What the hell are you arguing now? Frankly, I don't even know. You claimed Firefox can't support H.264 before someone would have to "foot the bill for royalties". I pointed out that you are, in fact, completely wrong.
Now you're just shifting the goalposts. So do you actually have a relevant point to make, or are you just trying to dance your way around the fact that you were wrong originally, and you're still wrong now?
Maybe the right choice is to stick with Flash a little longer to further development on an open source alternative and Mozilla have got it right.
No, the right choice is to begin the transition ASAP, as that by itself is a pretty monumental task, and then if a better codec comes along, the browsers can just implement it, and the content providers can just use it (neither *wants* an expensive codec, but H.264 simply beats the hell out of any of the alternatives from a performance standpoint).
Actually, for most people, supporting H264 would mean that FF would have to ship the codec.
No, it wouldn't. Most modern OS's ship with a built-in codec. If the machine doesn't have the codec, Firefox can pop up a little message saying "Your machine doesn't have codec X installed. Please see your vendor for how to install it."
If it does not work out of the box, it might as well not work at all.
It *already* doesn't work at all. At least by linking to a generic rendering pipeline, it can work if people want it to.
Well, to be fair, it could also be the kernel. When I had a major hard disk crash, I finally upgraded my Myth system from Fedora 5 to Ubuntu 8.10 on more modern hardware with more RAM, and performance went *down*, while the number of bugs went way up. I went from a rock solid, stable system to:
1. ivtv demonstrating really really annoying bugs, including random audio problems, and occasional tuner lockups that require a full reboot to fix. 2. I/O performance problems, such that I suddenly started seeing IOBOUND errors, where my previous system doing the same things never saw them at all (I've minimized those issues by moving my database to a different spindle, using ionice on various processes, and disabling comm flagging of more than one commercial at a time).
Of course, none of this is Myth's fault. But seriously, the number of regressions I encountered has been rather astounding, not to mention incredibly annoying. The fact taht people blame this on Myth is rather unfortunate, but I can't blame people for being scared away. Fortunately, I'm a tinkerer, and so damned addicted to Myth's functionality that I put up with the warts.
I have FiOS and until MythTV supports CableCARD, it's rather useless.
What, you've never heard of an IR blaster? I've been recording premium content from my cable boxes for the last three years without any problems, and it was probably easier to set up than the nightmare that is CableCARD.
If we were all kind and caring, there'd be no need for money or property, people would just work because it's necessary for teh common good of the society.
Absurd. Why? Let's pretend for a moment that everyone was perfectly altruistic. Capitalism still provides a major, useful function: it provides an automatically adjusting system for allocating resources. It's really that simple. My point is that, in an imaginary, perfect world, you would *still* have capitalism, along with no need for a military, because unlike war and violence, capitalism serves an important and valuable function.
The interesting thing is that you presume that capitalism is some kind of necessary evil, only required in order to overcome some sort of shortcoming in human nature. That is, I'm afraid, a misconception.
Oh, and by the way, I'm a rather left-leaning Canadian (not some rabid libertarian, as I'm sure you might assume from my previous comments). As such, I believe strongly in government provided social programs and so forth. But I also realize that capitalism serves an important function in modern society, and so I believe that a blend of socialism and capitalism is an ideal macro-economic system.
I would spend a few hundred dollars to a tool that will let you do your work without adding work to be able to use the tool.
Or you could invest a little time up front to learn the tool, and then not pay anything. *shrug* It's a matter of priorities. Believe it or not, some people's priorities aren't the same as yours. Shocking, isn't it?
No, I just mean ridiculously biased. As in, not reporting the facts, but rather reporting a hyperbolic, partisan spin on it. Any idiot can see that, given loaded phrases like "Consensus to people like Barack Obama means to reverse your opinions and agree with him."
And yes, I'm saying that if you can't see this is a moronic post from a partisan hack, you are, in fact, an idiot.
No, see, that makes no sense. PolySci majors would be lefty liberal elitists, 'cuz, they're like, educamacated and stuff, and come from hippy universities.
No, Slashdot has apparently been overrun by the Tea Party folks... you know, those good ol', down home, middle American folk who just want to, you know, live in peace and stuff (when they aren't throwing rocks through windows and cutting propane tank lines), free from government intervention and stuff (unless it's Medicare or the military, anyway... well, or roads, or the police, or firemen, or...)... you know, The Real America.
It's because, from an American politics standpoint, he's actually a centrist, and that really pisses people off. To quote Stephen Colbert: We're at war, pick a side!
