Almost all of CDs that are older than 4-5 years are partially or completely unreadable Then I would say that you are particularly unlucky. The ONLY CDs that are unreadable for me were those ausio CDs that I left in my black car every day in the sun. Those are dead, no questions about it.
All the rest, that was stored mostly in-house is perfectly readable even after 5 years.
Don't trust DVDs that much, you might get a big surprise.
if you take a poll of a bunch of newbies, the consensus would be that it's confusing
It is confusing to the newbies because *you* (the expert) confused them. By calling the rackmount machine a "server" you de-facto confused them, by not explaining that this name is not related to the "client/server" terminology. While it is a common abuse of the word "Server", your rackmount machine is just a... computer. True, it is running mostly "services" to which "clients" can connect to, but it is not only running server apps.
From being headless (read: no screen) it obviously needs a "server" to get some display abilities, would it be a printer, vt100 or x-server. It is then a client, by the "client/server" terminology.
The appelation "server" for a rackmount machine means in fact that users will not use it directly (read: no I/O hardware).
While I agree that it is "frustrating to have to sit through tons of ads before a movie", I am almost shocked to see piracy recommended by a slashdot story, and so by extension, by all the slashdot community.
There is a middle ground to all this: 1. big media corps pushing for easy money and thus forcing movie theaters to run tons of ads before a show is bad. How bad, difficult to say, but definitely bad. BTW, Remember that it is the Theater's owner that decides the amount of ads. Of course, he probably likes money as well. One has to put bread on its table after all. 2. Piracy should be bad. In the normal world. If you don't want to call it stealing, fine. Big deal. You are still enjoying something that the author never intended for you to be able to, without paying that is. And you know it. So it is bad, in every sense of the word, and I am amazed that slashdot now promotes it in its front page that clearly. 3. The middle ground: You don't like something, no one forces you to consume it. You DO NOT HAVE TO WATCH THE MOVIE. The decision is yours...
What I want is a portable FLAC player that accepts DVD data disks
You will not. Deal with it.
FLAC is as stupid and doomed in the same way Ogg, wma and all other stuff are. MP3 is already in the place, there are tetrazillions of HW ans SW players that support it, much more than any other format (But for PCM).
You have to keep in mind that HDD space follows Moore's Law as well, and in a decade you will have hdd portable players that are 100 TB. MP3 will be looked at as a ridiculous and pitiful way of wasting time and quality, whereas FLAC will be long forgotten.
Deal with the fact that Audio compression is a temporary medium that will be all gone in less than 20 years. Because pipes (networks, buses, etc...) and storage (HDD, DVD, etc...) will accomodate every kind of musinc in PCM format without any issue.
It is the exact same issue with video, but for the shift in storage needed to record a full movie uncompressed.
Then again, in 20 years you will get a 100PB (1024GB) hard drive for around $100 and MPEG-2, 4, DivX and all that crap will vanish as well. Our typical DVD (or whatever they'll call it) will accomodate 10 TB and there will no issue to store everything in a RAW format. After all, a 2 hour video in 1920*1024 weight only 1274019840000 bytes, or 1.16TB.
This is just a question of time, really, but all these compression formats are eventually all going to die
Even with DVD-R, at $1 per disc, recording to a standard format will only gain you up to about 4 hours of VHS quality video Well, I can put 3 hours of DVD-quality video on a DVD-R without major issues (1 track AC3 5.1). VHS Quality (for whatever that means, let's assume 352x240x29.9 or 352x288x25) can easily fit 6-7 hours on a single DVD.
and am considering a switch back to Linux on the desktop
You might be out of focus here. The initial problem you stated was that you would not find a browser that "would handle LOTS of Java, Flash, etc...". Now how is trying FF on Win2k relevant in any way to reassure you on the Java and Flash part of its Linux port?
Flash and Java are still external plugins that are developped by third parties. They could crash your Linux Firefox very easily, trust me on that one.
I think that this is attacking the problem at the wrong place. The problem does not occur when a case is started. The problem is way before that. There are actually two problems:
1. Submarine patents. A company should be allowed at most x month to file a lawsuit, when a third party infriges. In case it is filed after that delay, the company should prove that it had no "reasonable" way of knowing the patent was infriged before x month prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
2. Stupid patents with well-known prior art. A company should be liable of "malpractice" (or something else) if it cannot produce proof that they did a thorough research of prior art before filing the patent.
