>>>Oh look, its my tax dollars at work coming to arrest me.
I like your signature. It's humorous.:-)
- "A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential military supplies."
---George Washington's First State of the Union (January 8, 1790)"
The solution for roads is to raise the road (gasoline) tax. The solution for schools is to raise the annual school tax..... neither of which was forbidden by Prop 13 (limit property tax). A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the belief older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes, and I agree with that. In fact I'd like to see property taxes be 0%, because people should OWN their land, not have to rent it like serfs.
>>>>>California was something like the world's 5th biggest economy, so it's kind of a big deal whether or not the state goes bankrupt. >>>>> >>Not really.
Yes really. Greece was around number 35 biggest economy, and when it went bankrupt and had to be bailed-out, it was considered a big deal around the world. Ditto with Ireland. To say that California, which is multiple times bigger than Greece or Ireland, is not a big deal is not logical. Of course it matters. It would send a shockwave through all economies.
You could have installed Skype or other Internet phones. And yes it's a heck of a lot cheaper to use the internet phone than a wireless cell at ~$40 a month.
No offense but that sounds like a pain-in-the-ass. What we really need is to clone eyeballs with fresh lenses that have the flexible membranes of youth. C64love (not looking forward to wearing bifocals)
That's why stores have fallen on hard times. They DO have limited space and can only carry so much. The clerks used to say, "I'll order your size 7 shoe," but now people can just say, "Nah- I'll order it myself online." Ditto CDs. I haven't bought a real CD in an actual store since the rise of amazon in the early 90s.
Most of the CDs I buy are 'greatest hits' to get maximum bang for the buck (~50 cents per song), and therefore cheaper than the iStore.
I will miss CDs. They have superior (lossless) quality over the digital downloads. After all these years of companies trying to move from lesser-to-better music technology (records, cassettes, CD, Surround Sound), it turns out what people really wanted was 10,000 songs to fit inside a small box, even if those songs are incomplete (lost sounds). The average person didn't care about quality at all!!!
I played music on a 68000/7 Mhz and 512K RAM. Unfortunately it was only 8 bit sound (C= Amiga) but it was still music. Still enjoyable. And impressive for 1985.
My laptop is almost 10 years old (700 megahertz Pentium something). I recycled it from an ebayer. I've got you beat.;-)
I will miss CDs. They have superior (lossless) quality over the digital downloads. After all these years of companies trying to move from lesser-to-better music technology (records, cassettes, CD, Surround Sound), it turns out what people really wanted was 10,000 songs to fit inside a small box, even if those songs are incomplete (lost sound). The average person didn't care about quality at all.
Bottom Line: I now officially hate Google (as much as I hate Microsoft and Sony). First because they were censoring alexjones.com, glennbeck.com, thedrugereport.com, and other conservative/liberal newssites from their Google News search engine (but still carrying liberal sites like Huffington post).
Next Google was caught yanking videos off youtube.com because they criticized the president (the "Bush/Obama Deception" and other documentaries). And now Google is failing to support the MPEG4 standard everyone else uses (even adobe flash). What's next? Refusal to support MPEG2 or MP3?
Google's "do no evil" is being ignored by its management. .
What? The 1960s girl looks cute to me (link below). Also it's worth noting today's playmates are not real and therefore not comparable. They are photoshopped to remove blemishes, expand breasts, erase fat knees, give them flatter butts, and so on. 60s women didn't have those advantages, so you're looking at the actual girl including her flaws: http://www.google.com/images?q=de+de+lind&um=1&client=seamonkey
Playboy auctioned-off some photos that included notes. One said, "Butt too big - flatten," while a different girl said "But too flat; make rounder". So it can go either way. --- They also had a very strange note on a third girl about "Nipple too pointy; trim in half." Personally I like pointy nipples so I don't know why the editors felt any reason to alter it, but whatever.
The end result is a photo of a woman that doesn't really exist. In contrast the old 1960s photo is a real person with virtually no alteration.
>>>Oh look, its my tax dollars at work coming to arrest me.
Cute. A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential military supplies.
---George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)
The EU Bill of Rights says information held by third-parties must also be kept private. We need that added to the US bill..... on second thought, it's already there (ninth and tenth amendments) (rights reserved to the people, and congress shall not exercise powers never granted to it).
