The fact of the matter is that people aren't choosing silverlight for the improved development environment (having used development tools for both, I'd say that "improved" is a strong term anyway), or for the deployment options. They're choosing it for the DRM.
Thus my assertion that the DRM was the only signifigant improvement. I did not claim that it was the only improvement.
No, it doesn't matter who copies from who. It does matter who takes credit though. Sure, Microsoft can be innovative on occasion, but this isn't an example. And of course this is what we were talking about.
Competition *does* benefit consumers usually. And it probably will here too, in the long term. In the short term, compatibility issues hurt consumers.
It has everything to do with Silverlight as a technology, since the only signifigant "improvement" it offers over the entrenched competition is improved rights management. The other improvements on their own are not sufficient to encourage adoption given the low install base relative to Flash.
To be more specific, the latest version of AdBlock causes the problem, and updating to AdBlock Plus fixes it... Firefox will not automatically update this for you.
I use it constantly, and haven't experienced crashes.
There was an issue with it when combined with an old version of adblock, and sites that used swfobject.js, but updating to a newer version of adblock fixed the problem.
I don't know anything about your configuration, but I'd wager your issue is caused by another addon, and not Flash.
Did you remove nspluginwrapper when you moved to the 64-bit player? You don't need it anymore, and the wrapper certainly *will* crash firefox constantly.
If by "innovation", you mean "copying the feature list from Adobe Air and the next version of Flex so they could check the same boxes on the marketing literature without actually coming up with anything new", then...
...oh, wait. You were using the Microsoft definition of "innovation". I guess you're right then.
Few people would contend that a chef's recipe is chemistry, despite the building blocks requiring some chemicals. (Okay, on slashdot, more people than normal may.)
A patent lawyer might. Though the point is moot, since the outcome of a recipe is what would be patented, and it is a physical object. Whereas programming produces a collection mathematical concepts.
But so does typing a novel in Word. Yet few people would argue that writing a novel is a mathematical exercise, even if one uses a computer.
Few people would argue that a novel is patentable. Anybody who did would be wrong.
Given that the battery in a Prius can go from almost full to almost empty and back in 15 minutes of driving, how much benefit are you really getting from being able to plug it in at night? Isn't it just another marketing gimmick?
Except in practice, patents seem to be primarily used by the wealthy to actively prevent competition from smaller companies.
Key word bolded. There is a lot of good in the patent system. The big issue is with patents being granted for existing inventions, or with overly broad terms, or for obvious "inventions".
SUVs were classified as trucks under US law, right? So they got better regulatory treatment.
US companies optimized their "cars" to cope with US regulations, while overseas businesses (who couldn't aim at any particular regulatory market) just did what made sense.
I see this bullshit argument a lot.
But I also see as many Pathfinders and XTerras as I do Explorers and Tahoes on the road. And that doesn't even start to touch the RAV4-alike market. American car companies didn't have a monopoly on gas-guzzlers by any means. Look how many different SUVs Toyota still makes....
And why do mini-vans escape the wrath of the anti-car crowd?
The Prius is a package deal in the marketing department. From it's unnecessarily obtuse (but "futuristic") controls to it's ridiculous shape. If it were about aerodynamics, there are all sorts of improvements they could have made. Other posts in this thread have already explained some, and given examples of more aerodynamic cars that look less ridiculous.
I've long suggested that the government should establish baseline 'usage amount' for each type of electronic device.
For example, three hours of TV each day, one hour of cordless phone speaking, and an hour of being off the charger without speaking, five minutes of microwaving something, three minutes of a fridge being open in a 70 degree room, etc.
And then require manufactures to print, on the front of the box, in a standard colored and shaped blurb, exactly how much kilowatts that use. How much daily power 'average use' requires.
They already do something like that. But only for major appliances. Check for Enerjyguide stickers next time you're at Sears or the like.
Bingo. And it was a Critical update, so most users woke up to find it auto-installed for them.
