Linear editing (and Betacam, the broadcast-grade sibling of Betamax) is still used for short-time-scale projects, e.g. local news programs. That's where their characteristically bad editing "style" comes from; there's no time to peck around in an NLE and get it perfect, so they just march through it in real time, perhaps repeating once or twice to improve quality. Also, since most linear editing tools are just live editing tools + output to storage, the same equipment sees a lot of use in live video switching at smaller-budget establishments. An Amiga 4000T with a Video Toaster Flyer can still run a good $800 US on eBay.
That it is possible to live in a world where the mere concepts of such things are so alien that you find yourself drawn to say "how meta is that?" is simultaneously tragic and tantalizingly promising. I can only hope that our (rhetorical) children live in a world of such comparative innocence.
I'd be happier if they stopped calling it "NLV Editing", as if Kdenlive allowed you to edit non-linear video. Excellent research there, senor editor. You've created a submission title that is completely incomprehensible to everyone except its target market, which has to work almost as hard to figure out what it means.
(To be fair, there's an NLE package called "Pyxis NLV", but that's pretty much the only intentional usage on the entire internet.)
It is, of course, also one of the most epic displays of grassroots community bait-and-switch in history: let volunteers spend years fixing and perfecting the port of OpenDarwin to x86, then kill the community when its code starts facilitating Hackintoshes. Classic Jobsian ill will: "if you haven't paid me in the last eighteen to twenty-four months, I owe you nothing."
But that being said—we're all doomed. Try to change it, and they'll just make enough astroturf, glossy brochures, and strategic bribes to stop you. Time to go start a micronation.
"NeXT wasn't about to win on its own" = "in 1996/7, NeXT Software, Inc. was going down the tubes and had no future as a viable commercial entity in its present form"
"Windows NT had already won" = "in 1996/7, Microsoft had already obtained a huge market share in business computing through largely illegal tactics that didn't leave any room left on the market for competitors like NeXT Computer, Inc.'s hardware offerings, the last of which were 68k-based and shipped in 1993."
You were aware that "NeXT" means "NeXT Computer Inc." and not "the combined sum of the NeXTstep operating system and OpenStep API platform", right?
You did know that there was a company that produced NeXTstep, surely? And that it was called "NeXT"? Founded by Steve Jobs? In 1985? After John Scully ousted him for being a liability? Yes?
Related to your facetious point, the title of the submission appears to read that the Linux builds of Firefox will be faster than the Windows operating system. Bravo, GCC 4.5! Bravo!
You might be able to make more sense of my post in context—my original perspective was "how sad it is that people keep bringing up the phone companies in order to bash Libertarians, when the Libertarians say in nearly every single post that the phone companies are a bad example, because in a true Libertarian atmosphere, that kind of thing is impossible."
My second opinion is this: any sufficiently powerful corporation would use its resources to destroy a true Libertarian system, in order to fortify its market dominance. The same lobbying forces that have created current state power abuses are strong enough to prevent the creation of a true Libertarian system in a country like the US. At present, they don't need to lift a finger, however, because the Left is doing the work for them. But if there were no unions and no academics in the way, they've demonstrated many times with other threats that there's nothing stopping dirtier tactics. The phone companies are therefore both a guarantee that a Libertarian government will never occur in the US, and a demonstration that Libertarianism would fail because it depends so heavily on incorruptible legislators. When you're at the top, the first thing on your mind is staying at the top.
Full disclosure: I believe that capitalism isn't efficient enough. It was a good experiment, and it got us this far, but we need to rethink the fundamental concepts of work, value, motivation, and money. I'm also Canadian, and by your broadband pricing I'm guessing you're in Australia.
Hey, I'm not debating that. Just pointing out how sad it is that even though the people who talk about "the free market fixing the problem" say "ignore phone companies," countertrolling decided to strawman himself into a corner by claiming that the phone companies were proof that free markets can't fix problems. Reading comprehension!
That being said, there's a grain of truth in it. An unregulated market that develops a sufficiently powerful monopoly (or duopoly) will eventually use legislation to regulate itself in favour of retaining the status quo, unless Ayn Rand (or Ron Paul) bursts out of the grave, guns blazing, and stops it.
Onwards Mozilla Soldiers,
Onwards Opera Priests.
Onward, Fruits of Google,
Fight till you're deceased.
Fight your little battles.
Join in thickest fray;
For the Greater Glory,
of M-S-I-E.
Yah, yah, yah,
Yah, yah, yah, yah. Blfffffffffffft!
