Can anyone tell me whether it finally installs in 'program files', on Windows XP? I haven't been able to find a way with the previous versions, and this is my only hurdle to installing it on my work PC due to the anti-virus rules.
The irony in all this is that legal file sharers will be harmed, while people torrenting stuff illegally will simply find solutions that are harder to distinguish from normal traffic.
It will mean that the router companies suddenly have to pull their collective fingers out, but in the meantime there are forward thinking manufacturers:
If you movie is H264, requiring the Flash player, then why not simply make MP4/Flash. Nobody says you need to stream to a web page. You can use a dedicated application as YouTube do and then perform anything encryption you wish. If you don't care so much about people hacking and downloading the stream, then just use the video tag in the HTML5 spec.
There is whole bunch of stuff that comes with IPv6 that is only there to facilitate the transition. 6to4 is an example of this, since once everything is IPv6 there won't be for any need for it. As for other stuff it was likely to break anyhow. Hardware and software solution assumed 32-bit addresses, because that's what IPv4 required. Once you start trying to extend the address space, you try to do it in a way that will survive at least another 200 years. There are probably things they probably shouldn't have done, but the rocket is already in gear and slowly lifting off the launch pad, so at this point its best to accept the decisions and go with it, since anything else will mean not being ready for one the last batch of available IPv4 ring the alarm bells.
I did question some of the choice made by IPv6, but now I just realise it makes more sense to get with the program at this point.
I don't think Firefox was even a target and is rather it was collateral damage. Rather I think is probably along these line:
- H264 was support by Apple
- Google was on good terms with Apple
- MP4/H264 provide high quality images for bandwidth. Think HD video
- Ogg Theora is nice and all, but is not available in any commercial product
IMHO, Ogg Theora people are so wound up in their ideology that they aren't addressing what they need to to give MP4/H264 a run for its money. Believe me sometimes you have to step out of the tower and walk into the market. The MPEG group needs to do the same, for different reasons.
Having to deal with multiple video formats means either increased storage requirements or processor requirements. I believe the reason for trying to standardise the supported video formats to a limited selection, is the same one for limiting the number of image formats officially supported by web pages: ensuring the content is viewable everywhere. If the specification said do what you want, we would see half a dozen different formats, browser supporting some of them and the users being caught in the cross-fire.
The day an Ogg endcoder/decoder is made available for things like Adobe Premiere, Final Cut, Quicktime and Windows Media Player, using a BSD style license and also focus on quality for a given bit rate, then we aren't going to see widespread adoption.
While Ogg might be fine, it is not packaged as a solution suitable for commercial products. At the same time the MP4/H264 licensing means it is not suitable for open source. We have clash of cultures and each is wanting to stand in their ivory tower, and not come down to Earth.
In many ways if you are going to stick to using Internet Explorer, then it might as well be the latest one. If there is a flaw that affects IE8 less than the other two, then it is still the lesser risk. Even if it doesn't and is still major, then Microsoft will most probably concentrate on providing a security fix for IE8, and not the others. Heck, beyond hyper-conservative company policy (aka "let's stick with 10 year old software, no matter what"), there is very little reason not to upgrade and plenty of reasons to upgrade. To name three: its free, its more standards compliant and it is probably more secure that the previous to versions.
If you are still using IE5, then I have nothing good to say.
Perhaps the Handbrake folks just decided that the time to drop support for a format is when Microsoft includes support for it out of the box?
I believe the real story is that given their limited developer resources and budget, they made a call and decided to focus on making one thing good. H264 is the current codec of choice and the MPEG4 container is widely supported. When it comes to the MS-Windows platform, then "out of the box" support for anything beyond WMA, WMV and other home grown Microsoft formats has always been a long shot. DiVX and MPEG4 both require the use of third party software, so which is used doesn't really make that much difference, IMHO. I have no idea what the state of things are when it comes to Windows 7?
The problem with DiVX is that it is cludge, albeit a good one, in that it uses an MPEG4 codec in a container that it wasn't intended for. Focusing on using H264 in container that it was designed for, or a container that was designed to support it is probably a better use of energy.
Either way, they've gotten taken down a notch (and I bet you they are PISSED about it), and I'm betting that our own cocknozzles in DC are hoping they opt for the second approach. Nothing heavy will come from it, but we'll get a few more of their chips in the big game.
But at the same time they will be doing everything to save face. They will be carefully trying to decide how to handle the impertinence that is Google.
