Why would I want to open a video in a separate player? Do you open images on websites in your picture viewer as well?
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Most images on websites are part of a webpages inline content or just irrelevant decoration. You view (or skip over) the images as you read the page in your own time.
Embedded video not so much. Watching a video is like branching off from reading the page into something else that wants a bit more undivided attention than one or more inline images. If you are already mentally "branching off" for the video, then using a separate app (or browser tab etc) is not as jarring as it would be for viewing inline images.
You can happily skim over multiple inline images and focus your attention on individual images when you like and for as long as you like. Only the most ADHD addled teenagers would probably enjoy watching multiple videos play at once.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'll quite often treat embedded videos as links to the video hosting site and watch them from there - usually the experience is better. The hosting site is effectively becoming a separate video player for me, and it leaves the original page able to be read/skimmed/saved for later/closed on its own without being tied to whereabouts I am up to in the video. Or if I decide I don't want to waste bandwidth or time on the video after all, I can close the video tab leaving the original pages content around for reading.
But they can't come out and say that publicly with all the lawsuits against them. That would just provide the opposing lawyers with all kinds of ammunition to claim that Google is anti-patent and wilfully violated all those patents.
RedHat does exactly this with no ill effects.
That was my point - Redhat isn't in the middle of one of the largest ever patent lawsuit shitstorms. They can say stuff like that without it being used against them.
Redhat is also not the same threat/target/potential goldmine as Google is for its well funded competitors.
Exactly. One small step away from "Microsoft patents bad, Google patents good". If Google wants any credibility at all in this issue they have to step up and very clearly say at least "software patents bad". Otherwise they seem to be just picking the ones that don't suit them.
I suspect that Google privately thinks that all software patents are bad. They never really seemed to covet them until they got sued left and right.
But they can't come out and say that publicly with all the lawsuits against them. That would just provide the opposing lawyers with all kinds of ammunition to claim that Google is anti-patent and wilfully violated all those patents.
What kind if stupid shoolboy logic is this? There are plenty of things I don't care about. That doesn't mean that all of them *MUST* be in the contract or else MS is suddently evil.
You must really not care about this - it shows in the vehement way you keep replying.
Nobody apart from a few loopy internet posters is claiming MS is evil over this. Hell I trust MS to do the right thing far more than I trust the most/all OEMs, that is why I'd like MS to ensure ALL it's customers have control over their boot loader. It's a requirement that won't affect the good OEMs or MS at all, and just prevents some bad OEMs messing with peoples ability to control their own hardware.
Why do you seem so concerned about sticking up for the right of bad OEMs to take away customers control over their boot loader?
This is what MS said in that very same post you linked to:
At the end of the day, the customer is in control of their PC. Microsofts philosophy is to provide customers with the best experience first, and allow them to make decisions themselves. We work with our OEM ecosystem to provide customers with this flexibility. The security that UEFI has to offer with secure boot means that most customers will have their systems protected against boot loader attacks. For the enthusiast who wants to run older operating systems, the option is there to allow you to make that decision.
All I'm asking is for MS to ensure that is what happens and write it into the requirements. It can't be that big of a deal and writing down in one place must be much be easier than talking to every OEM and trying to cajole them into following MS wishes - surely?
I just can't understand why someone would resist this so strongly.
OK then my anonymous troll - what possible issue could you have with ensuring secure boot is always able to be disabled by the user? What possible detrimental effect is that going to have on your future Windows 8 PC purchases, or MS itself, or any OEMs, or anyone else?
How is it that you think MS making OEMs ship secure boot, shipping it enabled, shipping it with the Windows 8 keys etc etc not forcing them to do something (just a friendly business deal), but suddenly now adding the requirement to keep secure boot configurable (which most OEMs are going to do anyway) is now suddenly some draconian "forcing them to do X and Y" and the most pressing issue facing pro-MS trolls at the moment?
It's just a tiny implementation detail that matches the default settings in a whole bunch of harder stuff the OEMs will already have to comply with, and makes ZERO difference to the majority of systems shipped.
