But if neither dominant party thinks she's toeing the line enough then that's _exactly_ the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.
Your logic is broken. I presume neither party would like bin Laden, but I don't think that would make him a good nomination. Have you heard why people don't like her? Here's some of her thoughts on the first amendment:
Kagan argued in the government’s brief that speech was entitled to no First Amendment protection if its harms outweigh its benefits: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.” Kagan did not argue the case before the Court.
Someone who feels that freedom of speech is overrated - spare me the "fire! in a theater" exceptions we already know about - is not someone who I want deciding freedom of speech cases.
She also argued that prosecutors who deliberately manufacture evidence to convict (by definition) innocent people should not be civilly liable for their actions. I don't have great hopes that she'd side with individuals when it most matters.
It seems like there's something for everyone to dislike about Kagan, unless you're already a person in power and seeking to extend your powers. Then she'd be the woman for the job.
Yes, Apple is heavily invested in H.264 patents. Using H.264 in a commercial venture is definitely not free.
First off, we're talking about apps and not video. That's OK, though: Flash also usually uses H.264. Since you're using H.264 whether you stream video through Flash or HTML5, you're using the MPEG-LA patents.
But the real killing happens with the elimination of all applications that do not go through Apple's distribution channels.
By encouraging developers to write cross-platform apps that can be run directly from their own webserver instead of installing them through the app store? Did that make sense to you when you wrote it?
It's important to note that the loss of profit may not be from the App store, but from the fact that people will have little reason to buy an iPhone if every app is available on every platform; Apple makes the majority of it's profit off hardware not software.
OK, I was being sarcastic below when I joked about this, but I'm serious now. How do you reconcile your idea with the fact that Apple is actively pushing development with HTML5? Apple's business plan seems to be to provide the most comfortable (for the majority of users), friendliest implementation of standards-based clients. They want you to buy a Mac or i{Phone,Pad,Touch} to read email, browse the web, chat, and play games because you think they provide the easiest way to do those things.
And even if you don't believe that, remember that the original iPhone SDK was JavaScript + HTML. It's not like they're making some inexplicable U-turn.
So, if your project makes $100,001 a year, you have to pay MPEG-LA 25% of its income for their one single technical contribution. Thank God Tim Berners-Lee doesn't take another 25% for his work on linked computer networks.
Now the mini has been pushed as the easiest way for a PC user to switch to a Mac. But guess what - I couldn't plug my existing keyboard into it, I couldn't plug my existing mouse into it and I couldn't plug my existing headset into it.
There's also no place to install your ISA winmodem or Hercules CGA card or other obsolete peripherals. Look, I'm not a brand-new-technology fetishist, but I don't whine to Dell that I had to buy a PS/2-to-USB connector to connect my Model M keyboard to the PC my company bought for me (five years ago).
If the general public sees no difference and doesn't care, why is one superior to the other?
The general public knows that their computers can barely display certain websites without their browser bogging down crashing, and that they can't use certain sites or functions at all on their cell phones or iPads or other non-PC system. That's what makes native HTML superior to anything involving a plugin.
It would be strange for (in that case) some Arabic TLD to 1) render correctly in a browser of a non-Arabic speaker, and 2) to have Latin characters in the domain name itself and 3) still manage to look correct in RTL scripts.
Think of how many programs you use that display clickable links. Imagine how many of them will get bug reports that non-Latin links "don't look right". Of those, a lot of authors will use heuristics to detect and handle non-Latin TLDs, like if (link.tld.contains('-')) { fancyRTLDisplayLink(link); } else { displayLink(link); }. One of the examples from the article (I just skimmed it! Don't cast me out!) was http://xn--4gbrim.xn----rmckbbajlc6dj7bxne2c.xn--wgbh1c/ar/default.aspx . Suppose that was http://moc.tfosorcim.xn--wgbh1c/ and that clickable link was detected as non-Latin and helpfully rendered prettily for our non-English-speaking friends.
So the big guys - Firefox, Chrome, (possibly) IE, Outlook - might get it right. What about your IM client?
You are under the impression you own the game; you do not.
When a game studio can produce a contract that I signed agreeing to that horridly twisted concept, I'll agree with it. Until then: hell yeah I own the game, just like I own the toaster and book I bought at the same time with the same debit card at the same cash register. I obviously don't own the copyright to the game and can't make illegal [1] copies of it, but it's otherwise mine to do with as I please.
