This is why I don't understand the objection people give me to eating hot dogs every once in awhile. "Do you know what they put in those things? It's got, like.. ground up hoofs and snouts and stuff." And my response is.. "Yeah... so? Is it going to kill me? Is it especially unhealthy compared to whatever else I might be eating? No? Then there's no problem."
In the US, of 991 adults responding to the survey, which was organised by the British Council, 51% agreed that evolution should be on the curriculum alongside other theories, like intelligent design.
Was that actually the question that was asked? If so it was so poorly phrased that you can't draw any useful conclusions out of it.
Dear moderators. Your mod points are not there to downmod people whose politics you disagree with. Modding Wyatt Earp's post as troll was a gross violation of moderation guidelines.
Forgive this guy, he has only read the latest Texas version of 1984, which deals more with people joining the Army to become better people, and shooting down evil atheists and muslims.
I don't see how "1984" is a diatribe against fascism. Double-thinking, rewriting history and language, surveying and controlling people's lives in detail, and so on, are much more typical of Stalinist Russia than of Nazist Germany.
Eh, those things were basically Goebbels forte. When I hear "propaganda" I think of Nazi Germany before I think of Stalin's Regime. Granted they're both above and beyond compared to most others..
It always amuses me when I start a new contract role somewhere and none of the supposed "IT Professionals" working there know about the "secret" of Expert Sex Change.
Right, because knowing an obscure detail about some random crappy web site is a key skill in the IT world.
Greece is actually a very scary object lesson -- they got into the mess they did by taking the very same steps we're taking now. Excessive spending over decreased revenues.
When he asked them what the hell they were doing trading with a bankrupt, they told him "but the prices on the screen are amazing!"
He had to explain to them that the prices were amazing because they were unlikely to see the transaction completed by their counterparty. "Have you not been reading the papers?" he asked, exasperated. But all they could do was stare at the trading screen.
They just didn't get it. That's the thing about these so-called Masters of the Universe - they're not the best and the brightest despite what they think.
It's balance of risk. You buy what seems like an amazing long-shot (thus the prices) knowing you'll likely lose it, but since you put in very little, you'll lose very little. Then if that longshot actually pays off, you'll really come out the winner.
In other words, the traders were trading worthless pieces of paper.
I'd say "sort of like our fiat currency, then?" except that's worse than worthless since it's entirely based on debt, or negative worth.
Except when I go into Best Buy and slap down a thousand bucks for a new TV, they don't tell me "your fiat currency is based on debt and is worse than worthless." Neither do the folks at the currency exchange.
You want to see a worthless currency, go to Zimbabwe.
Why on earth did it rebound the way it did and remain stable the rest of the day ?
Probably because people said "Oh shit, we got panicked over nothing. Hey, the market plunged, now is a good time to buy.."
If it was caused by a typo, how can someone entering a "B"illion instead of a "M"illion cause this, normally wouldn't you have to enter 1,000,000,000 into the computer program instead of "Million" ? I guess unless they were using Microsoft Bob for Day Traders.
I am not (yet) buying the "someone entered b instead of m" story. All I've seen are major news stations repeating each others' story with no verifiable sources. The corporation involved, Chase, has said that the story is false and that it is impossible to put through a trade that big.
Since you're clearly familiar with the work involved, both in terms of the theora source code and the implementation of the codec for use in IE, you should write a patch and provide it to Microsoft.
I know you're just baiting him, but if that were actually possible, I'm sure it would quickly get done. That's one of the few open-source 'itches' that many, many coders would want to scratch.
It's that simple. DRM doesn't give you less content, as people who currently use DRM simply won't publish anything unless they can use DRM. The choice is between having DRM & more content, or having no DRM & less content.
That is a false dichotomy. Publishers have published with no DRM or easily broken DRM before.
The three choices, in preferred order:
Publish with DRM. Publish without DRM. Publish nothing.
Content producers will not simply choose to close up shop if there were no DRM. They desperately want DRM. But if DRM is no option (and really, this is just theory as there's no chance any ban on or consumer revolt against DRM will happen), then they will choose publish without DRM over not publishing at all. Maybe they won't publish in as many forms or on as much media, but content will still get made.