After all, MS is insisting (seemingly on faith) that secure boot will always be able to be disabled. What is wrong with MS codifying what they say will happen anyway? There is no trade-off here - it's just a sentence or two added to a draft document that will match what mostly is already going to happen anyway. What exactly is the big deal?
Isn't that putting their money where their mouth is and defusing the whole issue? Or would they rather fuel the FUD and conspiracy theories?
Let me try and explain it like I would to a four year old.
You're not acting like you're explaining it to a four year old, rather you're explaining it as if you were a four year old.
Freetards want Microsoft to force OEMs to be friendly with non-MS operating systems. in other words they want that Microsoft basically help their competition. Why the fuck is Microsoft obligated to do that?
No, they're wanting the status quo. They are wanting MS to make an extremely minimal change to the new requirements that they're forcing on OEMs anyway. And this change is something most OEMs initially will do anyway, so will not require any extra work for them.
This isn't wanting MS to help them gain some new priviledge, this is wanting MS to not do things in a way that will hinder them.
Are you trolls so jealous of Apple that you want that locked boot loader experience on your PCs? What the hell is really wrong with MS asking all OEMs to leave in the firmware option to disable this the same way the majority of OEMs (at least initially) will do anyway?
Huh? They're already making OEMs that want the sticker comply to a much bigger list of requirements. What's the problem with closing one loophole that gives all buyers the same freedom as most buyers from decent OEMs will get anyway?
Closing that loophole will not affect the functionality, security, or configuration of the majority of hardware one bit. What is really wrong with it?
By doing this MS will only putting their money where their mouth is - they are saying this won't be a problem. Why not ensure it won't be a problem for anyone - not just Linux users?
I don't get why all these pro MS posters see a problem with that. Surely no sane Windows user would want an OEM to be in charge of the keys determining what their machine can boot without the ability to bypass themselves it at a later date.
I'm really surprised how far this Apple walled garden thinking has permeated into Windows users. Then again, wasn't much of the success of Apple due to the OS vendor being able to shut out any shenanigans from OEM manufacturers or telcos? Why wouldn't MS want to protect their own users from crappy OEMs?
Well if MS has no incentive to push this agenda, why don't they seem interested in adding one clause to their requirements that would eliminate even the potential for slippery slopes.
All they have to do is require that all OEMs give the user the ability to control this (which is most OEMs will do anyway). The whole issue goes away and nobodies default security is any less than it would've been anyway.
After all, even Windows only users should want that control over their hardware - who the hell trusts OEMs not to screw something up later?
Or has Apple trained us all to be meek little consumers that have no problem ceding all responsibility to the manufacturer?
No you can't. Your thinking would be perfectly logical and rational if greenhouse potential was the same as heat capacity.
Your inability to rethink your assumption that there is no difference between the two properties means you will never be able to figure out what is actually happening or grasp the counter arguments being made. You're working in a different universe.
The reason the wavelengths matter and there is more to it than just heat capacity is because the incoming radiation spectrum is different to the outgoing spectrum. This difference between incoming and outgoing (ie all the way back out into space rather than just reabsorbed next door) is the whole basis for the greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse gases - including most diatomic gases with two different atoms (such as carbon monoxide, CO) and all gases with three or more atoms - are able to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Though more than 99% of the dry atmosphere is IR transparent (because the main constituents - N2, O2, and Ar - are not able to directly absorb or emit infrared radiation), intermolecular collisions cause the energy absorbed and emitted by the greenhouse gases to be shared with the other, non-IR-active, gases.
Although contributing to many other physical and chemical reactions, the major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and argon (Ar), are not greenhouse gases. This is because molecules containing two atoms of the same element such as N2 and O2 and monatomic molecules such as Ar have no net change in their dipole moment when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared light.
Note how contrary to your claim of the other gases having a bigger effect than CO2, 99% of the atmosphere (ie mainly N2 and O2) is actually completely transparent to IR.
It also points out that all 3 atom gas molecules are greenhouse gases despite CO2 having a lower heat capacity than air (with or without water) and water vapour having a higher heat capacity than air. Obviously a gases IR response isn't related to its heat capacity.