The answer you're looking for is "its progeny", which is the much-loved Cocoa toolkit. I was speaking of the OpenStep initiative itself, which consisted of a rebranded NextStep (which was also ported to x86) and API compatibility layers for NT and Solaris, neither of which exactly passed into legend.
One thing that's not often remembered is that the OS X kernel and APIs ran on x86 since Steve brought NeXT back to Apple with him. (Rhapsody and later OpenDarwin.) The rush for the big switch wasn't nearly as large as is often assumed, as Apple was quite prepared for it.
You're thinking of OpenStep. When it was clear to Steve that NeXT wasn't about to win on its own, he started opening things up, in a desperate bid to retain relevance—the design was beautiful (although I can't say I care much for the exhaustive use of NS prefixes) and it seemed like a smart move at the time. Then Apple came running back to him, he became super-duper-successful again, and suddenly playing nice with the rest of the industry became a bad dream for Steve, excepting occasional concessions to the Mac Office team. Of course, since OpenStep was pretty much doomed (it was the mid-nineties and Windows NT had already won), it's not like we can say he's turned his back on any principles.
It's pretty sad, given that your classic knee-jerk Slashdot Libertarian annotates every post with "ignoring the phone companies, which have completely embedded themselves legally and don't representing anything remotely like a free market..."
It's as if extremely opinionated people are impervious to the ideas of everyone else, or something! (Oh no!)
The thing that really confuses me about AT&T is that after it was painstakingly dismantled at the legal level, not only did it reassemble itself, like some very ugly swarm of very large nanobots, but it took back up the name of its former self, thus completing the reincarnation into the monster hated and feared by its customers. Why the name, AT&T? Was the labelling on all the old switch boxes really bothering your field techs that much? Why would a company choose a name so completely and consistently associated with poor treatment of customers?
To be fair, though, TOS was in the business of ripping off things already. Consider Balance of Terror, which proudly combines a classic WW2 U-boat terror movie with the Roman Empire... IN SPACE!
Slashdot Mirror
Completely disagree. The solution is clear: eliminate all potential sources of human error.
Why, with restrictions like that, they might even have a chance of actually fooling an experienced user!
On the plus side, well over 99% of the data on Facebook is garbage. At least they're suffering for the information that's worth extracting.
Linear editing (and Betacam, the broadcast-grade sibling of Betamax) is still used for short-time-scale projects, e.g. local news programs. That's where their characteristically bad editing "style" comes from; there's no time to peck around in an NLE and get it perfect, so they just march through it in real time, perhaps repeating once or twice to improve quality. Also, since most linear editing tools are just live editing tools + output to storage, the same equipment sees a lot of use in live video switching at smaller-budget establishments. An Amiga 4000T with a Video Toaster Flyer can still run a good $800 US on eBay.
That it is possible to live in a world where the mere concepts of such things are so alien that you find yourself drawn to say "how meta is that?" is simultaneously tragic and tantalizingly promising. I can only hope that our (rhetorical) children live in a world of such comparative innocence.
I'd be happier if they stopped calling it "NLV Editing", as if Kdenlive allowed you to edit non-linear video. Excellent research there, senor editor. You've created a submission title that is completely incomprehensible to everyone except its target market, which has to work almost as hard to figure out what it means.
(To be fair, there's an NLE package called "Pyxis NLV", but that's pretty much the only intentional usage on the entire internet.)
It is, of course, also one of the most epic displays of grassroots community bait-and-switch in history: let volunteers spend years fixing and perfecting the port of OpenDarwin to x86, then kill the community when its code starts facilitating Hackintoshes. Classic Jobsian ill will: "if you haven't paid me in the last eighteen to twenty-four months, I owe you nothing."
I think you need louder sarcasm quotes, then.
But that being said—we're all doomed. Try to change it, and they'll just make enough astroturf, glossy brochures, and strategic bribes to stop you. Time to go start a micronation.
You're amusingly upset. Let me clarify, then:
"NeXT wasn't about to win on its own" = "in 1996/7, NeXT Software, Inc. was going down the tubes and had no future as a viable commercial entity in its present form"
"Windows NT had already won" = "in 1996/7, Microsoft had already obtained a huge market share in business computing through largely illegal tactics that didn't leave any room left on the market for competitors like NeXT Computer, Inc.'s hardware offerings, the last of which were 68k-based and shipped in 1993."
You were aware that "NeXT" means "NeXT Computer Inc." and not "the combined sum of the NeXTstep operating system and OpenStep API platform", right?
You did know that there was a company that produced NeXTstep, surely? And that it was called "NeXT"? Founded by Steve Jobs? In 1985? After John Scully ousted him for being a liability? Yes?
