Whether you like them or not, they are definitely not just Netflix-specific extensions. If they are widely adopted by browsers all of the existing streaming services/content that use Flash for DRM will ditch it in favor of HTML5.
Ironically, the big HTML5-EME holdout (not counting Firefox, which unfortunately as a 3rd party browser on all platforms may risk significant market share if they don't adopt it) will probably be Apple - but not because they don't want DRM in their browser. They are fine with DRM, they just want everyone to use *their* DRM. Which of course is only available in iTunes, meaning they just don't want any competition on their platforms, period.
but you still need to install Netflix's DRM stuff to decode the data
Netflix uses Microsoft's Playready DRM (same one they used in Silverlight). There is no "Netflix DRM stuff", MS just built PlayReady into IE11 via HTML5-EME.
Though it's true that it is really a *less* universal solution than Flash or Silverlight, since (unless/until all browsers support EME) it will only work on IE11. They might as well just have made it a Metro app. I assume the reason they are doing this is to "encourage" other browsers to do the same - Google is going to do the same with Chrome (and I think they already have on ChromeOS?)
You are mistaken if you think universities are organised solely so that people of completely different disciplines can interact. Maybe that was true to an extent in the 13th century, but it sure isn't now.
Mine absolutely was and is. And (according to USN&WR at least) it also has the #1 CS program, #2 English program, #1 Psychology program, #2 Mathematics program, #2 Political Science, #1 Physics program (etc, ad nauseum) in the US. Luckily students are not only encouraged, but required to take a relatively wide variety of electives - and learn from these world-class professors and teachers - no matter what their major. In fact, most undergrads don't even declare their major until the end of their sophomore year - and there are a significant number who double major or even design their own major. And I'm not trying to brag about one university here, the same is true for many of the top colleges both in the US and around the world.
The fact that you think a well-rounded college education somehow equates to "jack of all trades" means you just don't get the point others are making here, and probably never will. Oh well, your loss.
Wow, you had a math lab? Or are you thinking meth lab?
As for lab work, I have been a coauthor on several papers of original research. But certainly not from FRESHMAN PHYSICS LAB. I *you* think that any of your professors are really trying to teach you to question their claims by swinging pendulums of different lengths you should probably stick with your meth lab.
I'm not saying I agree with everything the guy says (and he clearly thinks his point is much more insightful than it really is), but I also can't say I ever REMOTELY saw any attempt in *freshman* math or physics classes to question what was taught...
And, whether you agree with it or not, he addresses your exact point in his last 2 paragraphs. Might want to read to the end next time before commenting on his "understanding"...
Wait, you think taking a few survey courses in non-technical subjects is molding a student into a "Renaissance Man?" I can't even imagine how horribly boring you must be in any social function...
There is NOTHING wrong with an engineer learning about history, religion, literature, psychology, etc, as long as - which is what the article points out - you approach it with a sense of uncertainty, doubt, and skepticism. In fact, I find it patently absurd that anyone who considers themself remotely intelligent or rational could argue breadth of knowledge is a bad thing.
Contrary to popular belief, no government funds are allocated for its SETI searches
True as of 1995, when the government withdrew support. Not true for many years before that. Personally I think we have plenty enough issues to deal with at the moment that we should keep it that way for now. My point is this article is an "interesting factoid" but to all but a small minority of astrophysicists and enthusiasts is not exactly "historic"...
Yeah, but if we send a radio message now there is a good 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance an intelligent civilization that has developed on one of those planets will get it and we will have a response 44 years later. We should therefore earmark billions of dollars for this work and get right on it!
Hey, I feel for the guy, but most people (including you) don't seem to quote have the facts about his actions straight. He hasn't defended anything legally or paid attorneys a dime, and even says in his post "many people, including your representatives in our last phone discussion, suggest that I go to a lawyer and settle affairs via legal channels. But I’m not going to play your legal game." Basically he has talked with the company several times and has been strung along, but hasn't pursued legal action.
This all sucks, but the ONLY way he's going to *defend* his trademark (trademarks are common law and don't have to be registered to be owned - if Adecco registered it that will make it harder to fight but far from impossible since his website is clear evidence) is by *continuing* to USE it (ie. keep the blog active!) and go the legal route. Many people work through "stress" (much more than he is experiencing), and if this is important to him he will figure out a way, as well...