Depends on how they collect the information. If it was via some overheard conversation in-person or online, then fine, but if it involves me either (a) being scanned by skin-cancer-causing Xray machines (b) or my breasts/penis fondled by some stranger, then NO WAY. I would rather take the vanishingly-small risk* of being shot or bombed by a terrorist than the 100% risk of embarrassment/sexual assault by a SA dope.
* * Lower risk than getting hit on the head by an asteroid or drowning in a US tsunami.
>>>if Google doesn't do this they are contributing to the success of H.264
So??? H.264/MPEG4 is the best video codec ever developed. Not supporting it is as illogical (and stupid) as not supporting MPEG 2 or MPEG 1 or MP3 in the browser.
Bottom Line: I now officially hate Google. First because they were censoring alexjones.com from their Google News search engine (thereby making that site worthless). Next by yanking videos off youtube.com because they criticized the president. And now for failure to support the MPEG4 standard. What's next? Refusal to support MPEG2 or MP3?
>>>And does anybody know how possible it would be to just fork Chrome away from Google?
Already done. It's called Chromium. Actually it would be more accurate to say Chromium came first, and Chrome second..... but whatever. The point is you don't have to use a Google browser. You can use the open source non-google Chromium instead, like I do.
You could also try Opera which is one of the better browsers. Or Firefox. Or Mozilla/SeaMonkey.
>>>allowing H.264 to effectively tax all internet-video devices
Only for a few more years. Then MPEG4 and the H.264 subsection will be public domain. i.e. FREE (the world all open sourcers love) . >>>Can you imagine how much better life would have been had PNG been established early as the de facto image standard on the Internet instead of GIF, and later, JPG? Aside from the superior feature set, there never would have been any of the silly threats of massive lawsuits, no need to pay someone royalties to implement an editor, etc. >>>
There's none of that NOW. GIF is public domain and JPG is only 1-2 years away from being Free/open too. So the end result is exactly the same as if PNG were standard.
BTW it's doubtful the 7/14/33/66 megahertz computers in 1993 could have handled PNG. Too computationally-intensive.
WebM is inferior shit compared to MPEG4 video. WebM is almost as ugly as MPEG2 video. Furthermore it's not necessary to adopt WebM since MPEG4 is only a few years from being public domain/open source itself. I'd sooner use the superior Codec (which also happens to be the standard used by TV and cable).
I don't have a website but if I did, I would no longer support Chrome..... at least not for video. Everything would be encoded as either Flash or H264/MPEG4, and Chrome would just have to display a broken link. Users would need to go get themselves a REAL browser (such as Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla/Seamonkey, or Opera) that doesn't ignore the MPEG4 standard virtually everyone else in the world uses.
>>>a decent browser will have a full screen option.
Way to completely-and-totally miss his point. Yes the browser has a FS option, but it requires users to take a two-step option (first blow video to fill the browser; then make the browser full screen). The Grandparent poster said that's a pain in the ass, and he would be correct. Especially since many of us users don't know how to do full screen in our browsers. The old way was better (a single click via javascript).
Thanks for the link. AND I think this is incredibly stupid of Google. Dropping H.264/MPEG4 is a bit like dropping MPEG2 or MPEG1 or MP3 support. It makes no logical sense to not support the standard codecs used by nearly everyone.
Furthermore if a certain other company tried this stunt (cough;Microsoft) with their favorite codec (drop all support except WMV) everybody would be up in arms, saying they are trying to gain a monopolistic advantage over competition. I have ZERO desire to use this WebM stuff, especially since it's been shown inferior to MPEG4/H.264. It would be like stepping back to a 32-bit processor rather than using the current & better 64 bit. Or 64000 colors instead of 16 million.
The spammers were shut-down, and then they came back. Wow. I never could have predicted that./end sarcasm. Maybe governments should just give-up the idea that they can silence speech, and find some other way to deal with it (filtering). Which is pretty much what we've always done (if I don't want to hear a politician speaking, I just walk away until his voice can't be heard).
Slashdot Mirror
>>>Oh look, its my tax dollars at work coming to arrest me.
I like your signature. It's humorous. :-)
- "A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential military supplies."
---George Washington's First State of the Union (January 8, 1790)"
Yes.
The CD has surround-sound encoding which the 256k AAC lacks.