They still call it alpha, but apart from it sometimes hanging the browser for a minute at start, but then working... and a bit of memory leaking... it is no different from the r32 bin
Context: author described "finding the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle" in English.
Damn newbies, with an explanation as provided you will most definitely get your patent application rejected. Heck even a two year old could understand the explanation. Your mistake was using an understandable explanation. The trick is to use 'patentese' a language so arcane that even the experts have a hard time understanding what is being described. You see it is like using Shakespear's English in that you marvel them at your use of the language that they give up and simply approve based on language rather than content.
There is other arcane languages in common use today such as 'marketese', where you convince people to buy your product simply based on the noble use of the words of Buzz.
Bleach and alcohol hand sanitizer wipes are much more powerful tools than penicillin and vancomycin. The idea is simple: bugs don't become superbugs if they are a) dead, or b) never exposed to agents which cause them to become superbugs
Studies have shown that washing your hands doesn't eliminate bacteria, instead it simply reduces the diversity if the bacteria. Using bleach and other hand sanitizers eliminate certain "good bacteria" which are necessary for keeping the skin hydrated. The elimination of these bacteria increase screen dryness and thus the susceptibility to certain types of infections.
Unless you are in a hospital, then you should limit yourself to regular soap or hand rinsing. I am not suggesting becoming a hippie with regards to hygiene, I simply suggesting that you need to do what make the most sense for the body. Everything is a question of balance.
I completely disagree. The FDA is not some magical organization that can predict every single possible negative consequence of every single drug ever sent to their offices. If a drug slipped by that happens to cause severe problems in some patients 10 years down the road, then they should be able to sue someone. Everyone may have been as careful as possible, but there was still something overlooked, or some mistake made, and that has consequences.
If it was proven that the drugs companies were knew about this possibility and did not reveal it then yes they should be held responsible. On the other hand if a drugs company did everything realistically possible, given the tools available at the time to ensure the limits of side effects or documented everything then they should be protected. I say this because drugs companies aren't gods and are trying to find the best solution they can for a system they don't fully understand. When being prescribed medicine there is a risk factor that needs to be taken into account: are the side effects better than not taking the medicine at all?
If you expect drugs companies to make perfect medicine, then I ask you to reverse engineer an OS for a known issue with the absence of the creator's documentation (no MFC docs, no Linux docs etc), and then guarantee your patch will be perfect.
In a good number of cases you don't even need DHCPv6. Router advertisements will do the reset. Basically the router announces the prefix it is using to the LAN and then the computers there will pair it with their own MAC address to create a unique IPv6 address. If you wish to control which computers on the subnet have access to the outside world, then just configure your firewall as necessary.
My Windows 2000 PC supported this 5 years ago and was able to connect to an IPv6 network this way.
I am not saying that router advertisements will solve all the problems, its will simply be good enough for most people.
Note there is a more recent specification for also announcing the DNS server via router advertisements too, though in most case it would probably a safe hack to assume "subnet prefix" + "::1" is the router which is also acting as DNS proxy.
We've been hearing this for quite a while, and for some odd reason IPv6 isn't really entering the mainstream regardless of these warnings.
I blame this on the "last mover" attitude, where companies won't do something until they see the competition doing something. For the average user it won't happen until the ISPs or companies get themselves in gear and for a majority of these it won't be until the backbone is IPv6 enabled - in other words they won't do it until it is convenient. It takes a company interesting in leading the pack to do something before we see everyone scrambling to make up for lost time.
I am using 6to4 on my Apple Airport Extreme and all of the time I find myself connecting to gateways in Europe, even though I am in Canada.
At this rate until North America finally decides to gets on board IPv6, there will be the great wall of North America. That is while everyone else in the world is already using IPv6, North America will still be claiming that there is no IPv4 exhaustion issue, only to finally realise why they could no longer ping non North America servers. Its a rather cynical point of view, but based on what I am seeing we could find ourselves to some degree in that scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
Can anyone tell me whether it finally installs in 'program files', on Windows XP? I haven't been able to find a way with the previous versions, and this is my only hurdle to installing it on my work PC due to the anti-virus rules.
The irony in all this is that legal file sharers will be harmed, while people torrenting stuff illegally will simply find solutions that are harder to distinguish from normal traffic.
It will mean that the router companies suddenly have to pull their collective fingers out, but in the meantime there are forward thinking manufacturers:
http://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Routers
Another approach is simply to do:
ping6 ipv6.google.com
This should hopefully isolate you from broken DNSs returning fake 'A' entries.