No, not really... even with your method of analysis, the NSA could just use this "algorithm":
Since 86% of Facebook users are not American, if we picked a Facebook user at random we'd have an 86% chance of a correct "foreigner" identification. Hence, let's collect the names all Facebook users and randomly ask for each one.
If required to report their accuracy (HIGHLY unlikely) they could honestly claim they were 86% accurate, which is SO far beyond the 51% required they'd probably throw a giant party. With cake.
No, I said 16% of FB users *are* Americans (it's something like 160M of ~1B+ users) i.e. taking the full FB database would be 84% accurate in terms of their "goal" of non-American spying.
In theory this would be "anonymous" statistics at the point they request so if they requested *everyone*, in aggregate (which is what statistics are about) there is an 84% chance for any one person that they would be correct, and so they would be satisfying the letter of the law. And as we all know, that's all they care about, ask a spy agency to satisfy the spirit of the law and they would probably laugh to tears.
Except their definition of "foreign spying" was "51% confidence of foreign citizenship". Or as the Daily Show said - a COIN FLIP PLUS 1%.
To put that another way - if they just took Facebook's entire database, that would be 84% accurate in their collection, but still have collected everything Facebook has on all 150 million of its American customers, so it would technically be legal.
When the punishment for a crime is determined by "think along the lines of..." there is a serious problem with the law. Especially in an authoritarian government with little oversight or judicial checks.
Well, the article you posted does hint at it:...Asia, said the company was working on ensuring a “great experience for customers” in the region, including offering localized content.
And Brazilian Portuguese (pt-BR) may be supported, but not European Portuguese (pt-PT). The recognition is different enough that they need to customize it for each dialect, and the Brazilian market is much bigger. Same way American, British, and Australian English are all separate engines, as is Canadian French vs "continental" French.
Also, something like 95%+ Danes, 85%+ Nords, and 75%+ Finns under 60 speak fairly fluent English - they are probably just be using the English engine there. The same is not true in Asia. I don't know about Russia - it's very possible they have developed an engine for Russian since it's a big market as well (and as we all know Russian fighter planes stolen by Clint Eastwood in the 80's already supported thinking in Russian, so voice should be no problem;)
There is an engine for Japanese, so either they are working on improving it or they just don't feel they have enough Japanese-focused content for a launch yet (which is what the article you referenced basically says anyway). But even if it's not *just* Kinect support (but a combination of Kinect and other content support in the relevant languages) that still doesn't support your claim that it's due to manufacturing issues.
Are you aware that a simultaneous launch in 21 countries is huge for a new game console? The Xbox 360 launched in *2* countries (US and Canada), but over the year expanded to 36. the PS3 similarly launched in only a few countries (primarily Japan and US) and didn't even make it to Europe at all for another 5 months.
And the reason for not launching initially in Asia isn't manufacturing problems, it's because they are still working on the Kinect voice recognition. They aren't going to launch anywhere Kinect won't work, which may slow down adding new regions but they are considering Kinect integral to the console this time...
Exactly. The OP's post is idiotic. Amazon has stated they are almost sold out of the launch-day PS4 and Xbox One supply already, and analysts are pretty much in agreement both will be totally sold out over the holiday season (I think the estimates were something like 3-4M worldwide over that time?)
Are you serious? How many times do I have to say the same thing? Google is a company, IT DOESN'T INVENT, people working for it do. It funded and supported the researchers that did the work, and in return now has those people and research at its disposal. Same result - Google funded innovation and may now reap the benefits. End of story.
"Show me anyone who is as close as Google to making self-driving cars a reality and I'll agree it's not innovation."
Okay. The people who INVENTED the fucking things in the DARPA contests.
The Stanford team and its leader Sebastian Thrun (that won 2005 and came in 2nd in 2007) are basically the guys working on the Google self-driving car now (also responsible for Google Street View). And Google has been sponsoring that team (and supporting them with Google engineering resources) since it was founded in 2004. Sponsoring = money paid to people to develop the ideas = my first point. Google was and is driving (pun intended;) innovation in the field.
And the current Google project is way WAY beyond where they were in 2007. That contest was fairly slow on a very controlled course with a bunch of awkwardly placed sensors and hardware attached to the car - as I said, NOT a practical reality. The current Google cars pretty much look like their Street View cars externally and have now put in several hundred thousand miles driving around Bay Area streets. Practical use and *tons* of innovation to get there, obviously, which was my second point.