>>>Nothing to stop you from downloading lossless audio files
From where? iTunes doesn't sell them and I'm not aware of anybody who does. Once CDs are dead, lossless files will be impossible to get.
The solution for roads is to raise the road (gasoline) tax.
The solution for schools is to raise the annual school tax..... neither of which was forbidden by Prop 13 (limit property tax). A large contributor to Proposition 13 was the belief older Californians should not be priced out of their homes through high taxes, and I agree with that. In fact I'd like to see property taxes be 0%, because people should OWN their land, not have to rent it like serfs.
>>>>>California was something like the world's 5th biggest economy, so it's kind of a big deal whether or not the state goes bankrupt.
>>>>>
>>Not really.
Yes really. Greece was around number 35 biggest economy, and when it went bankrupt and had to be bailed-out, it was considered a big deal around the world. Ditto with Ireland. To say that California, which is multiple times bigger than Greece or Ireland, is not a big deal is not logical. Of course it matters. It would send a shockwave through all economies.
You could have installed Skype or other Internet phones. And yes it's a heck of a lot cheaper to use the internet phone than a wireless cell at ~$40 a month.
No offense but that sounds like a pain-in-the-ass.
What we really need is to clone eyeballs with fresh lenses that have the flexible membranes of youth.
C64love (not looking forward to wearing bifocals)
That's why stores have fallen on hard times. They DO have limited space and can only carry so much. The clerks used to say, "I'll order your size 7 shoe," but now people can just say, "Nah- I'll order it myself online." Ditto CDs. I haven't bought a real CD in an actual store since the rise of amazon in the early 90s.
Most of the CDs I buy are 'greatest hits' to get maximum bang for the buck (~50 cents per song), and therefore cheaper than the iStore.
I will miss CDs. They have superior (lossless) quality over the digital downloads. After all these years of companies trying to move from lesser-to-better music technology (records, cassettes, CD, Surround Sound), it turns out what people really wanted was 10,000 songs to fit inside a small box, even if those songs are incomplete (lost sounds). The average person didn't care about quality at all!!!
I played music on a 68000/7 Mhz and 512K RAM. Unfortunately it was only 8 bit sound (C= Amiga) but it was still music. Still enjoyable. And impressive for 1985.
My laptop is almost 10 years old (700 megahertz Pentium something). I recycled it from an ebayer. I've got you beat. ;-)
I will miss CDs. They have superior (lossless) quality over the digital downloads. After all these years of companies trying to move from lesser-to-better music technology (records, cassettes, CD, Surround Sound), it turns out what people really wanted was 10,000 songs to fit inside a small box, even if those songs are incomplete (lost sound). The average person didn't care about quality at all.
Anim-PNG works in Mozilla SeaMonkey.
Bottom Line: I now officially hate Google (as much as I hate Microsoft and Sony). First because they were censoring alexjones.com, glennbeck.com, thedrugereport.com, and other conservative/liberal newssites from their Google News search engine (but still carrying liberal sites like Huffington post).
Next Google was caught yanking videos off youtube.com because they criticized the president (the "Bush/Obama Deception" and other documentaries). And now Google is failing to support the MPEG4 standard everyone else uses (even adobe flash). What's next? Refusal to support MPEG2 or MP3?
Google's "do no evil" is being ignored by its management.
.
What? The 1960s girl looks cute to me (link below). Also it's worth noting today's playmates are not real and therefore not comparable. They are photoshopped to remove blemishes, expand breasts, erase fat knees, give them flatter butts, and so on. 60s women didn't have those advantages, so you're looking at the actual girl including her flaws:
http://www.google.com/images?q=de+de+lind&um=1&client=seamonkey
>>>FLATTER butts?
Playboy auctioned-off some photos that included notes. One said, "Butt too big - flatten," while a different girl said "But too flat; make rounder". So it can go either way. --- They also had a very strange note on a third girl about "Nipple too pointy; trim in half." Personally I like pointy nipples so I don't know why the editors felt any reason to alter it, but whatever.
The end result is a photo of a woman that doesn't really exist. In contrast the old 1960s photo is a real person with virtually no alteration.
>>>Oh look, its my tax dollars at work coming to arrest me.
Cute.
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential military supplies.
---George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)
The EU Bill of Rights says information held by third-parties must also be kept private. We need that added to the US bill..... on second thought, it's already there (ninth and tenth amendments) (rights reserved to the people, and congress shall not exercise powers never granted to it).