Related to your facetious point, the title of the submission appears to read that the Linux builds of Firefox will be faster than the Windows operating system. Bravo, GCC 4.5! Bravo!
People is a mass noun now!
Four was released, and I'd imagine that Aurora is five.
You might be able to make more sense of my post in context—my original perspective was "how sad it is that people keep bringing up the phone companies in order to bash Libertarians, when the Libertarians say in nearly every single post that the phone companies are a bad example, because in a true Libertarian atmosphere, that kind of thing is impossible."
My second opinion is this: any sufficiently powerful corporation would use its resources to destroy a true Libertarian system, in order to fortify its market dominance. The same lobbying forces that have created current state power abuses are strong enough to prevent the creation of a true Libertarian system in a country like the US. At present, they don't need to lift a finger, however, because the Left is doing the work for them. But if there were no unions and no academics in the way, they've demonstrated many times with other threats that there's nothing stopping dirtier tactics. The phone companies are therefore both a guarantee that a Libertarian government will never occur in the US, and a demonstration that Libertarianism would fail because it depends so heavily on incorruptible legislators. When you're at the top, the first thing on your mind is staying at the top.
Full disclosure: I believe that capitalism isn't efficient enough. It was a good experiment, and it got us this far, but we need to rethink the fundamental concepts of work, value, motivation, and money. I'm also Canadian, and by your broadband pricing I'm guessing you're in Australia.
And what a bargain it was!
Hey, I'm not debating that. Just pointing out how sad it is that even though the people who talk about "the free market fixing the problem" say "ignore phone companies," countertrolling decided to strawman himself into a corner by claiming that the phone companies were proof that free markets can't fix problems. Reading comprehension!
That being said, there's a grain of truth in it. An unregulated market that develops a sufficiently powerful monopoly (or duopoly) will eventually use legislation to regulate itself in favour of retaining the status quo, unless Ayn Rand (or Ron Paul) bursts out of the grave, guns blazing, and stops it.
Onwards Mozilla Soldiers,
Onwards Opera Priests.
Onward, Fruits of Google,
Fight till you're deceased.
Fight your little battles.
Join in thickest fray;
For the Greater Glory,
of M-S-I-E.
Yah, yah, yah,
Yah, yah, yah, yah.
Blfffffffffffft!
I'm guessing next week. The current Firefox nightlies (codenamed "Nightly", amusingly) are versioned 6.0a1.
The answer you're looking for is "its progeny", which is the much-loved Cocoa toolkit. I was speaking of the OpenStep initiative itself, which consisted of a rebranded NextStep (which was also ported to x86) and API compatibility layers for NT and Solaris, neither of which exactly passed into legend.
One thing that's not often remembered is that the OS X kernel and APIs ran on x86 since Steve brought NeXT back to Apple with him. (Rhapsody and later OpenDarwin.) The rush for the big switch wasn't nearly as large as is often assumed, as Apple was quite prepared for it.
You're thinking of OpenStep. When it was clear to Steve that NeXT wasn't about to win on its own, he started opening things up, in a desperate bid to retain relevance—the design was beautiful (although I can't say I care much for the exhaustive use of NS prefixes) and it seemed like a smart move at the time. Then Apple came running back to him, he became super-duper-successful again, and suddenly playing nice with the rest of the industry became a bad dream for Steve, excepting occasional concessions to the Mac Office team. Of course, since OpenStep was pretty much doomed (it was the mid-nineties and Windows NT had already won), it's not like we can say he's turned his back on any principles.
...is lowering your own.
(Click here for more information)
It's pretty sad, given that your classic knee-jerk Slashdot Libertarian annotates every post with "ignoring the phone companies, which have completely embedded themselves legally and don't representing anything remotely like a free market..."
It's as if extremely opinionated people are impervious to the ideas of everyone else, or something! (Oh no!)
The thing that really confuses me about AT&T is that after it was painstakingly dismantled at the legal level, not only did it reassemble itself, like some very ugly swarm of very large nanobots, but it took back up the name of its former self, thus completing the reincarnation into the monster hated and feared by its customers. Why the name, AT&T? Was the labelling on all the old switch boxes really bothering your field techs that much? Why would a company choose a name so completely and consistently associated with poor treatment of customers?
It's quite similar to a Zoot suit. But you have to pour coffee on it before it's truly a Java suit.
That would be so much better if it wasn't in "early design" stage. Their "no garbage collection" plan seems particularly worthwhile.
I get that all the time. Compare this SGU episode with this DS9 episode.
To be fair, though, TOS was in the business of ripping off things already. Consider Balance of Terror, which proudly combines a classic WW2 U-boat terror movie with the Roman Empire... IN SPACE!