I agree with the first part! That's why Apple still hasn't figured out how to break into the living room. Everyone keeps rumoring that they will build an actual "Apple TV" (not just a $99 box you plug into one) but the problem is people don't want to buy a new $2000 television with built-in software obsolescence every couple of years (ie. Apple's primary business model), and the profit margin on most "normal" TVs way too low for an Apple product...
Don't agree with the iPad, though. To make it truly a "peripheral" the phone would run the software, and BT (or any practical medium range wireless solution, really) just isn't enough to drive a 3-4MP display. So throw in the battery, capacitive touchscreen, CPU/GPU etc, and there just isn't a point to *requiring* you own two devices just to get a bigger screen.
Driverless vehicles are nothing new, and the technology isn't even theirs. They just threw money behind it.
Companies don't have ideas, people have ideas. Companies just throw money at those people to develop the ideas that the company will then own. But to say all of those people working on that project at Google haven't innovated is absurd!
And innovation isn't just coming up with an idea in a sci-fi novel, it's making the idea WORK in the real world. Show me anyone who is as close as Google to making self-driving cars a reality and I'll agree it's not innovation. And more specifically, "a driverless car" is just one vague concept. There have probably been dozens or hundreds of innovations in the course of that project so far. Same with MANY other successful projects you call "evolutionary"...
Your subject was too kind, instead of "hmm, maybe" it should have been "what bullshit!"
As you said, Google is attempting innovation left and right, spending millions of dollars on projects that may or may not ever see the light of day. For example, add to your list the very next/. article on providing Internet access to remote/disaster areas with high altitude balloons.
Here's a starter, would take hours to read about all of the research projects they are either sponsoring or working on in house...
Slashdot Mirror
Whether you like them or not, they are definitely not just Netflix-specific extensions. If they are widely adopted by browsers all of the existing streaming services/content that use Flash for DRM will ditch it in favor of HTML5.
Ironically, the big HTML5-EME holdout (not counting Firefox, which unfortunately as a 3rd party browser on all platforms may risk significant market share if they don't adopt it) will probably be Apple - but not because they don't want DRM in their browser. They are fine with DRM, they just want everyone to use *their* DRM. Which of course is only available in iTunes, meaning they just don't want any competition on their platforms, period.
Why does it need to ship with them? Firefox doesn't ship with Flash, but it can be installed as a plugin (and contains the Adobe Access DRM).
but you still need to install Netflix's DRM stuff to decode the data
Netflix uses Microsoft's Playready DRM (same one they used in Silverlight). There is no "Netflix DRM stuff", MS just built PlayReady into IE11 via HTML5-EME.
Though it's true that it is really a *less* universal solution than Flash or Silverlight, since (unless/until all browsers support EME) it will only work on IE11. They might as well just have made it a Metro app. I assume the reason they are doing this is to "encourage" other browsers to do the same - Google is going to do the same with Chrome (and I think they already have on ChromeOS?)
You are mistaken if you think universities are organised solely so that people of completely different disciplines can interact. Maybe that was true to an extent in the 13th century, but it sure isn't now.
Mine absolutely was and is. And (according to USN&WR at least) it also has the #1 CS program, #2 English program, #1 Psychology program, #2 Mathematics program, #2 Political Science, #1 Physics program (etc, ad nauseum) in the US. Luckily students are not only encouraged, but required to take a relatively wide variety of electives - and learn from these world-class professors and teachers - no matter what their major. In fact, most undergrads don't even declare their major until the end of their sophomore year - and there are a significant number who double major or even design their own major. And I'm not trying to brag about one university here, the same is true for many of the top colleges both in the US and around the world.
The fact that you think a well-rounded college education somehow equates to "jack of all trades" means you just don't get the point others are making here, and probably never will. Oh well, your loss.
Wow, you had a math lab? Or are you thinking meth lab?
As for lab work, I have been a coauthor on several papers of original research. But certainly not from FRESHMAN PHYSICS LAB. I *you* think that any of your professors are really trying to teach you to question their claims by swinging pendulums of different lengths you should probably stick with your meth lab.
I'm not saying I agree with everything the guy says (and he clearly thinks his point is much more insightful than it really is), but I also can't say I ever REMOTELY saw any attempt in *freshman* math or physics classes to question what was taught...