This greenhouse gas effect is completely unrelated to heat capacity. Heat capacity only matters when figuring out how much the absorbed radiation will heat up the air - It is not relevant to figuring out how much of the outgoing radiation will be absorbed in the first place.
Maybe you're assuming that ALL outgoing IR gets absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases on the way back to space, rather than most of it making it out directly.
Heat capacity is how much energy is required to heat something by a certain amount - eg Joules required to heat a gram (or a mole etc) of the stuff by 1K.
If the amount of energy being radiated out from the earths surface as IR is not really changing, and the mass of the atmosphere isn't really changing...
Wouldn't a higher atmospheric heat capacity mean a lower temperature for the same amount of energy rather than a higher one?
ie if it was just about heat capacity and this whole greenhouse potential / radiative flux malarky was actually the same thing as you claim, wouldn't water vapours higher heat capacity actually be a buffer against the greenhouse effect by making it harder for the re-radiated solar energy to heat the atmosphere?
The heat capacity doesn't change, but its relevance disappears. 0.0001+2=2 The contribution of CO2 in an environment full of water vapor is negligible.
Can you back that up?
It seems that CO2 contributes between 1/4 and 1/2 as much to the greenhouse effect as water vapour and has roughly half the radiative flux. These are not the insignificant contributions you portray - especially when water vapour is effectively in equilibrium and very difficult to increase in overall concentration to the extent CO2 or other gases can increase by (or have already increased by).
Any increase in the greenhouse effect of water vapour also gets mitigated somewhat by the additional increase in the aerosol effect of excess water vapour condensing into clouds. That is a dampening effect (pun intended) on overall temp rises.
The fact that you acknowledge that water vapor increases heating, but refuse to consider it as a cause, preferring to blame a ppm gas with a heat capacity lower than the general atmosphere smacks of doublethink. I think you can come up with better arguments, though.
On the contrary, you're going to have to provide much more evidence that increasing water vapour is not a feedback and actually a forcing. After all you are disagreeing with the published science here.
CO2 is only a greenhouse gas (in that it has a higher heat capacity than the average of the remaining atmospheric components)...
No. Something being a greenhouse gas isn't about heat capacity but how it absorbs and emits IR radiation.
In fact filling the atmosphere with gases with a higher heat capacity would have the opposite effect - the same amount of IR absorption would raise the temperature less.
Also if you look up the specific heat capacities of various gases, CO2 actually has a lower heat capacity (0.839 J/g.K) than Nitrogen (1.040), Oxygen(0.918), and Air overall (1.0 ish), while water vapour has a much higher specific heat capacity (2.08).
The specific heat capacities of your two greenhouse gases are either side of the heat capacities of the main atmospheric gases. It would seem that a substances greenhouse effect has very little to do with its heat capacity.
It only makes a BIG difference when it is the ONLY component of the atmosphere. Add in water vapor, and you get a little surprise--CO2 actually DECREASES the weighted heat capacity of the atmosphere.
This is where you are really losing me. How exactly does a substances heat capacity change when in the presence of another substance?
In reality, it is more likely that any warming we are seeing actually comes from higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor emissions are strongly correlated with CO2 emissions, after all.
Isn't that correlation because warmer air can hold more water vapour? Wouldn't that make your increasing water vapour concentration the feedback rather than a driver? But lets just say it was being driven the other way around - what is causing the increase in water vapour?
The other thing water vapour does when it reaches a certain maximum level is condenses. Condensed water droplets (ie clouds) are an aerosol and very reflective from an incoming solar radiation perspective. Although water vapour is the biggest component of the greenhouse effect, it is a relatively stable fixed contribution (in the absence of other warming that allows more water vapour), and part of the water cycle involves a cooling effect.
While water vapour is an important factor in the dynamics of the atmosphere - blaming it for any overall warming and calling any increase in its concentration a driver rather than a feedback is at best red herring trying to deflect blame from CO2.
What the hell is up with all the Drupal book reviews? You know there are other content management systems out there. Some of us who like sanity might maybe enjoy having some of those books reviewed as well.
Here's the shocker...