[1] I'm dropping "unauthorized" from my vocabulary. If it were up to the publishers, I wouldn't be authorized to do anything with my game other than play it once per each time that I pay them. I couldn't care less about what they generously authorize me to do; if a law doesn't say I can't do it, then it is my opinion that I'm allowed to.
While every keyboard can type A-Za-z, that's not true of Chinese or Arabic, so sites using those TLDs will be effectively off-limits to those that aren't "native".
For now, I hope so. Imagine a RTL domain name, coupled with a phishing email telling recipients to visit moc.tfosorcim.[NEWGTLD] that renders as [NEWGTLD].microsoft.com. Won't that be fun?
Your trying to say that it does not do ONE THING very well. That may be true. But the goal of Flash is not to do one thing. It is to do many things, which by most accounts it does very well.
But when that "one thing" is "viewing every video on the #3 website in the world", you'd thing they'd spend a little effort in making it not suck. I'd get your general point if the subject at hand were, say, that Flash is slower than necessary at converting WordPerfect 5.1 files to color palettes. You can't dismiss cruddy video playback - which is the reason many people have Flash installed in the first place - as "just one thing".
See my reply to the sibling post before yours. If Flash is so hopelessly complicated that it can't be implemented efficiently, then Adobe needs to address that. In an app installed on tens of millions of systems, it should have optimized code paths for such an extremely common use case.
From the comments on that post, replying to a statement implying that other browsers don't implement HTML5 video any more efficiently than Flash implements its video playback:
Safari 4.0.4 running in 32-bit mode under Mac OS X 10.6.2, on an iMac with a 2.16 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo and 3GB of RAM.
Using Flash Plugin, 100-115% CPU (105% typical). (!!!)
Using Quicktime Plugin (that's in the browser via Click2Flash), 30% - 40% CPU (35% typical).
Unfortunately YouTube's HTML5 beta doesn't appear to work with anyhing but standard def videos (I can't get it to work with that video anyway). So, with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEIZ_FFmjnw
Using Flash Plugin, 65-70% CPU.
Using Quicktime Plugin, 15-20% CPU.
Using HTML5, 15-20% CPU.
Pesky facts.
So despite Adobe's claim to the contrary, another poster gives the conditions to reproduce other browsers and other frameworks using much less CPU than Flash to display video inside a browser window. If it's inherently more difficult for Adobe to make their complex processing pipeline work well, then maybe they should consider the possibility that their architecture is at fault.
to all religions, sexual freedom means the total loss of controlling and subjigating women.
350 million Buddhists would disagree. They would most likely content that total sexual abandon is physically and emotionally damaging, but that sex is an important part of life. Note: I am not a Buddhist.
Um - that might be because Flash has to go through the overhead of rendering video through Safari, and VLC doesn't.
No one - including Adobe - seems to be making that argument.
Try comparing the CPU usage of a YouTube video between the Flash version and the HTML 5 version. In my tests, the Flash version uses considerably less CPU than the HTML 5 version.
So the Safari object for displaying video also currently sucks, assuming you're correct. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Flash.
...nothing like what you think it's saying. Here's what the CEO of an Australian adult industry said in a letter to ICANN:
The Eros Association is the peak national organisation for the Australian Adult industry. We represent the majority of the Australian adult retail and on line industry and have done so since 1992.
I am writing to express our opposition to the introduction of the TLD XXX. I attended the ICANN meeting in Wellington in 2006 and met with ICANN and GAC delegates to explain our opposition to the proposal. At that time we submitted letters from major on line businesses that also opposed the introduction of the new TLD.
Our objections have not changed. There is no support from the Australian on line adult industry for the TLD XXX. I note that the ICM website states that they have support form the adult industry and free speech advocates. I am yet to find anyone.
While it's fun and easy to blame stupid, uptight Americans - and even gives you a smidgin of Slashdot karma - the reality is that the people who would hypothetically be using the.xxx TLD have no interest in it and are actively opposed to it.
Why is this ridiculous? Just because they aren't blocking every porn site doesn't mean it isn't a simple way to block a bunch of them at once.
