I've created whole websites in Flash. Having plumbed the inner workings of JavaScript, HTML and Cascading Style Sheets I concluded that for anything complicated, it was easier to do it in Flash. And, if you know what you are doing, the file will be smaller than HTML. Web standards take a lot of testing on other browsers and versions and you still can't guarantee what the user will see.
With Flash, most people just look at the annoying ads--but that is the annoyance of advertising. Flash is a tool to engage and annoy. But it is also the best tool for the web.
Other than the various specialty and video/graphic plugins on browsers, really 90% of what you need to display specialized content is contained in Flash and Acrobat. If you combined all the best of both, the browser becomes merely a container for the Media file. Flash remoting and other tech allows stand-alone apps that don't even need the browser. The browser is useful to take you to content--but really sucks (as far as the non-standard standards and poor object models it uses) in actually displaying content. You can just look at all the download and browser accelerators out their to realize how there is a lot of room for improvement on how browsers packet and deliver information to users.
Flash has better compression and PDFs are much easier to create than decent HTML-based web pages. The only true downside to PDF+Flash that I can see is reorganizing content to fill the screen (a programming issue--but doable for some). So, just as JAVA was a threat until Microsoft polluted it, the upcoming Flash+PDF platform can make the browser obsolete. Once banks realize that they could create user content that was more secure, faster to download (you can store and share library elements and build whole interfaces and graphics out of code), and easier to debug, then they will quit depending on buggy HTML and web-based code and just do it all in Flash.
Of course, the inertia of human habits is usually the strongest factor in human decision making. As all the Slashdot geeks know, what really separates Geek from non-Geek is all about a fear of learning new things. The Acrobat PDF standard, however, is pretty well embraced by the business community. Allowing geeks to enhance PDF files without interfering or confusing non-geeks might be the magic ticket for adoption. I definitely think Adobe must have thought long and hard about human factors. Flash Paper would improve compression in Acrobat files. I could also see separate Libraries for content and code to enhance acrobat on client-side solutions. Especially with sites a user will visit more than once.
But watch Microsoft as they buy up similar companies and perhaps dependent technologies (Like Sorenson) to hedge this threat. They've been wanting to create their own TCP-IP protocol for years -- claiming that it was the real issue with web security rather than ActiveX+VBscript. I wouldn't be surprised if they use a third party company to bring a monopoly lawsuit. Not that they might not have a case, but just the pile of hypocrisy that would entail boggles the mind.
Personally, I hope that Adobe sells off FreeHand, Fontographer, and the Adobe version of Flash (forget the name) so that this marketplace still sees competition.
Sony should add a system of Royalties to the game, wherein a player pays his duties to whichever crown his Half-elf, nuetral-good character is allied with.
Not correctly filling out the Royalty form and filing late causes the character to lose 10% APR/compounded to Luck/Karma.
Sony could really give an insentive to early adopters of the game who are already clerics, and they would receive game world gold for helping other players pay their Roayalties.
This list should be a lot longer. Various banks (like Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America) and Credit Card companies, HR & Block (I think), the IRS, and numerous other companies have had important customer data compromised.
There probably is a web site on this... Hard to find with all the security alerts.
This is why it is vital that the Gov needs to use a Public/Private key system with authenticity handshaking with SSN (make the SSN a public ID, that is verified by a changeable password, businesses only receive a notice from the Gov that you are authorized to use it). The current system is absolutely broken. I've gotten three calls at home with someone trying to verify my wifes SSN so that they could use it for Identiy theft (tip; if a business doesn't want to give you an address, they are crooks).
I think if anything will kill Windows, it is Windows.
In my opinion, LINUX shines where you don't even see it. From a print server, to an ethernet hub, and embedded devices to a car DJ system, LINUX is great for people wanting to create inexpensive solutions that always work and where the cost of an OS may be more thant the cost of the device.
Its flexibility and customization work for it for custom solutions. If it becomes the perfect Desktop, then that "Flavor" of Linux will probably lose its suitability for the device. Just as Windows and Mac OS are not good for devices.
Personally, I would love to see more attention to multimedia support like flash, quicktime and Macromedia Director supporting Linux, and vendors selling more towards Kiosk solutions (I'm sure there are some, but none come to mind). A streamlined Linux would be better to deploy a kiosk and keep costs down.