Confirmed by dig:
IPv4:
ipv6.comcast.net. 7200 IN A 68.87.64.59
ipv6.comcast.net. 7200 IN A 69.252.76.96
IPv6:
ipv6.comcast.net. 7200 IN AAAA 2001:558:1002:5:68:87:64:59
ipv6.comcast.net. 7200 IN AAAA 2001:558:1004:9:69:252:76:96
If you movie is H264, requiring the Flash player, then why not simply make MP4/Flash. Nobody says you need to stream to a web page. You can use a dedicated application as YouTube do and then perform anything encryption you wish. If you don't care so much about people hacking and downloading the stream, then just use the video tag in the HTML5 spec.
So how does this work in car analogies? Do I have to find a computer analogy instead? ... does not compute.
There is whole bunch of stuff that comes with IPv6 that is only there to facilitate the transition. 6to4 is an example of this, since once everything is IPv6 there won't be for any need for it. As for other stuff it was likely to break anyhow. Hardware and software solution assumed 32-bit addresses, because that's what IPv4 required. Once you start trying to extend the address space, you try to do it in a way that will survive at least another 200 years. There are probably things they probably shouldn't have done, but the rocket is already in gear and slowly lifting off the launch pad, so at this point its best to accept the decisions and go with it, since anything else will mean not being ready for one the last batch of available IPv4 ring the alarm bells.
I did question some of the choice made by IPv6, but now I just realise it makes more sense to get with the program at this point.
My work upstream ISP wants to charge lots of extra money to do IPv6. We need a new law.
Yup. In the meantime you could look at a tunnel broker such as Hurricane Electric or Sixxs. It could at least give you a stepping stone to readiness.
So still no need to start getting infrastructure ready for IPv6?
I don't think Firefox was even a target and is rather it was collateral damage. Rather I think is probably along these line:
- H264 was support by Apple
- Google was on good terms with Apple
- MP4/H264 provide high quality images for bandwidth. Think HD video
- Ogg Theora is nice and all, but is not available in any commercial product
IMHO, Ogg Theora people are so wound up in their ideology that they aren't addressing what they need to to give MP4/H264 a run for its money. Believe me sometimes you have to step out of the tower and walk into the market. The MPEG group needs to do the same, for different reasons.
Having to deal with multiple video formats means either increased storage requirements or processor requirements. I believe the reason for trying to standardise the supported video formats to a limited selection, is the same one for limiting the number of image formats officially supported by web pages: ensuring the content is viewable everywhere. If the specification said do what you want, we would see half a dozen different formats, browser supporting some of them and the users being caught in the cross-fire.
The day an Ogg endcoder/decoder is made available for things like Adobe Premiere, Final Cut, Quicktime and Windows Media Player, using a BSD style license and also focus on quality for a given bit rate, then we aren't going to see widespread adoption.
While Ogg might be fine, it is not packaged as a solution suitable for commercial products. At the same time the MP4/H264 licensing means it is not suitable for open source. We have clash of cultures and each is wanting to stand in their ivory tower, and not come down to Earth.
In many ways if you are going to stick to using Internet Explorer, then it might as well be the latest one. If there is a flaw that affects IE8 less than the other two, then it is still the lesser risk. Even if it doesn't and is still major, then Microsoft will most probably concentrate on providing a security fix for IE8, and not the others. Heck, beyond hyper-conservative company policy (aka "let's stick with 10 year old software, no matter what"), there is very little reason not to upgrade and plenty of reasons to upgrade. To name three: its free, its more standards compliant and it is probably more secure that the previous to versions.
If you are still using IE5, then I have nothing good to say.
Perhaps the Handbrake folks just decided that the time to drop support for a format is when Microsoft includes support for it out of the box?
I believe the real story is that given their limited developer resources and budget, they made a call and decided to focus on making one thing good. H264 is the current codec of choice and the MPEG4 container is widely supported. When it comes to the MS-Windows platform, then "out of the box" support for anything beyond WMA, WMV and other home grown Microsoft formats has always been a long shot. DiVX and MPEG4 both require the use of third party software, so which is used doesn't really make that much difference, IMHO. I have no idea what the state of things are when it comes to Windows 7?
The problem with DiVX is that it is cludge, albeit a good one, in that it uses an MPEG4 codec in a container that it wasn't intended for. Focusing on using H264 in container that it was designed for, or a container that was designed to support it is probably a better use of energy.
I am too busy doing R&D of my time machine.
Either way, they've gotten taken down a notch (and I bet you they are PISSED about it), and I'm betting that our own cocknozzles in DC are hoping they opt for the second approach. Nothing heavy will come from it, but we'll get a few more of their chips in the big game.