We get videos embedded in a web page, instead of in their own window
Because most people don't want that. Yes, perhaps you do, and perhaps even I do. But many end users want the experience -- they like favoriting videos, they like to leave comments, and they want it all to be integrated so that it all fits together and looks nice. And, most importantly, pretty much NO content servers want that either. When bandwidth is expensive and the ad revenue has to flow in somehow, advertising is necessary, either in the video itself or on the associated webpage.
I am baffled at how anyone can think that finally having an open delivery system, that can work with a range of formats, is *worse* than a proprietary system that only supports encumbered codecs (H.263+/VP3, VP6, H.264, MPEG-4p2), at least OOB and accelerated.
Because as it stands today if a user/company wants to use a browser under, say, Linux, today, they won't get sued. They can install the shitty Flash plugin which the majority of web video today uses and they'll be safe. No one will bother them for that. Yes, it's proprietary, but there are few royalties involved.
Under the new proposal, if the majority of web content moves to H.264, where does that leave the web content makers and the software writers? Steve Jobs has already hinted of potential impending lawsuits in this direction. If H.264 is patent-encumbered and lawsuits break out, it will have a far more negative effect than the current status quo does. Plus, a patent-encumbered codec cannot be Free Software, so I don't really see it as being a great leap forward.
Yes, you're right, point number 1 (in your earlier post) is definitely a step forward. However, if it's paired with codec that is two steps back, I have a hard time getting excited. And until very recently I was -very- excited about the possibility of HTML5 killing video-over-flash, something I've desired for a long time.
but really - people don't really buy consoles specifically to run linux.
I had Linux on my PS3 within a day of purchasing it. I knew it would run it and I wanted the extra functionality. It (and Linux on the PS2 before it) meant that we could make do with a cheap windows box for everyone else, who could use that machine more often with less sharing necessary.
I was really eager to install Yellowdog Linux. I even bought a larger hard drive for the console for it.
I think I used it once. I gave up when I discovered how neutered it was by Sony's hypervisor.:(
As another poster said, it was advertised at launch, but not since then. Usually as a way to tell people how incredibly powerful the machine was with researchers crunching numbers on it in ways most people wouldn't care about.
Just 'cause something has the potential to be abused you can't assume it will.
Sure you do. It's the Law of Unintended Consequences. Several large media-related bills (and non-media related bills for that matter) have been abused in ways the original authors didn't necessarily intend, or at least that many supporters didn't think would happen. Overreaching sections of the DMCA making it impossible to sample works for critique or personal use. The PATRIOT Act being used to get ISP records for a Stargate SG-1 fansite webmaster suspected of copyright infringement. It's also been invoked to keep homeless away from train stations.
If a bill contains a provision that -could- be abused, and it would benefit those who would have the ability to do so, then yes, you should assume that it will be abused.
I don't think American Express, Paypall, Visa and Mastercard are worried about people ignoring their EULA and pirating their IP. I suspect they rather hope to catch all the people stealing credit card details.
If Visa, Mastercard, et al were -really- serious about cutting down credit fraud, they would push for higher security within credit transactions and cards. But lower security results in more transactions which results in more revenue for them, so they focus instead on punishing people who abuse an insecure service while ignoring the security holes that allow such fiascoes to occur in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
The play everywhere functionality doesn't exist.
I don't think you're meant to take that literally. The point is an application written in flash will be written once and run on phones, tablets, computers, TVs... there is nothing that comes anywhere near it in terms of compatibility.
I find it amazing people who use OOXML and PDF documents without a second thought are all of sudden outraged at this piece of propietary software and can't wait to replace it with a technology that is still being born.
I will oppose any format that tries to become a standard that is held closed by a private organization, where that organization is the sole gatekeeper of using that standard. Even PDF isn't in that category.
And from its sub-pixel resolution, to its developer tools, to its 'write once, play everywhere' functionality, Flash has too much going for it to fall by the wayside.
What write once, play everywhere functionality?!?!
Agreed. Why when I go to http://dailyshow.com/ (or any comedy central site) and I click on a video, instead of playing the video the flash app says "Error loading stylesheet. RSL http://media.mtvnservices.com/global/flex/rsl/framework_3.2.0.3958.swz failed to load. Error #2046?" Why, when I go to Hulu, does it have no problem streaming the ads, but then when it tries to play the content the flash app says "Sorry, we were unable to stream this video. Please check your Internet connection and try again?" Why did it take O'Reilly and Associates so long (finally, 8 months later, the site works) to come up with a Flash-based Safari Online Bookshelf site that actually worked under Linux?
