Words and terms have definitions. You've got "rights" wrong. You've got "begging the question" wrong.
The rights I have are those guaranteed to me by the constitution, and they are defined as inalienable.
What I said did not "beg the question", because I did not state anything in an assumptive manner. I stated fact:
"I believe in the government not encroaching on the rights I am supposed to have."
The rights I am supposed to have are enumerated, they are defined as inalienable, the particular right in question is chief among them, and government encroachment is plainly obvious.
You don't seem to get it. It's not ONLY A OR B, it's AT LEAST A OR B. If they want to add other stuff on top, that's great. If OGG is required, any browser can go ahead and support H.264 as well, or whatever the fuck else they want. Sites can be confident that if a browser supports the video tag, they will be able to supply an OGG stream and have it work.
If the browser doesn't follow the spec, either be nice and supply other common formats as well or tell your users to fuck off. Your choice.
I'm advocating a more specific standard. I'm advocating OGG because it's a good codec AND it's free.
HTML 5 should require OGG support for the video tag. If a browser wants to implement H.264 as well, fine. If a site wants to supply H.264 content, fine. If a site wants to NOT supply OGG content, fine. If a browser wants to ONLY implement H.264, then they're out of spec. Don't let them claim to support the video tag when they don't.
A spec should not be written with any regard to the jackassery of those who are unwilling to implement it. The fact that a browser doesn't conform does not make the spec useless, it makes the browser useless. The fact that you think otherwise is a perfect example of how backwards this whole scenario is.
"You could also use one of them 32-bit CPUs with a server version of the OS and a mobo that all support extended addressing to get more memory (typically 64 GB max, 36-bit addressing)"
"This is a bit flippant and suggests that you don't understand the nature of the objections to using Ogg."
No, THIS is a bit flippant, and suggests you don't understand the importance of a specification that can be easily and freely implemented, or, barring that, one that is complete.
If you say "A OR B" then that means web sites know to provide AT LEAST one stream in either A or B, because they know any browser claiming to support the video tag will support the stream. If not, it's a BROWSER ERROR.
Saying "Support what you want, I dunno, fuck this, I give up" means that the big boys will support H.264 in the browser and on the site, and smaller sites will have to pony up for licensing or have a bunch of people who can't play their shit. IE will take even longer to get <video>support. Etc.
There is NO REASON to leave something like this unspecified in a specification. The goal is to make shit work for all. Intentionally backing off like this sucks a big one.
Leaving anything in the spec undefined is retarded. It's a spec.
If Apple doesn't want to be up to spec, fuck 'em. (Same for MS, who has, as far as I know, no plans to support <:video>.)
Luckily we can specify multiple codecs and let the browser pick. All this really does is create more browser incompatibility. All major sites will be using some H.264 codec, and browsers can determine which stream to play if there are multiple it can decode.
It would be nice if there was a standard set in the HTML 5 spec to list several codecs that must be supported by the browser.
H.264 - very good
Ogg - good, free
MPEG/1/2/3/4 - I dunno, why not. Lots of content exists that's mpeg 1 or 2 or 4(pre-PART 10/H.264) (and sometimes the audio is mp3). This would be easier for a lot of machines to decode, too, even though it's not nearly as bandwidth efficient.
Our rights are INALIENABLE. They cannot be terminated or restricted.
The fact that we have people like you who believe that rights begin and end is a testament to the utter destruction of those rights.
It is NOT the government's role to delineate cases of conflicting rights. It's left up to the PEOPLE (the individuals involved) to deal with it.
The price of having rights is dealing with assholes. It is a fucking trivial price to pay. It used to be people could talk to their neighbors, ignore the idiots, and in general get along. Then someone decided to let the government get involved.
If you need to find something, you need to: Open search Start typing Read a list of results (no, it's NOT instant, it's fast, but it's NOT instant, but I gave you instant anyway) Open the file
If I need to find something, I need to: Nothing. I know where it is.
If I need to access something, I need to: Open a file browser Type in the location
As for your "new tools are better" bullshit (how do you say that when you also know and claim that typing is faster than using a mouse?):
If I need to access something quickly, I need to: Open a command line Typ<TAB>in<TAB>th<TAB>lo<TAB>
(Besides, GUI file browsers often do auto-completion, history, etc)
If you're blasting music, you can be (reasonably) fined according to your city's laws. You can be sued by your neighbor for breaking his windows, his psychiatry bill, etc. if you do it loud and long enough.
No one can ever come in and force you to turn it off.
I don't get why people can't separate responsibility from restricting people's rights. My right to do ___ NEVER ends. Either I have the right or I don't. I take full responsibility for my ACTIONS, and I am culpable for direct and demonstrable damages. But no one ever can take a right away. If they can, then it wasn't a right to begin with, it was a privilege.
You do know that only applies to the 64-bit OSs, right? The 32-bit OSs can't do it, regardless of what your BIOS can handle.
This form of "memory remapping" only exists to move memory-mapped I/O to the top of the 8 GB, or 16Gb, or etc. boundary, instead of the 4 GB boundary. If you're limited to 4 GB by your OS, turning on memory remapping won't help anything (and may cause problems). It should be called "I/O Remapping".