If nobody cares enough to submit any reviews of books about something_else, then there won't be any reviews of books about something_else.
You can't blame slashdot or the people (cough publishers cough) who actually do submit book reviews for that.
You might have a point if the Windows or Mac procedure of building and installing a Python source package off github didn't look practically identical to that.
There was nothing *nix specific about any of those instructions.
Google doesn't seem to get the need to have multiple accounts/identities - eg work, personal etc etc.
Switching between these identities is still a pain (even after this new account switching functionality) - especially the way services and apps vanish depending on who you're logged in as.
I think switching accounts is the wrong idea, and they need to work more on being able to link or combine accounts. eg I'd like to see my work email together with my personal email (which also uses an apps domain) without having to log in and out all the time.
And because the login url is common between both accounts, your browser fails to keep your password for each account - grrr.
I now understand how Steve managed to post his rant from the wrong account and start this whole discussion in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the guy that wrote CouchDB was a Notes developer.
Sheesh slashdots collective panties really are in a bunch today.
So much nerdrage over a lame quiz - don't you all have something better to complain about? (obviously I don't)
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Most images on websites are part of a webpages inline content or just irrelevant decoration. You view (or skip over) the images as you read the page in your own time.
Embedded video not so much. Watching a video is like branching off from reading the page into something else that wants a bit more undivided attention than one or more inline images. If you are already mentally "branching off" for the video, then using a separate app (or browser tab etc) is not as jarring as it would be for viewing inline images.
You can happily skim over multiple inline images and focus your attention on individual images when you like and for as long as you like. Only the most ADHD addled teenagers would probably enjoy watching multiple videos play at once.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'll quite often treat embedded videos as links to the video hosting site and watch them from there - usually the experience is better. The hosting site is effectively becoming a separate video player for me, and it leaves the original page able to be read/skimmed/saved for later/closed on its own without being tied to whereabouts I am up to in the video. Or if I decide I don't want to waste bandwidth or time on the video after all, I can close the video tab leaving the original pages content around for reading.
That was my point - Redhat isn't in the middle of one of the largest ever patent lawsuit shitstorms. They can say stuff like that without it being used against them.
Redhat is also not the same threat/target/potential goldmine as Google is for its well funded competitors.
I suspect that Google privately thinks that all software patents are bad. They never really seemed to covet them until they got sued left and right.
But they can't come out and say that publicly with all the lawsuits against them. That would just provide the opposing lawyers with all kinds of ammunition to claim that Google is anti-patent and wilfully violated all those patents.
The disease? Is that a euphemism for Anthrax?
Then again, reality is much much worse - China has been inflicted with Poison!
You must really not care about this - it shows in the vehement way you keep replying.
Nobody apart from a few loopy internet posters is claiming MS is evil over this. Hell I trust MS to do the right thing far more than I trust the most/all OEMs, that is why I'd like MS to ensure ALL it's customers have control over their boot loader. It's a requirement that won't affect the good OEMs or MS at all, and just prevents some bad OEMs messing with peoples ability to control their own hardware.
Why do you seem so concerned about sticking up for the right of bad OEMs to take away customers control over their boot loader?
This is what MS said in that very same post you linked to:
All I'm asking is for MS to ensure that is what happens and write it into the requirements. It can't be that big of a deal and writing down in one place must be much be easier than talking to every OEM and trying to cajole them into following MS wishes - surely?
I just can't understand why someone would resist this so strongly.
OK then my anonymous troll - what possible issue could you have with ensuring secure boot is always able to be disabled by the user? What possible detrimental effect is that going to have on your future Windows 8 PC purchases, or MS itself, or any OEMs, or anyone else?
How is it that you think MS making OEMs ship secure boot, shipping it enabled, shipping it with the Windows 8 keys etc etc not forcing them to do something (just a friendly business deal), but suddenly now adding the requirement to keep secure boot configurable (which most OEMs are going to do anyway) is now suddenly some draconian "forcing them to do X and Y" and the most pressing issue facing pro-MS trolls at the moment?