In clear, the lawyer shouldn't be at risk here, or they would accept to do that only for huge amount of money and little people could not afford them any longer (or less than now). But the client should be held responsible of its actions.
Letting a well-known infriger base its business on your patent should automatically void him of any threat regarding that patent after 12 or 18 month.
Filing a patent when you perfectly know there are piles of prior art out there should be made illegal, and thus punished.
The difference is that you have to type too many things. And you get only one conversion at once (although for temperature, it is not a problem). On the page I linked to, you click in the right box and you just have to type the temperature '77'. Two keystrokes... A little more efficient.
Not even counting that with other units (length, etc...) you have a result instantly in EVERY unit.
I understand your point, but are you sure you replied to the correct post? This has nothing to do (if anything) with what I said in the parent...
My point is to rebute the argument of the grandparent which assumes that rendering well broken HTML and not crashing on broken HTML is completely dissociated...
I think you are confused now. Broken HTML is broken HTML. You can eventually have a level of how bad it's broken, but that is all.
So your categories would be: 1. Slightly broken HTML; 2. Completely broken HTML.
The fact that IE renders better broken HTML (1) certainly tells that it was tested with broken HTML. It can hardly be dissociated with it's robustness for broken HTML (2).
A device that displays a USB2.0 and doesn't transmit faster than USB1.1 is a slow USB 2.0 device. Same as for a hard drive that is on an interface 100MB/s and can read its physical medium slower than that. It is still a drive with a 100MB/s interface.
But the point I am trying to make is that a slow USB2 device still allows you to use other USB2 devices (at max speed) on the same hub. Where a USB1.1 device will switch all devices connected to itself to the USB 1.1 mode, hence slowing down the entire chain.
That is a heck of a difference.
So the label "USB2.0" should be read as "will not slow down your usb chain". The speed at which the USB2 norm is implemented in the said device is another question altogether. That is part of the device, and should be accepted like that.
Typical FUD, somewhat comparable to the one Darl is (was?) spreading. You're no better than him.
I can list a ton of codecs that doesn't have a stable port in Linux. None the other way. And that's only one problem.
As for the "tried to lock EVERYTHING", either you don't know how to setup a shared drive with Windows, you are using a funky software (in which case, your bad), or you are just plain lying. Windows Media Player does lock the current file it is playing, nothing more.
To add my two cents, I would say that enslaving a human being is morally bad and has been accepted so for a long time. That is because humans have a brains and are alive.
Code is not, however. And I despise people that say: "(...) re-release a fork under a proprietary license, effectively stopping others from doing what they want"
Because is is essentially false. You have code A, under a BSD license. Company X forks and start working on the A code. It does not prevent anyone to work with the code A. Code A is still under BSD license, and everyone can do whatever they want with it. What is restricted is the code the company X added.
Bad or Good is not at issue here, but the original sentence is (I think purposefully) misleading in the sense that the code that is forked is still BSD, and available to all.
Oh well...
Re:Does it work properly/completely with Opera yet
on
Gmail Adds Features
·
· Score: 1
DIY is for nerds only. If you really believe what you are saying, then you must realize that while FF might be the best browser out there, the packaging management is much worse than everything I have ever seen and in the current state of it, there is no way FF will *ever* reach the true dummy users.
Slashdot Mirror
But thank god, not everyone is like you...
Almost all of CDs that are older than 4-5 years are partially or completely unreadable
Then I would say that you are particularly unlucky. The ONLY CDs that are unreadable for me were those ausio CDs that I left in my black car every day in the sun. Those are dead, no questions about it.
All the rest, that was stored mostly in-house is perfectly readable even after 5 years.
Don't trust DVDs that much, you might get a big surprise.
MO-Disks, that was a joke, right?
if you take a poll of a bunch of newbies, the consensus would be that it's confusing
... computer. True, it is running mostly "services" to which "clients" can connect to, but it is not only running server apps.