IE8 was a pretty big UI change, and users don't like it (they hate "new"). I know that when people ask me how to switch back I tell them that "they can't, but they can use Firefox instead".
The people who insist that CFLs must be used 100% of the time are starting to piss off people like me and you who thinks they're only appropriate 90% of the time. I swear, sometimes the environmental movement is hurt more by people on its side than people on the other side.
Household lighting usage is such a tiny fraction of the total energy usage in this country anyway...if people want to bitch and whine about how much power we use, perhaps they could bitch and whine about industrial manufacturers who waste much more electricity than we ever do. And most of the electricity we waste is because of poorly-designed products, sold to us without any indication of how much electricity they waste.
Honestly, some of the CFL zealots I know would save more electricity by just turning off the damned lights(!) instead of leaving them on all the time.... But it makes them happy to have a cause I guess. Not just them, either. Look at the moderation in this thread. CFL zealots are modded up. Everybody else? Not so much. There's no room for a moderate position in modern debate.
Nice to know about the govt subsidy for home florescent fixtures, and I know the T8 bulbs to be even better for color and efficiency, but I really don;t have places to install them without significant (many fold more than the housing) installation expenses (wiring, new sheetrock, painting, and more)
Take a look, you might be surprised. The catalog I had from the local utility offered fixtures that were close facsimiles of many older types of fixture, often a centimeter or so larger to cover up any circles or whatnot that would be left behind by exposing ceiling that hadn't seen the light of day in ages. As for wiring, pretty much anything you've got will be fine. It's just lighting, and you're reducing the load...
My house had circular/glass dome ceiling lamps in some rooms, and just glass shades in others. I replaced them all with the circular type, and it looks great. (Except in the dining room. That's still an incandescent candelabra type. The bulbs themselves are decorative, so I consider that to be one of the cases where an incandescent is more than justified...)
Convince myself of full spectrum light quality? Honestly, it's damned hard to tell. Traditional CFs, especially sub 4000K have really awful spectrum maps, with about 6 peaks, and really poor blue and UV output across the board, and also weak in the reds. Full spectrum maps don't look that dramatic. Halogens are nearly as poor... The "cheap" incandescents also have issues
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The link you had showed three CFs ranging from cheap-ass to fantastic, and they all looked terrible. Clearly, there are many cases where you don't care, and should just use a CF, but they're *not* the same.
but for general home lighting, even some of the cheaper CFs have done me fine (in closets, hallways, etc). I use very high quality CFs in my reading room, computer room, and living room.
I've given up on "very high quality" CFs. They suck, especially for how much you pay. I'll use cheap ones where I don't care about the light quality, or I don't use the light very often, and that's it. For everywhere else I've instead purchased fluorescent fixtures with an electronic ballast. The bulbs last forever compared to a CF, the variety of spectra and temperatures available is much higher, a government subsidy paid for the bulk of the fixtures, and they're way more efficient.
No matter what you do, electricity is maybe the worst kind of energy to do... well, almost anything. Its main advantage is that it is a very easily portable and storable form of energy
You don't realize that those are actually electricity's bigest disadvantages?
We use gasoline in our cars instead of electricity, for example, because it is so difficult to store and transport large amounts of electrical power.
ur... "u" "r".... Initially used as a shorthand replacement for the words "you" "are". Eventually co-opted by very very young internet/SMS users who didn't have enough experience to know this, and used to mean "your". People who use it that way come across in online discussions as if they were 12 year olds (and save two keystrokes).
Using "ur" at all, and especially incorrectly, is your personal choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Buy the house now. Finance the whole thing. Then you can root for the de-valuation.
For a good start, graduate law school with a 2.00 GPA.
The fact of the matter is that people aren't choosing silverlight for the improved development environment (having used development tools for both, I'd say that "improved" is a strong term anyway), or for the deployment options. They're choosing it for the DRM.