It's just a tiny implementation detail that matches the default settings in a whole bunch of harder stuff the OEMs will already have to comply with, and makes ZERO difference to the majority of systems shipped.
After all, MS is insisting (seemingly on faith) that secure boot will always be able to be disabled. What is wrong with MS codifying what they say will happen anyway? There is no trade-off here - it's just a sentence or two added to a draft document that will match what mostly is already going to happen anyway. What exactly is the big deal?
Isn't that putting their money where their mouth is and defusing the whole issue? Or would they rather fuel the FUD and conspiracy theories?
You're not acting like you're explaining it to a four year old, rather you're explaining it as if you were a four year old.
No, they're wanting the status quo. They are wanting MS to make an extremely minimal change to the new requirements that they're forcing on OEMs anyway. And this change is something most OEMs initially will do anyway, so will not require any extra work for them.
This isn't wanting MS to help them gain some new priviledge, this is wanting MS to not do things in a way that will hinder them.
Are you trolls so jealous of Apple that you want that locked boot loader experience on your PCs? What the hell is really wrong with MS asking all OEMs to leave in the firmware option to disable this the same way the majority of OEMs (at least initially) will do anyway?
Huh? They're already making OEMs that want the sticker comply to a much bigger list of requirements. What's the problem with closing one loophole that gives all buyers the same freedom as most buyers from decent OEMs will get anyway?
Closing that loophole will not affect the functionality, security, or configuration of the majority of hardware one bit. What is really wrong with it?
By doing this MS will only putting their money where their mouth is - they are saying this won't be a problem. Why not ensure it won't be a problem for anyone - not just Linux users?
I don't get why all these pro MS posters see a problem with that. Surely no sane Windows user would want an OEM to be in charge of the keys determining what their machine can boot without the ability to bypass themselves it at a later date.
I'm really surprised how far this Apple walled garden thinking has permeated into Windows users. Then again, wasn't much of the success of Apple due to the OS vendor being able to shut out any shenanigans from OEM manufacturers or telcos? Why wouldn't MS want to protect their own users from crappy OEMs?
Well if MS has no incentive to push this agenda, why don't they seem interested in adding one clause to their requirements that would eliminate even the potential for slippery slopes.
All they have to do is require that all OEMs give the user the ability to control this (which is most OEMs will do anyway). The whole issue goes away and nobodies default security is any less than it would've been anyway.
After all, even Windows only users should want that control over their hardware - who the hell trusts OEMs not to screw something up later?
Or has Apple trained us all to be meek little consumers that have no problem ceding all responsibility to the manufacturer?
No you can't. Your thinking would be perfectly logical and rational if greenhouse potential was the same as heat capacity.
Your inability to rethink your assumption that there is no difference between the two properties means you will never be able to figure out what is actually happening or grasp the counter arguments being made. You're working in a different universe.
The reason the wavelengths matter and there is more to it than just heat capacity is because the incoming radiation spectrum is different to the outgoing spectrum. This difference between incoming and outgoing (ie all the way back out into space rather than just reabsorbed next door) is the whole basis for the greenhouse effect.
Just read the articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Some quotes:
Note how contrary to your claim of the other gases having a bigger effect than CO2, 99% of the atmosphere (ie mainly N2 and O2) is actually completely transparent to IR.
It also points out that all 3 atom gas molecules are greenhouse gases despite CO2 having a lower heat capacity than air (with or without water) and water vapour having a higher heat capacity than air. Obviously a gases IR response isn't related to its heat capacity.
This greenhouse gas effect is completely unrelated to heat capacity. Heat capacity only matters when figuring out how much the absorbed radiation will heat up the air - It is not relevant to figuring out how much of the outgoing radiation will be absorbed in the first place.
Maybe you're assuming that ALL outgoing IR gets absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gases on the way back to space, rather than most of it making it out directly.
You didn't understand my question.
Heat capacity is how much energy is required to heat something by a certain amount - eg Joules required to heat a gram (or a mole etc) of the stuff by 1K.
If the amount of energy being radiated out from the earths surface as IR is not really changing, and the mass of the atmosphere isn't really changing...