A 32-bit Vista machine will often report 4 GB in the system properties window, but if you look in task manager you'll see that it's still limited to 3.x. This was done in an update (SP1? I dunno, I don't use Vista) to make people shut up about not getting all of their RAM when they don't know what they're doing.
From your own article:
For Windows Vista to use all 4 GB of memory on a computer that has 4 GB of memory installed, the computer must meet the following requirements:
* The chipset must support at least 8 GB of address space.
* The CPU must support the x64 instruction set.
* The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature. * An x64 (64-bit) version of Windows Vista must be used.
Seems to me vaccines don't kill pathogens, they prompt your immune system to kill (and thus form markers for) gimped versions of the pathogens / things that look like the pathogen.
If you have AIDS, you have no immune system to learn from the vaccine. Thus, you do not get immunity.
Correlation, even shitty correlation from bad data, does not imply causation.
I don't think we'll be experiencing cooling for the next decade. I hope we get a damned real summer every year, and for the past 10 years it's been shit because we've been cooling.
So your argument is:
Look at this graph! NASA! Data doesn't match up? Look at the oceans! Heat capacity! We can't measure it, BUT TRUST ME, it's bound to support MY SIDE of the argument!
Slashdot Mirror
Words and terms have definitions.
You've got "rights" wrong.
You've got "begging the question" wrong.
The rights I have are those guaranteed to me by the constitution, and they are defined as inalienable.
What I said did not "beg the question", because I did not state anything in an assumptive manner. I stated fact:
"I believe in the government not encroaching on the rights I am supposed to have."
The rights I am supposed to have are enumerated, they are defined as inalienable, the particular right in question is chief among them, and government encroachment is plainly obvious.
I"m not going to respond to your drivel about rights, because you're wrong. It's the definition of a right.
As for begging the question, no, you used it wrong.
You don't seem to get it.
It's not ONLY A OR B, it's AT LEAST A OR B. If they want to add other stuff on top, that's great.
If OGG is required, any browser can go ahead and support H.264 as well, or whatever the fuck else they want. Sites can be confident that if a browser supports the video tag, they will be able to supply an OGG stream and have it work.
If the browser doesn't follow the spec, either be nice and supply other common formats as well or tell your users to fuck off. Your choice.
I'm advocating a more specific standard.
I'm advocating OGG because it's a good codec AND it's free.
HTML 5 should require OGG support for the video tag. If a browser wants to implement H.264 as well, fine. If a site wants to supply H.264 content, fine. If a site wants to NOT supply OGG content, fine. If a browser wants to ONLY implement H.264, then they're out of spec. Don't let them claim to support the video tag when they don't.
A spec should not be written with any regard to the jackassery of those who are unwilling to implement it. The fact that a browser doesn't conform does not make the spec useless, it makes the browser useless. The fact that you think otherwise is a perfect example of how backwards this whole scenario is.
Uh, that's what I described many posts ago.
"You could also use one of them 32-bit CPUs with a server version of the OS and a mobo that all support extended addressing to get more memory (typically 64 GB max, 36-bit addressing)"
"This is a bit flippant and suggests that you don't understand the nature of the objections to using Ogg."
No, THIS is a bit flippant, and suggests you don't understand the importance of a specification that can be easily and freely implemented, or, barring that, one that is complete.
If you say "A OR B" then that means web sites know to provide AT LEAST one stream in either A or B, because they know any browser claiming to support the video tag will support the stream. If not, it's a BROWSER ERROR.
Saying "Support what you want, I dunno, fuck this, I give up" means that the big boys will support H.264 in the browser and on the site, and smaller sites will have to pony up for licensing or have a bunch of people who can't play their shit. IE will take even longer to get <video>support. Etc.
There is NO REASON to leave something like this unspecified in a specification. The goal is to make shit work for all. Intentionally backing off like this sucks a big one.
The last 4 digits, or your account pin.
I haven't encountered a company that won't let you change you pin from the default (the last 4 digits of your SSN) to one of your choosing.
No, if you forget your account pin, they'll probably just have you verify your identity with the last four digits of your SSN...
But it at least keeps yous SSN off of your statements, away from the ears of eavesdroppers, etc.
Naught Naught Naught Naught Naught Naught Naught Naught Two.
Damn Roosevelt!
This isn't research, this is trolling.
There is nothing novel about it.
There is nothing to be learned.
You're just being a dick.
Nobody give this fucker any research money, any PHD, or any book deals.
The HTML spec is supposed to be a guideline, not a log of who fucked up, in what way, and how.
The spec can say "EITHER OGG OR H.264".
Sites will have to serve up both, or make a choice.
Or, you know, just use OGG. It's free. Apple can comply or GTFO and sit with MS in the timeout corner.
O rly?
This is what made me click the link to TFA.
Lolcats are still in, dude. They'll never go away. They'll enter the lexicon and become so ingrained that you only need the text, not the picture.