Thus my assertion that the DRM was the only signifigant improvement. I did not claim that it was the only improvement.
No, it doesn't matter who copies from who. It does matter who takes credit though. Sure, Microsoft can be innovative on occasion, but this isn't an example. And of course this is what we were talking about.
Competition *does* benefit consumers usually. And it probably will here too, in the long term. In the short term, compatibility issues hurt consumers.
It has everything to do with Silverlight as a technology, since the only signifigant "improvement" it offers over the entrenched competition is improved rights management. The other improvements on their own are not sufficient to encourage adoption given the low install base relative to Flash.
To be more specific, the latest version of AdBlock causes the problem, and updating to AdBlock Plus fixes it... Firefox will not automatically update this for you.
I use it constantly, and haven't experienced crashes.
There was an issue with it when combined with an old version of adblock, and sites that used swfobject.js, but updating to a newer version of adblock fixed the problem.
I don't know anything about your configuration, but I'd wager your issue is caused by another addon, and not Flash.
Did you remove nspluginwrapper when you moved to the 64-bit player? You don't need it anymore, and the wrapper certainly *will* crash firefox constantly.
If by "innovation", you mean "copying the feature list from Adobe Air and the next version of Flex so they could check the same boxes on the marketing literature without actually coming up with anything new", then...
Fixed that for you. The one from Adobe Labs works just fine.
The majority of people still run 32-bit anyway. 64-bit linux on the desktop is a niche of a niche.
With, or without DRM enabled?
That's what I thought. No mainstream Silverlight video will play that way...
Few people would contend that a chef's recipe is chemistry, despite the building blocks requiring some chemicals. (Okay, on slashdot, more people than normal may.)
A patent lawyer might. Though the point is moot, since the outcome of a recipe is what would be patented, and it is a physical object. Whereas programming produces a collection mathematical concepts.
Few people would argue that a novel is patentable. Anybody who did would be wrong.
People buy SUVs 'cause they're cooler-looking mini-vans. Most mini-van owners don't need seating for seven passengers for their family of four.
Given that the battery in a Prius can go from almost full to almost empty and back in 15 minutes of driving, how much benefit are you really getting from being able to plug it in at night? Isn't it just another marketing gimmick?
Except in practice, patents seem to be primarily used by the wealthy to actively prevent competition from smaller companies.
Key word bolded. There is a lot of good in the patent system. The big issue is with patents being granted for existing inventions, or with overly broad terms, or for obvious "inventions".
SUVs were classified as trucks under US law, right? So they got better regulatory treatment.
US companies optimized their "cars" to cope with US regulations, while overseas businesses (who couldn't aim at any particular regulatory market) just did what made sense.
I see this bullshit argument a lot.
But I also see as many Pathfinders and XTerras as I do Explorers and Tahoes on the road. And that doesn't even start to touch the RAV4-alike market. American car companies didn't have a monopoly on gas-guzzlers by any means. Look how many different SUVs Toyota still makes....
And why do mini-vans escape the wrath of the anti-car crowd?
I have a new word for you: marketing.
The Prius is a package deal in the marketing department. From it's unnecessarily obtuse (but "futuristic") controls to it's ridiculous shape. If it were about aerodynamics, there are all sorts of improvements they could have made. Other posts in this thread have already explained some, and given examples of more aerodynamic cars that look less ridiculous.
I've long suggested that the government should establish baseline 'usage amount' for each type of electronic device.
For example, three hours of TV each day, one hour of cordless phone speaking, and an hour of being off the charger without speaking, five minutes of microwaving something, three minutes of a fridge being open in a 70 degree room, etc.
And then require manufactures to print, on the front of the box, in a standard colored and shaped blurb, exactly how much kilowatts that use. How much daily power 'average use' requires.
They already do something like that. But only for major appliances. Check for Enerjyguide stickers next time you're at Sears or the like.