Wouldn't a higher atmospheric heat capacity mean a lower temperature for the same amount of energy rather than a higher one?
ie if it was just about heat capacity and this whole greenhouse potential / radiative flux malarky was actually the same thing as you claim, wouldn't water vapours higher heat capacity actually be a buffer against the greenhouse effect by making it harder for the re-radiated solar energy to heat the atmosphere?
No that wasn't what I asked. Why is the water vapour concentration in the atmosphere increasing?
Unless you are claiming that increased jungle cover is behind it?
Can you back that up?
It seems that CO2 contributes between 1/4 and 1/2 as much to the greenhouse effect as water vapour and has roughly half the radiative flux. These are not the insignificant contributions you portray - especially when water vapour is effectively in equilibrium and very difficult to increase in overall concentration to the extent CO2 or other gases can increase by (or have already increased by).
Any increase in the greenhouse effect of water vapour also gets mitigated somewhat by the additional increase in the aerosol effect of excess water vapour condensing into clouds. That is a dampening effect (pun intended) on overall temp rises.
On the contrary, you're going to have to provide much more evidence that increasing water vapour is not a feedback and actually a forcing. After all you are disagreeing with the published science here.
And just to confirm that I'm not misquoting you, or that you didn't make a typo...
You're saying that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?
I'm hungry for knowledge today it seems...
What is behind this increasing water vapour concentration that is warming the planet?
OK, educate me.
How does increasing the heat capacity of the atmosphere increase its temp?
No. Something being a greenhouse gas isn't about heat capacity but how it absorbs and emits IR radiation.
In fact filling the atmosphere with gases with a higher heat capacity would have the opposite effect - the same amount of IR absorption would raise the temperature less.
Also if you look up the specific heat capacities of various gases, CO2 actually has a lower heat capacity (0.839 J/g.K) than Nitrogen (1.040), Oxygen(0.918), and Air overall (1.0 ish), while water vapour has a much higher specific heat capacity (2.08).
The specific heat capacities of your two greenhouse gases are either side of the heat capacities of the main atmospheric gases. It would seem that a substances greenhouse effect has very little to do with its heat capacity.
This is where you are really losing me. How exactly does a substances heat capacity change when in the presence of another substance?
Isn't that correlation because warmer air can hold more water vapour? Wouldn't that make your increasing water vapour concentration the feedback rather than a driver? But lets just say it was being driven the other way around - what is causing the increase in water vapour?
The other thing water vapour does when it reaches a certain maximum level is condenses. Condensed water droplets (ie clouds) are an aerosol and very reflective from an incoming solar radiation perspective. Although water vapour is the biggest component of the greenhouse effect, it is a relatively stable fixed contribution (in the absence of other warming that allows more water vapour), and part of the water cycle involves a cooling effect.
While water vapour is an important factor in the dynamics of the atmosphere - blaming it for any overall warming and calling any increase in its concentration a driver rather than a feedback is at best red herring trying to deflect blame from CO2.
That's terrible. We can't allow that to happen! We have to make more than everyone else!
Here's the shocker...
If nobody cares enough to submit any reviews of books about something_else, then there won't be any reviews of books about something_else.
You can't blame slashdot or the people (cough publishers cough) who actually do submit book reviews for that.
Knock-knock at your front door
It's the black turtleneck secret police
They have come for your uncool niece
Hmmm... I'll have to check that out. It might bring me back to Firefox :)
You might have a point if the Windows or Mac procedure of building and installing a Python source package off github didn't look practically identical to that.
There was nothing *nix specific about any of those instructions.
Yeah.
Google doesn't seem to get the need to have multiple accounts/identities - eg work, personal etc etc.
Switching between these identities is still a pain (even after this new account switching functionality) - especially the way services and apps vanish depending on who you're logged in as.
I think switching accounts is the wrong idea, and they need to work more on being able to link or combine accounts. eg I'd like to see my work email together with my personal email (which also uses an apps domain) without having to log in and out all the time.
And because the login url is common between both accounts, your browser fails to keep your password for each account - grrr.
I now understand how Steve managed to post his rant from the wrong account and start this whole discussion in the first place.