Because it's flamebait, jackass. Hell, I'd argue the comment "Apparently, for some Slashdot readers, political sanity means supporting a fully-Goldman Sachs administration." is nothing but shallow trolling... though it looks like you might actually believe it, so flamebait is probably appropriate.
The simple fact is the article is horribly, ridiculously biased. I don't give a shit if you disagree with the thesis, those are the facts. Pointing that out doesn't mean you support this administration or it's policies (whatever you believe they are). It simply means you desire journalistic integrity.
You, apparently, don't feel that way. Fine. But take your trollish flamebait elsewhere, we don't need it here.
So now the PHB's in the upper offices find this and think it's great, and move everyone to this. Great! Until the day the network has problems. Or you have to finish that presentation but are temporarily sitting in an office with no network because yours is getting remodeled.
And therefore this thing is completely useles!
Wow, congrats, you should tell Microsoft why this product is completely pointless and utterly sucks. I'm sure they'll be interested to hear your insights.
Two weeks ago my entire office was shut down for doing any real work, because all our work data is on a shared drive located on the network.
Wow, way to invalidate your very complaint. As you point out, people are *already* hosed if the network goes down. Doubly so if you have remote sites hooked up over VPN.
I don't care which side you agree with in any debate -- its the sign of a weak argument to require the silencing of your critics.
So, demanding scientists no longer be harassed and persecuted by individuals, law enforcement, politicians, and the media is now equivalent to "silencing of your critics"?
Science doesn't need to belittle people who disagree,
But that's the problem. They don't "disagree". They deny. Faced with plain, simple facts, they ignore them and simply yell louder. To compare these people to holocaust deniers is, granted, intentionally provocative, but it's also unfortunately very apt. Why? Because, in both cases, we have groups of people who flat out deny reality in the face of a wealth of information which contradicts their beliefs.
Furthermore, I disagree that using such a label is "unproductive". In my opinion, these people need to be engaged and, yes, marginalized, because they've been allowed to set the tone and agenda for *far* too long.
If the big bang is wrong, some physicists will be embarrassed, if AWG theory is wrong, trillions of dollars will have been wasted.
I know! Think of all the money *wasted* on improved energy efficiency and investment in alternate forms of energy that will finally wean us off the finite resource that is oil. Man, what a fucking waste that would be! And I'm sure no one at all would win by decreasing energy costs or investing in new technologies. Nope, it's just a trillion dollars, straight down the drain. Man, why won't people understand what a huge disaster that would be?!?
So scientists who challenge the prevailing politically-correct liberal thesis are "climate deniers"
No, some of those are skeptics (though, alas, not all).
People who claim there is no science supporting the idea that CO2 leads to global warming, or claim global warming can be entirely explained by solar forcing, or claim the last ten years have cooled despite all evidence to the contrary, or claim that an inability to predict weather translates to an inability to predict climate, or claim that global warming will really be a good thing so don't worry about it, or...
Well, I could go on. Those people are deniers. Why? Because they parrot the same stupid, tired, debunked arguments over and over and over again, as loud as they can, while ignoring any evidence that they are actually entirely wrong. These people do nothing to further the discourse on the topic. They aren't performing novel research. They aren't making discoveries that further our knowledge of climate. They aren't contributing anything of value. They're simply yelling as loud as they can, as long as they can, while hoping to drown out the real facts.
Those people are deniers.
Now, perhaps that describes you. If that's the case, well, sorry buddy, I hate to break it to you, but you're a global warming denier.
Distributing a game on Blu Ray makes sense if you are only targeting PS3 and XBox 360.
Wow, way to utterly miss my point.
Let's try this again: game makers are using very large storage media already. This is evidence that broadband game distribution is impractical.
Is that clear enough?
As an aside, even if one were to limit the discussion to DVD capacity, which is 4GB on single layer and 9GB on dual-layer, broadband distribution still looks silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Lying to people and ignoring this trend that has been going on for the past 100,000 years since the last ICE AGE - hmmm, nope.
And that's when you failed.
Learn.
Seriously.
If it were that simple, climatologists would be moving on to other problems. It's not. Get over yourself, you're really not as smart as you think.
Someone's behind the times. HD component capture has been a done deal for over a year now.
The reply above is from someone that has never configured any IR blaster in myth
Fail. I have two blasters controlling two DCT1525 boxes and it was actually fairly straight forward to set up.
has definately not ever installed a cable card.
You're right, that I haven't done. But, by all accounts, it's a horrible, horrible experience. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
What the hell are you arguing now? Frankly, I don't even know. You claimed Firefox can't support H.264 before someone would have to "foot the bill for royalties". I pointed out that you are, in fact, completely wrong.