But at the same time they will be doing everything to save face. They will be carefully trying to decide how to handle the impertinence that is Google.
Just to get you started: http://nehe.gamedev.net/
Until Microsoft commits to supporting SVG in IE it is hard to see Microsoft's supposed support of the standard as anything but disingenuous.
Well we certainly have a right to be cynical, given past events, but odd things happen. For example Sony has started supporting SD!?
One question though, is there any BSD styled SVG implementation that could be grafted onto a browser?
They still call it alpha, but apart from it sometimes hanging the browser for a minute at start, but then working... and a bit of memory leaking... it is no different from the r32 bin
So exactly the same as the 32-bit version ;)
Context: author described "finding the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle" in English.
Damn newbies, with an explanation as provided you will most definitely get your patent application rejected. Heck even a two year old could understand the explanation. Your mistake was using an understandable explanation. The trick is to use 'patentese' a language so arcane that even the experts have a hard time understanding what is being described. You see it is like using Shakespear's English in that you marvel them at your use of the language that they give up and simply approve based on language rather than content.
There is other arcane languages in common use today such as 'marketese', where you convince people to buy your product simply based on the noble use of the words of Buzz.
Bleach and alcohol hand sanitizer wipes are much more powerful tools than penicillin and vancomycin. The idea is simple: bugs don't become superbugs if they are a) dead, or b) never exposed to agents which cause them to become superbugs
Studies have shown that washing your hands doesn't eliminate bacteria, instead it simply reduces the diversity if the bacteria. Using bleach and other hand sanitizers eliminate certain "good bacteria" which are necessary for keeping the skin hydrated. The elimination of these bacteria increase screen dryness and thus the susceptibility to certain types of infections.
Unless you are in a hospital, then you should limit yourself to regular soap or hand rinsing. I am not suggesting becoming a hippie with regards to hygiene, I simply suggesting that you need to do what make the most sense for the body. Everything is a question of balance.
I completely disagree. The FDA is not some magical organization that can predict every single possible negative consequence of every single drug ever sent to their offices. If a drug slipped by that happens to cause severe problems in some patients 10 years down the road, then they should be able to sue someone. Everyone may have been as careful as possible, but there was still something overlooked, or some mistake made, and that has consequences.
If it was proven that the drugs companies were knew about this possibility and did not reveal it then yes they should be held responsible. On the other hand if a drugs company did everything realistically possible, given the tools available at the time to ensure the limits of side effects or documented everything then they should be protected. I say this because drugs companies aren't gods and are trying to find the best solution they can for a system they don't fully understand. When being prescribed medicine there is a risk factor that needs to be taken into account: are the side effects better than not taking the medicine at all?
If you expect drugs companies to make perfect medicine, then I ask you to reverse engineer an OS for a known issue with the absence of the creator's documentation (no MFC docs, no Linux docs etc), and then guarantee your patch will be perfect.
In a good number of cases you don't even need DHCPv6. Router advertisements will do the reset. Basically the router announces the prefix it is using to the LAN and then the computers there will pair it with their own MAC address to create a unique IPv6 address. If you wish to control which computers on the subnet have access to the outside world, then just configure your firewall as necessary.
My Windows 2000 PC supported this 5 years ago and was able to connect to an IPv6 network this way.
I am not saying that router advertisements will solve all the problems, its will simply be good enough for most people.
Note there is a more recent specification for also announcing the DNS server via router advertisements too, though in most case it would probably a safe hack to assume "subnet prefix" + "::1" is the router which is also acting as DNS proxy.
We've been hearing this for quite a while, and for some odd reason IPv6 isn't really entering the mainstream regardless of these warnings.
I blame this on the "last mover" attitude, where companies won't do something until they see the competition doing something. For the average user it won't happen until the ISPs or companies get themselves in gear and for a majority of these it won't be until the backbone is IPv6 enabled - in other words they won't do it until it is convenient. It takes a company interesting in leading the pack to do something before we see everyone scrambling to make up for lost time.
I am using 6to4 on my Apple Airport Extreme and all of the time I find myself connecting to gateways in Europe, even though I am in Canada.
At this rate until North America finally decides to gets on board IPv6, there will be the great wall of North America. That is while everyone else in the world is already using IPv6, North America will still be claiming that there is no IPv4 exhaustion issue, only to finally realise why they could no longer ping non North America servers. Its a rather cynical point of view, but based on what I am seeing we could find ourselves to some degree in that scenario.