...where by "a bunch" you mean "none". What webmaster in their right mind is going to make their whole site that trivially simple to block? You seem to be under the impression that the porn industry is run by naive morons.
Slashdot Mirror
But if neither dominant party thinks she's toeing the line enough then that's _exactly_ the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.
Your logic is broken. I presume neither party would like bin Laden, but I don't think that would make him a good nomination. Have you heard why people don't like her? Here's some of her thoughts on the first amendment:
Someone who feels that freedom of speech is overrated - spare me the "fire! in a theater" exceptions we already know about - is not someone who I want deciding freedom of speech cases.
She also argued that prosecutors who deliberately manufacture evidence to convict (by definition) innocent people should not be civilly liable for their actions. I don't have great hopes that she'd side with individuals when it most matters.
It seems like there's something for everyone to dislike about Kagan, unless you're already a person in power and seeking to extend your powers. Then she'd be the woman for the job.
Yes, Apple is heavily invested in H.264 patents. Using H.264 in a commercial venture is definitely not free.
First off, we're talking about apps and not video. That's OK, though: Flash also usually uses H.264. Since you're using H.264 whether you stream video through Flash or HTML5, you're using the MPEG-LA patents.
But the real killing happens with the elimination of all applications that do not go through Apple's distribution channels.
By encouraging developers to write cross-platform apps that can be run directly from their own webserver instead of installing them through the app store? Did that make sense to you when you wrote it?
It's important to note that the loss of profit may not be from the App store, but from the fact that people will have little reason to buy an iPhone if every app is available on every platform; Apple makes the majority of it's profit off hardware not software.
OK, I was being sarcastic below when I joked about this, but I'm serious now. How do you reconcile your idea with the fact that Apple is actively pushing development with HTML5? Apple's business plan seems to be to provide the most comfortable (for the majority of users), friendliest implementation of standards-based clients. They want you to buy a Mac or i{Phone,Pad,Touch} to read email, browse the web, chat, and play games because you think they provide the easiest way to do those things.
And even if you don't believe that, remember that the original iPhone SDK was JavaScript + HTML. It's not like they're making some inexplicable U-turn.
It's about Profit going down the drain if Flash apps make it to the iPhone!
No kidding! Apple makes a killing off the HTML5 platform they're advocating.
100,000 to 250,000. $25,000
So, if your project makes $100,001 a year, you have to pay MPEG-LA 25% of its income for their one single technical contribution. Thank God Tim Berners-Lee doesn't take another 25% for his work on linked computer networks.
Dirt cheap, my ass.
alias /bin/sudo='/the_path_to_my_evil_eavesdropping/sudo'
The real sudo is setuid root. You'd have to be root in the first place to make your evil dropin setuid root, at which point why bother?
Linux: Whatcha doing, PC?
PC: Playing games.
Xbox, PS3, Wii in chorus: LOL WUT?
That's all well and good, but I wasn't talking about video.
Why would I ever want a website to have access to my camera or microphone?
I've never been on Chatroulette, but it seems popular with the kids these days.
Now the mini has been pushed as the easiest way for a PC user to switch to a Mac. But guess what - I couldn't plug my existing keyboard into it, I couldn't plug my existing mouse into it and I couldn't plug my existing headset into it.
There's also no place to install your ISA winmodem or Hercules CGA card or other obsolete peripherals. Look, I'm not a brand-new-technology fetishist, but I don't whine to Dell that I had to buy a PS/2-to-USB connector to connect my Model M keyboard to the PC my company bought for me (five years ago).
If the general public sees no difference and doesn't care, why is one superior to the other?
The general public knows that their computers can barely display certain websites without their browser bogging down crashing, and that they can't use certain sites or functions at all on their cell phones or iPads or other non-PC system. That's what makes native HTML superior to anything involving a plugin.
It would be strange for (in that case) some Arabic TLD to 1) render correctly in a browser of a non-Arabic speaker, and 2) to have Latin characters in the domain name itself and 3) still manage to look correct in RTL scripts.
Think of how many programs you use that display clickable links. Imagine how many of them will get bug reports that non-Latin links "don't look right". Of those, a lot of authors will use heuristics to detect and handle non-Latin TLDs, like if (link.tld.contains('-')) { fancyRTLDisplayLink(link); } else { displayLink(link); }. One of the examples from the article (I just skimmed it! Don't cast me out!) was http://xn--4gbrim.xn----rmckbbajlc6dj7bxne2c.xn--wgbh1c/ar/default.aspx . Suppose that was http://moc.tfosorcim.xn--wgbh1c/ and that clickable link was detected as non-Latin and helpfully rendered prettily for our non-English-speaking friends.