(Ya rly)
Leaving anything in the spec undefined is retarded.
It's a spec.
If Apple doesn't want to be up to spec, fuck 'em.
(Same for MS, who has, as far as I know, no plans to support <:video>.)
Luckily we can specify multiple codecs and let the browser pick. All this really does is create more browser incompatibility. All major sites will be using some H.264 codec, and browsers can determine which stream to play if there are multiple it can decode.
It would be nice if there was a standard set in the HTML 5 spec to list several codecs that must be supported by the browser.
H.264 - very good
Ogg - good, free
MPEG /1/2/3/4 - I dunno, why not. Lots of content exists that's mpeg 1 or 2 or 4(pre-PART 10/H.264) (and sometimes the audio is mp3). This would be easier for a lot of machines to decode, too, even though it's not nearly as bandwidth efficient.
Whoa, that's a... big gun.
(Bruce Campbell, Tachyon: The Fringe - sound test)
Who are you to decide what is right and wrong?
Our rights are INALIENABLE.
They cannot be terminated or restricted.
The fact that we have people like you who believe that rights begin and end is a testament to the utter destruction of those rights.
It is NOT the government's role to delineate cases of conflicting rights. It's left up to the PEOPLE (the individuals involved) to deal with it.
The price of having rights is dealing with assholes. It is a fucking trivial price to pay. It used to be people could talk to their neighbors, ignore the idiots, and in general get along.
Then someone decided to let the government get involved.
Don't you get it?
If you need to find something, you need to:
Open search
Start typing
Read a list of results (no, it's NOT instant, it's fast, but it's NOT instant, but I gave you instant anyway)
Open the file
If I need to find something, I need to:
Nothing. I know where it is.
If I need to access something, I need to:
Open a file browser
Type in the location
As for your "new tools are better" bullshit (how do you say that when you also know and claim that typing is faster than using a mouse?):
If I need to access something quickly, I need to:
Open a command line
Typ<TAB>in<TAB>th<TAB>lo<TAB>
(Besides, GUI file browsers often do auto-completion, history, etc)
Nope, sorry.
You fail to see the point.
If you're blasting music, you can be (reasonably) fined according to your city's laws. You can be sued by your neighbor for breaking his windows, his psychiatry bill, etc. if you do it loud and long enough.
No one can ever come in and force you to turn it off.
I don't get why people can't separate responsibility from restricting people's rights. My right to do ___ NEVER ends. Either I have the right or I don't. I take full responsibility for my ACTIONS, and I am culpable for direct and demonstrable damages. But no one ever can take a right away. If they can, then it wasn't a right to begin with, it was a privilege.
You do know that only applies to the 64-bit OSs, right? The 32-bit OSs can't do it, regardless of what your BIOS can handle.
This form of "memory remapping" only exists to move memory-mapped I/O to the top of the 8 GB, or 16Gb, or etc. boundary, instead of the 4 GB boundary. If you're limited to 4 GB by your OS, turning on memory remapping won't help anything (and may cause problems). It should be called "I/O Remapping".
A 32-bit Vista machine will often report 4 GB in the system properties window, but if you look in task manager you'll see that it's still limited to 3.x. This was done in an update (SP1? I dunno, I don't use Vista) to make people shut up about not getting all of their RAM when they don't know what they're doing.
From your own article:
For Windows Vista to use all 4 GB of memory on a computer that has 4 GB of memory installed, the computer must meet the following requirements:
* The chipset must support at least 8 GB of address space.
* The CPU must support the x64 instruction set.
* The BIOS must support the memory remapping feature.
* An x64 (64-bit) version of Windows Vista must be used.
s/Microsoft/Apple
Defend your bullshit now.
Yes, I am supposed to have that right, and it is supposed to be considered inalienable to me.
Also, I don't think that means what you think it does: Begging the Question
Seems to me vaccines don't kill pathogens, they prompt your immune system to kill (and thus form markers for) gimped versions of the pathogens / things that look like the pathogen.
If you have AIDS, you have no immune system to learn from the vaccine. Thus, you do not get immunity.
Correlation, even shitty correlation from bad data, does not imply causation.
I don't think we'll be experiencing cooling for the next decade. I hope we get a damned real summer every year, and for the past 10 years it's been shit because we've been cooling.
So your argument is:
Look at this graph! NASA!
Data doesn't match up? Look at the oceans! Heat capacity! We can't measure it, BUT TRUST ME, it's bound to support MY SIDE of the argument!
My right to free speech NEVER ends.
I can be held LIABLE for any direct and demonstrable harm my speech causes.
My right to continue, and to continue being fined for damages, NEVER ends.
I love how the schools have burned into the kids' heads the government-approved lines:
"Yelling fire ..."
"Your right to ___ ends at ___"
I dunno, I only mark people as Foe is they mark me as freak.
And Daft...Punks... was a joke.
Maybe next time I'll work it harder, make it better
do it faster...
(I hear that would make us stronger.)
We've already learned that it IS being shown, but with a bunch of lame edits...
But it takes a 6 year old to read the article and find out that the story is bullshit.