Now you're just shifting the goalposts. So do you actually have a relevant point to make, or are you just trying to dance your way around the fact that you were wrong originally, and you're still wrong now?
Maybe the right choice is to stick with Flash a little longer to further development on an open source alternative and Mozilla have got it right.
No, the right choice is to begin the transition ASAP, as that by itself is a pretty monumental task, and then if a better codec comes along, the browsers can just implement it, and the content providers can just use it (neither *wants* an expensive codec, but H.264 simply beats the hell out of any of the alternatives from a performance standpoint).
Actually, for most people, supporting H264 would mean that FF would have to ship the codec.
No, it wouldn't. Most modern OS's ship with a built-in codec. If the machine doesn't have the codec, Firefox can pop up a little message saying "Your machine doesn't have codec X installed. Please see your vendor for how to install it."
If it does not work out of the box, it might as well not work at all.
It *already* doesn't work at all. At least by linking to a generic rendering pipeline, it can work if people want it to.
Well, to be fair, it could also be the kernel. When I had a major hard disk crash, I finally upgraded my Myth system from Fedora 5 to Ubuntu 8.10 on more modern hardware with more RAM, and performance went *down*, while the number of bugs went way up. I went from a rock solid, stable system to:
1. ivtv demonstrating really really annoying bugs, including random audio problems, and occasional tuner lockups that require a full reboot to fix.
2. I/O performance problems, such that I suddenly started seeing IOBOUND errors, where my previous system doing the same things never saw them at all (I've minimized those issues by moving my database to a different spindle, using ionice on various processes, and disabling comm flagging of more than one commercial at a time).
Of course, none of this is Myth's fault. But seriously, the number of regressions I encountered has been rather astounding, not to mention incredibly annoying. The fact taht people blame this on Myth is rather unfortunate, but I can't blame people for being scared away. Fortunately, I'm a tinkerer, and so damned addicted to Myth's functionality that I put up with the warts.
I have FiOS and until MythTV supports CableCARD, it's rather useless.
What, you've never heard of an IR blaster? I've been recording premium content from my cable boxes for the last three years without any problems, and it was probably easier to set up than the nightmare that is CableCARD.
Yeah! Fuck the academics! What has research ever brought us, amirite?
Supporting H.264 doesn't mean FF has to actually ship the codec. Go learn about GStreamer and DirectShow, then rethink your silly argument.
If we were all kind and caring, there'd be no need for money or property, people would just work because it's necessary for teh common good of the society.
Absurd. Why? Let's pretend for a moment that everyone was perfectly altruistic. Capitalism still provides a major, useful function: it provides an automatically adjusting system for allocating resources. It's really that simple. My point is that, in an imaginary, perfect world, you would *still* have capitalism, along with no need for a military, because unlike war and violence, capitalism serves an important and valuable function.
The interesting thing is that you presume that capitalism is some kind of necessary evil, only required in order to overcome some sort of shortcoming in human nature. That is, I'm afraid, a misconception.
Oh, and by the way, I'm a rather left-leaning Canadian (not some rabid libertarian, as I'm sure you might assume from my previous comments). As such, I believe strongly in government provided social programs and so forth. But I also realize that capitalism serves an important function in modern society, and so I believe that a blend of socialism and capitalism is an ideal macro-economic system.
It doesn't give me RSI from all the chording.
No, seriously, that's basically the only reason I switched from Emacs to Vim (although Vim's much faster startup time is also a real boon).
Then why use it in the first place?
Because we like it?
I would spend a few hundred dollars to a tool that will let you do your work without adding work to be able to use the tool.
Or you could invest a little time up front to learn the tool, and then not pay anything. *shrug* It's a matter of priorities. Believe it or not, some people's priorities aren't the same as yours. Shocking, isn't it?
The problem is that in mathematics
Hint: Not everything anyone says can be fitted to the world of mathematics.
Or: Maybe quit being such a pedant, already. Yeesh.
No, I just mean ridiculously biased. As in, not reporting the facts, but rather reporting a hyperbolic, partisan spin on it. Any idiot can see that, given loaded phrases like "Consensus to people like Barack Obama means to reverse your opinions and agree with him."
And yes, I'm saying that if you can't see this is a moronic post from a partisan hack, you are, in fact, an idiot.
Well pretty much everything you post is flamebait
No, it's offtopic (relative to the article submission, anyway). If it was flamebait, I would've, for example, called the OP a fascist partisan troll.