It's because Flash isn't a fully open standard, the play everywhere functionality doesn't exist, and OS and bitness (32-bit vs 64-bit) dependencies are built into sites, and Adobe appointed someone who is actively hostile to Linux as their lead Linux developer for Flash.
I'd definitely recommend World of Warcraft modding if he's already into the game.
It's based on LUA which is its own programming language that I've heard is similar to Ruby.
Anyway, even just going through popular mods and studying what they do can give you insight on basic programming techniques.
The problem with this position is that the "gourmet" approach is often one and the same as the utilitarian approach. Many top chefs advocate "nose to tail" eating, where every part of the animal is used. They have no problems enjoying things that many people consider "gross" as delicacies.
Yeah. This is why I don't understand the objection people give me to eating hot dogs every once in awhile. "Do you know what they put in those things? It's got, like.. ground up hoofs and snouts and stuff." And my response is.. "Yeah... so? Is it going to kill me? Is it especially unhealthy compared to whatever else I might be eating? No? Then there's no problem."
In the US, of 991 adults responding to the survey, which was organised by the British Council, 51% agreed that evolution should be on the curriculum alongside other theories, like intelligent design.
Was that actually the question that was asked? If so it was so poorly phrased that you can't draw any useful conclusions out of it.
Dear moderators. Your mod points are not there to downmod people whose politics you disagree with. Modding Wyatt Earp's post as troll was a gross violation of moderation guidelines.
Playing devil's advocate here, they aren't changing facts, nor are they actively suppressing the truth, they're just... withholding certain facts.
A lie of omission is still a lie.
Forgive this guy, he has only read the latest Texas version of 1984, which deals more with people joining the Army to become better people, and shooting down evil atheists and muslims.
Oh yes, the Heinlein version!
I don't see how "1984" is a diatribe against fascism. Double-thinking, rewriting history and language, surveying and controlling people's lives in detail, and so on, are much more typical of Stalinist Russia than of Nazist Germany.
Eh, those things were basically Goebbels forte. When I hear "propaganda" I think of Nazi Germany before I think of Stalin's Regime. Granted they're both above and beyond compared to most others..
It always amuses me when I start a new contract role somewhere and none of the supposed "IT Professionals" working there know about the "secret" of Expert Sex Change.
Right, because knowing an obscure detail about some random crappy web site is a key skill in the IT world.
I think that was the OP's point.
Greece is actually a very scary object lesson -- they got into the mess they did by taking the very same steps we're taking now. Excessive spending over decreased revenues.
When he asked them what the hell they were doing trading with a bankrupt, they told him "but the prices on the screen are amazing!"
He had to explain to them that the prices were amazing because they were unlikely to see the transaction completed by their counterparty. "Have you not been reading the papers?" he asked, exasperated. But all they could do was stare at the trading screen.
They just didn't get it. That's the thing about these so-called Masters of the Universe - they're not the best and the brightest despite what they think.
It's balance of risk. You buy what seems like an amazing long-shot (thus the prices) knowing you'll likely lose it, but since you put in very little, you'll lose very little. Then if that longshot actually pays off, you'll really come out the winner.
Come to think of it, it really is gambling.
I'd say "sort of like our fiat currency, then?" except that's worse than worthless since it's entirely based on debt, or negative worth.
Except when I go into Best Buy and slap down a thousand bucks for a new TV, they don't tell me "your fiat currency is based on debt and is worse than worthless." Neither do the folks at the currency exchange.
You want to see a worthless currency, go to Zimbabwe.
Why on earth did it rebound the way it did and remain stable the rest of the day ?
Probably because people said "Oh shit, we got panicked over nothing. Hey, the market plunged, now is a good time to buy.."
If it was caused by a typo, how can someone entering a "B"illion instead of a "M"illion cause this, normally wouldn't you have to enter 1,000,000,000 into the computer program instead of "Million" ? I guess unless they were using Microsoft Bob for Day Traders.
I am not (yet) buying the "someone entered b instead of m" story. All I've seen are major news stations repeating each others' story with no verifiable sources. The corporation involved, Chase, has said that the story is false and that it is impossible to put through a trade that big.
Since you're clearly familiar with the work involved, both in terms of the theora source code and the implementation of the codec for use in IE, you should write a patch and provide it to Microsoft.
I know you're just baiting him, but if that were actually possible, I'm sure it would quickly get done. That's one of the few open-source 'itches' that many, many coders would want to scratch.