Depends on how they collect the information. If it was via some overheard conversation in-person or online, then fine, but if it involves me either (a) being scanned by skin-cancer-causing Xray machines (b) or my breasts/penis fondled by some stranger, then NO WAY. I would rather take the vanishingly-small risk* of being shot or bombed by a terrorist than the 100% risk of embarrassment/sexual assault by a SA dope.
*
* Lower risk than getting hit on the head by an asteroid or drowning in a US tsunami.
>>>if Google doesn't do this they are contributing to the success of H.264
So??? H.264/MPEG4 is the best video codec ever developed. Not supporting it is as illogical (and stupid) as not supporting MPEG 2 or MPEG 1 or MP3 in the browser.
Anim-PNG works in Mozilla SeaMonkey.
Bottom Line: I now officially hate Google. First because they were censoring alexjones.com from their Google News search engine (thereby making that site worthless). Next by yanking videos off youtube.com because they criticized the president. And now for failure to support the MPEG4 standard. What's next? Refusal to support MPEG2 or MP3?
>>>And does anybody know how possible it would be to just fork Chrome away from Google?
Already done. It's called Chromium. Actually it would be more accurate to say Chromium came first, and Chrome second..... but whatever. The point is you don't have to use a Google browser. You can use the open source non-google Chromium instead, like I do.
You could also try Opera which is one of the better browsers. Or Firefox. Or Mozilla/SeaMonkey.
>>>allowing H.264 to effectively tax all internet-video devices
Only for a few more years. Then MPEG4 and the H.264 subsection will be public domain. i.e. FREE (the world all open sourcers love)
.
>>>Can you imagine how much better life would have been had PNG been established early as the de facto image standard on the Internet instead of GIF, and later, JPG? Aside from the superior feature set, there never would have been any of the silly threats of massive lawsuits, no need to pay someone royalties to implement an editor, etc.
>>>
There's none of that NOW. GIF is public domain and JPG is only 1-2 years away from being Free/open too. So the end result is exactly the same as if PNG were standard.
BTW it's doubtful the 7/14/33/66 megahertz computers in 1993 could have handled PNG. Too computationally-intensive.
>>>So why are you not happy with this move?
WebM is inferior shit compared to MPEG4 video. WebM is almost as ugly as MPEG2 video. Furthermore it's not necessary to adopt WebM since MPEG4 is only a few years from being public domain/open source itself. I'd sooner use the superior Codec (which also happens to be the standard used by TV and cable).
I don't have a website but if I did, I would no longer support Chrome..... at least not for video. Everything would be encoded as either Flash or H264/MPEG4, and Chrome would just have to display a broken link. Users would need to go get themselves a REAL browser (such as Mozilla Firefox, Mozilla/Seamonkey, or Opera) that doesn't ignore the MPEG4 standard virtually everyone else in the world uses.
>>>a decent browser will have a full screen option.
Way to completely-and-totally miss his point. Yes the browser has a FS option, but it requires users to take a two-step option (first blow video to fill the browser; then make the browser full screen). The Grandparent poster said that's a pain in the ass, and he would be correct. Especially since many of us users don't know how to do full screen in our browsers. The old way was better (a single click via javascript).
Thanks for the link. AND I think this is incredibly stupid of Google. Dropping H.264/MPEG4 is a bit like dropping MPEG2 or MPEG1 or MP3 support. It makes no logical sense to not support the standard codecs used by nearly everyone.
Furthermore if a certain other company tried this stunt (cough;Microsoft) with their favorite codec (drop all support except WMV) everybody would be up in arms, saying they are trying to gain a monopolistic advantage over competition. I have ZERO desire to use this WebM stuff, especially since it's been shown inferior to MPEG4/H.264. It would be like stepping back to a 32-bit processor rather than using the current & better 64 bit. Or 64000 colors instead of 16 million.
Email hardly qualifies as harassment, especially since it is so easily ignored (don't click on it) (and/or filter it to a spam folder).
The spammers were shut-down, and then they came back. Wow. I never could have predicted that. /end sarcasm. Maybe governments should just give-up the idea that they can silence speech, and find some other way to deal with it (filtering). Which is pretty much what we've always done (if I don't want to hear a politician speaking, I just walk away until his voice can't be heard).