Slashdot has been rundown by PolySci Majors!
No, see, that makes no sense. PolySci majors would be lefty liberal elitists, 'cuz, they're like, educamacated and stuff, and come from hippy universities.
No, Slashdot has apparently been overrun by the Tea Party folks... you know, those good ol', down home, middle American folk who just want to, you know, live in peace and stuff (when they aren't throwing rocks through windows and cutting propane tank lines), free from government intervention and stuff (unless it's Medicare or the military, anyway... well, or roads, or the police, or firemen, or...)... you know, The Real America.
It's because, from an American politics standpoint, he's actually a centrist, and that really pisses people off. To quote Stephen Colbert: We're at war, pick a side!
Because it's flamebait, jackass. Hell, I'd argue the comment "Apparently, for some Slashdot readers, political sanity means supporting a fully-Goldman Sachs administration." is nothing but shallow trolling... though it looks like you might actually believe it, so flamebait is probably appropriate.
The simple fact is the article is horribly, ridiculously biased. I don't give a shit if you disagree with the thesis, those are the facts. Pointing that out doesn't mean you support this administration or it's policies (whatever you believe they are). It simply means you desire journalistic integrity.
You, apparently, don't feel that way. Fine. But take your trollish flamebait elsewhere, we don't need it here.
So now the PHB's in the upper offices find this and think it's great, and move everyone to this. Great! Until the day the network has problems. Or you have to finish that presentation but are temporarily sitting in an office with no network because yours is getting remodeled.
And therefore this thing is completely useles!
Wow, congrats, you should tell Microsoft why this product is completely pointless and utterly sucks. I'm sure they'll be interested to hear your insights.
Two weeks ago my entire office was shut down for doing any real work, because all our work data is on a shared drive located on the network.
Wow, way to invalidate your very complaint. As you point out, people are *already* hosed if the network goes down. Doubly so if you have remote sites hooked up over VPN.
I don't care which side you agree with in any debate -- its the sign of a weak argument to require the silencing of your critics.
So, demanding scientists no longer be harassed and persecuted by individuals, law enforcement, politicians, and the media is now equivalent to "silencing of your critics"?
Interesting.
Science doesn't need to belittle people who disagree,
But that's the problem. They don't "disagree". They deny. Faced with plain, simple facts, they ignore them and simply yell louder. To compare these people to holocaust deniers is, granted, intentionally provocative, but it's also unfortunately very apt. Why? Because, in both cases, we have groups of people who flat out deny reality in the face of a wealth of information which contradicts their beliefs.
Furthermore, I disagree that using such a label is "unproductive". In my opinion, these people need to be engaged and, yes, marginalized, because they've been allowed to set the tone and agenda for *far* too long.
If the big bang is wrong, some physicists will be embarrassed, if AWG theory is wrong, trillions of dollars will have been wasted.
I know! Think of all the money *wasted* on improved energy efficiency and investment in alternate forms of energy that will finally wean us off the finite resource that is oil. Man, what a fucking waste that would be! And I'm sure no one at all would win by decreasing energy costs or investing in new technologies. Nope, it's just a trillion dollars, straight down the drain. Man, why won't people understand what a huge disaster that would be?!?
So scientists who challenge the prevailing politically-correct liberal thesis are "climate deniers"
No, some of those are skeptics (though, alas, not all).
People who claim there is no science supporting the idea that CO2 leads to global warming, or claim global warming can be entirely explained by solar forcing, or claim the last ten years have cooled despite all evidence to the contrary, or claim that an inability to predict weather translates to an inability to predict climate, or claim that global warming will really be a good thing so don't worry about it, or...
Well, I could go on. Those people are deniers. Why? Because they parrot the same stupid, tired, debunked arguments over and over and over again, as loud as they can, while ignoring any evidence that they are actually entirely wrong. These people do nothing to further the discourse on the topic. They aren't performing novel research. They aren't making discoveries that further our knowledge of climate. They aren't contributing anything of value. They're simply yelling as loud as they can, as long as they can, while hoping to drown out the real facts.
Those people are deniers.
Now, perhaps that describes you. If that's the case, well, sorry buddy, I hate to break it to you, but you're a global warming denier.
Distributing a game on Blu Ray makes sense if you are only targeting PS3 and XBox 360.
Wow, way to utterly miss my point.
Let's try this again: game makers are using very large storage media already. This is evidence that broadband game distribution is impractical.
Is that clear enough?
As an aside, even if one were to limit the discussion to DVD capacity, which is 4GB on single layer and 9GB on dual-layer, broadband distribution still looks silly.