It's that simple. DRM doesn't give you less content, as people who currently use DRM simply won't publish anything unless they can use DRM. The choice is between having DRM & more content, or having no DRM & less content.
That is a false dichotomy. Publishers have published with no DRM or easily broken DRM before.
The three choices, in preferred order:
Publish with DRM.
Publish without DRM.
Publish nothing.
Content producers will not simply choose to close up shop if there were no DRM. They desperately want DRM. But if DRM is no option (and really, this is just theory as there's no chance any ban on or consumer revolt against DRM will happen), then they will choose publish without DRM over not publishing at all. Maybe they won't publish in as many forms or on as much media, but content will still get made.
The goal then, should be to re-frame the argument in a way as to remove the government from areas which it doesn't belong (like defining marriage).
Unfortunately, that will then be framed as well as an "attack on marriage" and an assault on the "sanctity of marriage."
But if you even use the word "sanctity" to define marriage, it's clearly not something that the government should be involved in. :-P
We get videos embedded in a web page, instead of in their own window
Because most people don't want that. Yes, perhaps you do, and perhaps even I do. But many end users want the experience -- they like favoriting videos, they like to leave comments, and they want it all to be integrated so that it all fits together and looks nice. And, most importantly, pretty much NO content servers want that either. When bandwidth is expensive and the ad revenue has to flow in somehow, advertising is necessary, either in the video itself or on the associated webpage.
I am baffled at how anyone can think that finally having an open delivery system, that can work with a range of formats, is *worse* than a proprietary system that only supports encumbered codecs (H.263+/VP3, VP6, H.264, MPEG-4p2), at least OOB and accelerated.
Because as it stands today if a user/company wants to use a browser under, say, Linux, today, they won't get sued. They can install the shitty Flash plugin which the majority of web video today uses and they'll be safe. No one will bother them for that. Yes, it's proprietary, but there are few royalties involved.
Under the new proposal, if the majority of web content moves to H.264, where does that leave the web content makers and the software writers? Steve Jobs has already hinted of potential impending lawsuits in this direction. If H.264 is patent-encumbered and lawsuits break out, it will have a far more negative effect than the current status quo does. Plus, a patent-encumbered codec cannot be Free Software, so I don't really see it as being a great leap forward.
Yes, you're right, point number 1 (in your earlier post) is definitely a step forward. However, if it's paired with codec that is two steps back, I have a hard time getting excited. And until very recently I was -very- excited about the possibility of HTML5 killing video-over-flash, something I've desired for a long time.
Probably. It's still a cheap massage.
Don't you mean "expensive massage?"
I had Linux on my PS3 within a day of purchasing it. I knew it would run it and I wanted the extra functionality. It (and Linux on the PS2 before it) meant that we could make do with a cheap windows box for everyone else, who could use that machine more often with less sharing necessary.
I was really eager to install Yellowdog Linux. I even bought a larger hard drive for the console for it.
I think I used it once. I gave up when I discovered how neutered it was by Sony's hypervisor. :(
Your car is mostly (or all) computer controlled.
And that's not exactly a positive development either.
As another poster said, it was advertised at launch, but not since then. Usually as a way to tell people how incredibly powerful the machine was with researchers crunching numbers on it in ways most people wouldn't care about.
Just 'cause something has the potential to be abused you can't assume it will.
Sure you do. It's the Law of Unintended Consequences. Several large media-related bills (and non-media related bills for that matter) have been abused in ways the original authors didn't necessarily intend, or at least that many supporters didn't think would happen. Overreaching sections of the DMCA making it impossible to sample works for critique or personal use. The PATRIOT Act being used to get ISP records for a Stargate SG-1 fansite webmaster suspected of copyright infringement. It's also been invoked to keep homeless away from train stations.
If a bill contains a provision that -could- be abused, and it would benefit those who would have the ability to do so, then yes, you should assume that it will be abused.
I don't think American Express, Paypall, Visa and Mastercard are worried about people ignoring their EULA and pirating their IP. I suspect they rather hope to catch all the people stealing credit card details.
If Visa, Mastercard, et al were -really- serious about cutting down credit fraud, they would push for higher security within credit transactions and cards. But lower security results in more transactions which results in more revenue for them, so they focus instead on punishing people who abuse an insecure service while ignoring the security holes that allow such fiascoes to occur in the first place.