They should do it for other electrics.
Bingo. And it was a Critical update, so most users woke up to find it auto-installed for them.
IE8 was a pretty big UI change, and users don't like it (they hate "new"). I know that when people ask me how to switch back I tell them that "they can't, but they can use Firefox instead".
The people who insist that CFLs must be used 100% of the time are starting to piss off people like me and you who thinks they're only appropriate 90% of the time. I swear, sometimes the environmental movement is hurt more by people on its side than people on the other side.
Household lighting usage is such a tiny fraction of the total energy usage in this country anyway...if people want to bitch and whine about how much power we use, perhaps they could bitch and whine about industrial manufacturers who waste much more electricity than we ever do. And most of the electricity we waste is because of poorly-designed products, sold to us without any indication of how much electricity they waste.
Honestly, some of the CFL zealots I know would save more electricity by just turning off the damned lights(!) instead of leaving them on all the time.... But it makes them happy to have a cause I guess. Not just them, either. Look at the moderation in this thread. CFL zealots are modded up. Everybody else? Not so much. There's no room for a moderate position in modern debate.
Skill + Decay
Use your sword a lot? Sword skill goes up. Switch to a gun? Over time you lose your swords skill...
Unfortunately, systems where players can 'lose' tend to be less popular.
Nice to know about the govt subsidy for home florescent fixtures, and I know the T8 bulbs to be even better for color and efficiency, but I really don;t have places to install them without significant (many fold more than the housing) installation expenses (wiring, new sheetrock, painting, and more)
Take a look, you might be surprised. The catalog I had from the local utility offered fixtures that were close facsimiles of many older types of fixture, often a centimeter or so larger to cover up any circles or whatnot that would be left behind by exposing ceiling that hadn't seen the light of day in ages. As for wiring, pretty much anything you've got will be fine. It's just lighting, and you're reducing the load...
My house had circular/glass dome ceiling lamps in some rooms, and just glass shades in others. I replaced them all with the circular type, and it looks great. (Except in the dining room. That's still an incandescent candelabra type. The bulbs themselves are decorative, so I consider that to be one of the cases where an incandescent is more than justified...)
Convince myself of full spectrum light quality? Honestly, it's damned hard to tell. Traditional CFs, especially sub 4000K have really awful spectrum maps, with about 6 peaks, and really poor blue and UV output across the board, and also weak in the reds. Full spectrum maps
don't look that dramatic. Halogens are nearly as poor... The "cheap" incandescents also have issues
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The link you had showed three CFs ranging from cheap-ass to fantastic, and they all looked terrible. Clearly, there are many cases where you don't care, and should just use a CF, but they're *not* the same.
but for general home lighting, even some of the cheaper CFs have done me fine (in closets, hallways, etc). I use very high quality CFs in my reading room, computer room, and living room.
I've given up on "very high quality" CFs. They suck, especially for how much you pay. I'll use cheap ones where I don't care about the light quality, or I don't use the light very often, and that's it. For everywhere else I've instead purchased fluorescent fixtures with an electronic ballast. The bulbs last forever compared to a CF, the variety of spectra and temperatures available is much higher, a government subsidy paid for the bulk of the fixtures, and they're way more efficient.
No matter what you do, electricity is maybe the worst kind of energy to do ... well, almost anything. Its main advantage is that it is a very easily portable and storable form of energy
You don't realize that those are actually electricity's bigest disadvantages?
We use gasoline in our cars instead of electricity, for example, because it is so difficult to store and transport large amounts of electrical power.
ur... "u" "r".... Initially used as a shorthand replacement for the words "you" "are". Eventually co-opted by very very young internet/SMS users who didn't have enough experience to know this, and used to mean "your". People who use it that way come across in online discussions as if they were 12 year olds (and save two keystrokes).
Using "ur" at all, and especially incorrectly, is your personal choice.
Temperature and spectrum are *not* the same thing.