It is confusing to the newbies because *you* (the expert) confused them. By calling the rackmount machine a "server" you de-facto confused them, by not explaining that this name is not related to the "client/server" terminology. While it is a common abuse of the word "Server", your rackmount machine is just a
From being headless (read: no screen) it obviously needs a "server" to get some display abilities, would it be a printer, vt100 or x-server. It is then a client, by the "client/server" terminology.
The appelation "server" for a rackmount machine means in fact that users will not use it directly (read: no I/O hardware).
Different terminologies for different things...
While I agree that it is "frustrating to have to sit through tons of ads before a movie", I am almost shocked to see piracy recommended by a slashdot story, and so by extension, by all the slashdot community.
There is a middle ground to all this:
1. big media corps pushing for easy money and thus forcing movie theaters to run tons of ads before a show is bad. How bad, difficult to say, but definitely bad. BTW, Remember that it is the Theater's owner that decides the amount of ads. Of course, he probably likes money as well. One has to put bread on its table after all.
2. Piracy should be bad. In the normal world. If you don't want to call it stealing, fine. Big deal. You are still enjoying something that the author never intended for you to be able to, without paying that is. And you know it. So it is bad, in every sense of the word, and I am amazed that slashdot now promotes it in its front page that clearly.
3. The middle ground: You don't like something, no one forces you to consume it. You DO NOT HAVE TO WATCH THE MOVIE. The decision is yours...
What I want is a portable FLAC player that accepts DVD data disks
You will not. Deal with it.
FLAC is as stupid and doomed in the same way Ogg, wma and all other stuff are. MP3 is already in the place, there are tetrazillions of HW ans SW players that support it, much more than any other format (But for PCM).
You have to keep in mind that HDD space follows Moore's Law as well, and in a decade you will have hdd portable players that are 100 TB. MP3 will be looked at as a ridiculous and pitiful way of wasting time and quality, whereas FLAC will be long forgotten.
Deal with the fact that Audio compression is a temporary medium that will be all gone in less than 20 years. Because pipes (networks, buses, etc...) and storage (HDD, DVD, etc...) will accomodate every kind of musinc in PCM format without any issue.
It is the exact same issue with video, but for the shift in storage needed to record a full movie uncompressed.
Then again, in 20 years you will get a 100PB (1024GB) hard drive for around $100 and MPEG-2, 4, DivX and all that crap will vanish as well. Our typical DVD (or whatever they'll call it) will accomodate 10 TB and there will no issue to store everything in a RAW format. After all, a 2 hour video in 1920*1024 weight only 1274019840000 bytes, or 1.16TB.
This is just a question of time, really, but all these compression formats are eventually all going to die
Maybe we should all stop having kids. That way all humanity's stupidity and misery would be over in about a 100 years.
Sounds like a plan.
This has to be a joke. Do you think we (parents) should reward all bad bahaviors and should prevent punishment at all cost?
Wow. What a bunch of crap.
Even with DVD-R, at $1 per disc, recording to a standard format will only gain you up to about 4 hours of VHS quality video
Well, I can put 3 hours of DVD-quality video on a DVD-R without major issues (1 track AC3 5.1). VHS Quality (for whatever that means, let's assume 352x240x29.9 or 352x288x25) can easily fit 6-7 hours on a single DVD.
I agree with the rest of the post though.
Much of the original poster's citation of benefits seem to be largely from his inexperience with Linux and acceptance of the usual corporate FUD
That is probably what makes his point valid, as much of the decision makers are corporate ignorants (at least technically ignorants)
If you read the license thoroughly, you find that you may continue to use the old patent license when ...
As someone else said in the same thread, the keyword missing in their agreement is "irrevocable". If is is not, it may be revoked at any time.
and am considering a switch back to Linux on the desktop
...". Now how is trying FF on Win2k relevant in any way to reassure you on the Java and Flash part of its Linux port?
You might be out of focus here. The initial problem you stated was that you would not find a browser that "would handle LOTS of Java, Flash, etc
Flash and Java are still external plugins that are developped by third parties. They could crash your Linux Firefox very easily, trust me on that one.