And, whether you agree with it or not, he addresses your exact point in his last 2 paragraphs. Might want to read to the end next time before commenting on his "understanding"...
Wait, you think taking a few survey courses in non-technical subjects is molding a student into a "Renaissance Man?" I can't even imagine how horribly boring you must be in any social function...
There is NOTHING wrong with an engineer learning about history, religion, literature, psychology, etc, as long as - which is what the article points out - you approach it with a sense of uncertainty, doubt, and skepticism. In fact, I find it patently absurd that anyone who considers themself remotely intelligent or rational could argue breadth of knowledge is a bad thing.
Contrary to popular belief, no government funds are allocated for its SETI searches
True as of 1995, when the government withdrew support. Not true for many years before that. Personally I think we have plenty enough issues to deal with at the moment that we should keep it that way for now. My point is this article is an "interesting factoid" but to all but a small minority of astrophysicists and enthusiasts is not exactly "historic"...
Yeah, but if we send a radio message now there is a good 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance an intelligent civilization that has developed on one of those planets will get it and we will have a response 44 years later. We should therefore earmark billions of dollars for this work and get right on it!
Hey, I feel for the guy, but most people (including you) don't seem to quote have the facts about his actions straight. He hasn't defended anything legally or paid attorneys a dime, and even says in his post "many people, including your representatives in our last phone discussion, suggest that I go to a lawyer and settle affairs via legal channels. But I’m not going to play your legal game." Basically he has talked with the company several times and has been strung along, but hasn't pursued legal action.
This all sucks, but the ONLY way he's going to *defend* his trademark (trademarks are common law and don't have to be registered to be owned - if Adecco registered it that will make it harder to fight but far from impossible since his website is clear evidence) is by *continuing* to USE it (ie. keep the blog active!) and go the legal route. Many people work through "stress" (much more than he is experiencing), and if this is important to him he will figure out a way, as well...
No, not really... even with your method of analysis, the NSA could just use this "algorithm":
Since 86% of Facebook users are not American, if we picked a Facebook user at random we'd have an 86% chance of a correct "foreigner" identification. Hence, let's collect the names all Facebook users and randomly ask for each one.
If required to report their accuracy (HIGHLY unlikely) they could honestly claim they were 86% accurate, which is SO far beyond the 51% required they'd probably throw a giant party. With cake.
Still his problem.
*Bit* of a hyperbole... "I haven’t been able to write a new post in over a month while dealing with this — my creative energy has been zapped."
So, he couldn't write *anything* in an entire month because of this? I can see a couple of days, but at this point that's really his problem.
No, I said 16% of FB users *are* Americans (it's something like 160M of ~1B+ users) i.e. taking the full FB database would be 84% accurate in terms of their "goal" of non-American spying.
In theory this would be "anonymous" statistics at the point they request so if they requested *everyone*, in aggregate (which is what statistics are about) there is an 84% chance for any one person that they would be correct, and so they would be satisfying the letter of the law. And as we all know, that's all they care about, ask a spy agency to satisfy the spirit of the law and they would probably laugh to tears.
Except their definition of "foreign spying" was "51% confidence of foreign citizenship". Or as the Daily Show said - a COIN FLIP PLUS 1%.
To put that another way - if they just took Facebook's entire database, that would be 84% accurate in their collection, but still have collected everything Facebook has on all 150 million of its American customers, so it would technically be legal.
When the punishment for a crime is determined by "think along the lines of..." there is a serious problem with the law. Especially in an authoritarian government with little oversight or judicial checks.
It you had RTFA they addressed all of your questions already.
Well, the article you posted does hint at it: ...Asia, said the company was working on ensuring a “great experience for customers” in the region, including offering localized content.
And Brazilian Portuguese (pt-BR) may be supported, but not European Portuguese (pt-PT). The recognition is different enough that they need to customize it for each dialect, and the Brazilian market is much bigger. Same way American, British, and Australian English are all separate engines, as is Canadian French vs "continental" French.