So the big guys - Firefox, Chrome, (possibly) IE, Outlook - might get it right. What about your IM client?
You are under the impression you own the game; you do not.
When a game studio can produce a contract that I signed agreeing to that horridly twisted concept, I'll agree with it. Until then: hell yeah I own the game, just like I own the toaster and book I bought at the same time with the same debit card at the same cash register. I obviously don't own the copyright to the game and can't make illegal [1] copies of it, but it's otherwise mine to do with as I please.
[1] I'm dropping "unauthorized" from my vocabulary. If it were up to the publishers, I wouldn't be authorized to do anything with my game other than play it once per each time that I pay them. I couldn't care less about what they generously authorize me to do; if a law doesn't say I can't do it, then it is my opinion that I'm allowed to.
While every keyboard can type A-Za-z, that's not true of Chinese or Arabic, so sites using those TLDs will be effectively off-limits to those that aren't "native".
For now, I hope so. Imagine a RTL domain name, coupled with a phishing email telling recipients to visit moc.tfosorcim.[NEWGTLD] that renders as [NEWGTLD].microsoft.com. Won't that be fun?
Young Einstein is an Aussie cult classic and one of the funniest Aussie films of all time IMO
I had no idea it was so dire.
From my understanding, pretty much, yeah. I don't think they care much about sex, drugs, or anything else that doesn't become problematic.
Your trying to say that it does not do ONE THING very well. That may be true. But the goal of Flash is not to do one thing. It is to do many things, which by most accounts it does very well.
But when that "one thing" is "viewing every video on the #3 website in the world", you'd thing they'd spend a little effort in making it not suck. I'd get your general point if the subject at hand were, say, that Flash is slower than necessary at converting WordPerfect 5.1 files to color palettes. You can't dismiss cruddy video playback - which is the reason many people have Flash installed in the first place - as "just one thing".
See my reply to the sibling post before yours. If Flash is so hopelessly complicated that it can't be implemented efficiently, then Adobe needs to address that. In an app installed on tens of millions of systems, it should have optimized code paths for such an extremely common use case.
From the comments on that post, replying to a statement implying that other browsers don't implement HTML5 video any more efficiently than Flash implements its video playback:
So despite Adobe's claim to the contrary, another poster gives the conditions to reproduce other browsers and other frameworks using much less CPU than Flash to display video inside a browser window. If it's inherently more difficult for Adobe to make their complex processing pipeline work well, then maybe they should consider the possibility that their architecture is at fault.
to all religions, sexual freedom means the total loss of controlling and subjigating women.
350 million Buddhists would disagree. They would most likely content that total sexual abandon is physically and emotionally damaging, but that sex is an important part of life. Note: I am not a Buddhist.
Um - that might be because Flash has to go through the overhead of rendering video through Safari, and VLC doesn't.
No one - including Adobe - seems to be making that argument.
Try comparing the CPU usage of a YouTube video between the Flash version and the HTML 5 version. In my tests, the Flash version uses considerably less CPU than the HTML 5 version.
So the Safari object for displaying video also currently sucks, assuming you're correct. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Flash.
The porn industry is saying
...nothing like what you think it's saying. Here's what the CEO of an Australian adult industry said in a letter to ICANN:
While it's fun and easy to blame stupid, uptight Americans - and even gives you a smidgin of Slashdot karma - the reality is that the people who would hypothetically be using the .xxx TLD have no interest in it and are actively opposed to it.
Why is this ridiculous? Just because they aren't blocking every porn site doesn't mean it isn't a simple way to block a bunch of them at once.
...where by "a bunch" you mean "none". What webmaster in their right mind is going to make their whole site that trivially simple to block? You seem to be under the impression that the porn industry is run by naive morons.
Don't these people even think about risk mitigation?
Since the risk is socialized, why would they?
The average survival time for a cleaned bird is 1-5 days, from the last data I have seen.
You misread the report. "Cleaned bird" is the internal code name for a line of Seagate hard drives.