I think that this is attacking the problem at the wrong place. The problem does not occur when a case is started. The problem is way before that. There are actually two problems:
1. Submarine patents. A company should be allowed at most x month to file a lawsuit, when a third party infriges. In case it is filed after that delay, the company should prove that it had no "reasonable" way of knowing the patent was infriged before x month prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
2. Stupid patents with well-known prior art. A company should be liable of "malpractice" (or something else) if it cannot produce proof that they did a thorough research of prior art before filing the patent.
In clear, the lawyer shouldn't be at risk here, or they would accept to do that only for huge amount of money and little people could not afford them any longer (or less than now). But the client should be held responsible of its actions.
Letting a well-known infriger base its business on your patent should automatically void him of any threat regarding that patent after 12 or 18 month.
Filing a patent when you perfectly know there are piles of prior art out there should be made illegal, and thus punished.
i would say that the world would be a better place if everyone spoke the same language
What makes you think so?
In what aspect is google better (I mean, apart from the fact that everyone knows the website)?
The difference is that you have to type too many things. And you get only one conversion at once (although for temperature, it is not a problem). On the page I linked to, you click in the right box and you just have to type the temperature '77'. Two keystrokes... A little more efficient.
Not even counting that with other units (length, etc...) you have a result instantly in EVERY unit.
To convert everything to (almost) everything.
A little bit of self-advertising...
I understand the question, but a more important one would be "why in the name of god do we have now 123 different VNCs?"
This is just confusing the heck out of me.
One better for speed, another for CPU, a third for OS/2, why? Why can't we merge the best of the best in a one and only VNC?
I understand your point, but are you sure you replied to the correct post? This has nothing to do (if anything) with what I said in the parent...
My point is to rebute the argument of the grandparent which assumes that rendering well broken HTML and not crashing on broken HTML is completely dissociated...
I think you are confused now. Broken HTML is broken HTML. You can eventually have a level of how bad it's broken, but that is all.
So your categories would be:
1. Slightly broken HTML;
2. Completely broken HTML.
The fact that IE renders better broken HTML (1) certainly tells that it was tested with broken HTML. It can hardly be dissociated with it's robustness for broken HTML (2).
Or can it?
A device that displays a USB2.0 and doesn't transmit faster than USB1.1 is a slow USB 2.0 device. Same as for a hard drive that is on an interface 100MB/s and can read its physical medium slower than that. It is still a drive with a 100MB/s interface.
But the point I am trying to make is that a slow USB2 device still allows you to use other USB2 devices (at max speed) on the same hub. Where a USB1.1 device will switch all devices connected to itself to the USB 1.1 mode, hence slowing down the entire chain.
That is a heck of a difference.
So the label "USB2.0" should be read as "will not slow down your usb chain". The speed at which the USB2 norm is implemented in the said device is another question altogether. That is part of the device, and should be accepted like that.
Well, not printable size, and thus, not free. The link you point to is the very reason someone got through the trouble of redoing it by himself.
Thanks though, this is informative.
Typical FUD, somewhat comparable to the one Darl is (was?) spreading. You're no better than him.
I can list a ton of codecs that doesn't have a stable port in Linux. None the other way. And that's only one problem.
As for the "tried to lock EVERYTHING", either you don't know how to setup a shared drive with Windows, you are using a funky software (in which case, your bad), or you are just plain lying. Windows Media Player does lock the current file it is playing, nothing more.
To add my two cents, I would say that enslaving a human being is morally bad and has been accepted so for a long time. That is because humans have a brains and are alive.
Code is not, however. And I despise people that say: "(...) re-release a fork under a proprietary license, effectively stopping others from doing what they want"
Because is is essentially false. You have code A, under a BSD license. Company X forks and start working on the A code. It does not prevent anyone to work with the code A. Code A is still under BSD license, and everyone can do whatever they want with it. What is restricted is the code the company X added.
Bad or Good is not at issue here, but the original sentence is (I think purposefully) misleading in the sense that the code that is forked is still BSD, and available to all.
Oh well...
DIY is for nerds only. If you really believe what you are saying, then you must realize that while FF might be the best browser out there, the packaging management is much worse than everything I have ever seen and in the current state of it, there is no way FF will *ever* reach the true dummy users.
Trolling, Heh?