Also, something like 95%+ Danes, 85%+ Nords, and 75%+ Finns under 60 speak fairly fluent English - they are probably just be using the English engine there. The same is not true in Asia. I don't know about Russia - it's very possible they have developed an engine for Russian since it's a big market as well (and as we all know Russian fighter planes stolen by Clint Eastwood in the 80's already supported thinking in Russian, so voice should be no problem ;)
There is an engine for Japanese, so either they are working on improving it or they just don't feel they have enough Japanese-focused content for a launch yet (which is what the article you referenced basically says anyway). But even if it's not *just* Kinect support (but a combination of Kinect and other content support in the relevant languages) that still doesn't support your claim that it's due to manufacturing issues.
Are you aware that a simultaneous launch in 21 countries is huge for a new game console? The Xbox 360 launched in *2* countries (US and Canada), but over the year expanded to 36. the PS3 similarly launched in only a few countries (primarily Japan and US) and didn't even make it to Europe at all for another 5 months.
And the reason for not launching initially in Asia isn't manufacturing problems, it's because they are still working on the Kinect voice recognition. They aren't going to launch anywhere Kinect won't work, which may slow down adding new regions but they are considering Kinect integral to the console this time...
Exactly. The OP's post is idiotic. Amazon has stated they are almost sold out of the launch-day PS4 and Xbox One supply already, and analysts are pretty much in agreement both will be totally sold out over the holiday season (I think the estimates were something like 3-4M worldwide over that time?)
Are you serious? How many times do I have to say the same thing? Google is a company, IT DOESN'T INVENT, people working for it do. It funded and supported the researchers that did the work, and in return now has those people and research at its disposal. Same result - Google funded innovation and may now reap the benefits. End of story.
"Show me anyone who is as close as Google to making self-driving cars a reality and I'll agree it's not innovation."
Okay. The people who INVENTED the fucking things in the DARPA contests.
The Stanford team and its leader Sebastian Thrun (that won 2005 and came in 2nd in 2007) are basically the guys working on the Google self-driving car now (also responsible for Google Street View). And Google has been sponsoring that team (and supporting them with Google engineering resources) since it was founded in 2004. Sponsoring = money paid to people to develop the ideas = my first point. Google was and is driving (pun intended ;) innovation in the field.
And the current Google project is way WAY beyond where they were in 2007. That contest was fairly slow on a very controlled course with a bunch of awkwardly placed sensors and hardware attached to the car - as I said, NOT a practical reality. The current Google cars pretty much look like their Street View cars externally and have now put in several hundred thousand miles driving around Bay Area streets. Practical use and *tons* of innovation to get there, obviously, which was my second point.
I agree with the first part! That's why Apple still hasn't figured out how to break into the living room. Everyone keeps rumoring that they will build an actual "Apple TV" (not just a $99 box you plug into one) but the problem is people don't want to buy a new $2000 television with built-in software obsolescence every couple of years (ie. Apple's primary business model), and the profit margin on most "normal" TVs way too low for an Apple product...
Don't agree with the iPad, though. To make it truly a "peripheral" the phone would run the software, and BT (or any practical medium range wireless solution, really) just isn't enough to drive a 3-4MP display. So throw in the battery, capacitive touchscreen, CPU/GPU etc, and there just isn't a point to *requiring* you own two devices just to get a bigger screen.
Driverless vehicles are nothing new, and the technology isn't even theirs. They just threw money behind it.
Companies don't have ideas, people have ideas. Companies just throw money at those people to develop the ideas that the company will then own. But to say all of those people working on that project at Google haven't innovated is absurd!
And innovation isn't just coming up with an idea in a sci-fi novel, it's making the idea WORK in the real world. Show me anyone who is as close as Google to making self-driving cars a reality and I'll agree it's not innovation. And more specifically, "a driverless car" is just one vague concept. There have probably been dozens or hundreds of innovations in the course of that project so far. Same with MANY other successful projects you call "evolutionary"...
Your subject was too kind, instead of "hmm, maybe" it should have been "what bullshit!"
As you said, Google is attempting innovation left and right, spending millions of dollars on projects that may or may not ever see the light of day. For example, add to your list the very next /. article on providing Internet access to remote/disaster areas with high altitude balloons.
Here's a starter, would take hours to read about all of the research projects they are either sponsoring or working on in house...
http://research.google.com/index.html
Or another list of rumored (well some we now know are true) Google X projects (and I would assume there are more not listed)....
http://oedb.org/library/beginning-online-learning/10-incredible-rumored-research-projects-going-on-at-google-x/
Oh, and you thought you were joking about teleportation...
http://bgr.com/2013/05/29/google-teleportation-research-project/