"Software That Doesn't Suck®" is actually a registered trademark of the Macintosh text editor swiss army knife for programmers called "BBEdit", by Bare Bones Software. You can see their slogan in all it's glory here. The slogan is now It doesn't suck.®. but I prefer their former slogan "Software That Doesn't Suck®".
I always thought their company kind of hip. By the way, their apps generally don't suck.
All of this is assuming that TiVo won't support already purchased HD products. My guess is, that unless they are crazy, they will make an announcement that anyone buying an HD Tv will be guaranteed an upgrade when and if it is needed.
Of course, I have no control over the sane actions of others--this is only what "I" would do.
Next, taking advantage of FREE rainwater or drilling a well will be seen as a "Leftist" (read; untaxed) action.
Open Source software just raises the bar. Nobody charges for a simple notepad like application--that becomes the standard or "base". The value you get by just having a computer. Open Office, raises that bar, so that a presentation and a document are the basics of what you get when you buy a computer.
This only forces "Solution Providers" and software companies to raise the bar to try and persuade customers that they provide enough value that it is worth paying for. That sounds like market forces to me.
It is interesting that, with the almost Zero cost of producing copies of software, that most "decent" applications, cost about $500 (the ones you might base a business on). And that this now exceeds the average cost of the computer. You are still going to need about 3 or 4 applications (like content manager or PIM, database, document and presentation, and a decent email/calendaring application for a Salesperson, for instance) to actually be productive.
The hardware is a smaller portion of that cost. No complaints. But is cheaper computers a sign of "Socialism"? No, that is real competition and improvement that we like in Capitalism. Software being, in general, impervious to deflationary costs savings, points to the Network Effects of Monopoly, and is the sort of capitalism that government needs to regulate so that Capitalism remains beneficial to the populace.
So, I see OSS as a consumer response to balance Oligarchy forces in many First World nations like the United States. OSS might have just remained the province of geeks and hobbyists if the government were doing its job.
I can see a parallel with this and the move by the Minutemen trying to guard the boarder with Mexico. This is like Open Source Security, due to the fact that the government is more persuaded by business interests than consumers and so therefore only makes a pretense of securing our quality of life and rights. I don't know if the Minutemen are vigilantes or the absolute right sort of patriot who says; "enough, I'm taking government into my own hands." But I know that almost every report is calling them "Yahoos" and "Vigilantes" --so it is likely they are responsible and doing the right thing. Now, pretending that they are securing the border and not preventing the citizens from ACTUALLY securing the border; here is the NeoGovernment response
But I do firmly have the opinion that those who create Open Source Software, are the sort of citizens that we need. Those that seek to give more than they take. Who want to make things better more than see what they can get. More my sort of Patriot and hero than those normally paraded about. Is sacrifice and civic responsibility "socialist" unless it is part of a Church function? I think that is the real talking point.
More effective, would be a website that published banker's and credit card company executives SSN. Perhaps a few college administrators as we. And don't forget to throw in a few Senators. These people wont' act until it's their butt on the line.
What I would like to see, is the SSN becoming public like you say, but then having a "private key" component that is encrypted as well. The government, and authorized bodies, would decrypt the private key and send it back--showing that they were authorized to receive the authentic password. All the user would need to remember is their current password, that could be changed without ruining ones credit. Businesses would see the unique identifier for the person, and a note from the government authorization service that the person was authorized to use the SSN.
We need real protection because everything now is about our credit. Especially since we are moving back to a system supporting indentured servants.
The government, by its existence, "interferes" in everything.
Some are good, some are bad.
Good; Roads and Trains. UL (Underwriters Laboratory) regulation on the safety of electornic devices. Seatbelts and housing codes. Guaranteeing quality and safety actually creates consumer confidence in products and results in sales. Not regulating things, would often result in poor marketplace adoption in a lot of areas -- not a concept that is even discussed these days. With someone using the words; "Free Market", you just know that you are in for a lack of real understanding. Free Market is just a term to explain why people should feel OK about getting a bad deal--a total Free Market always ends up with a few monopolies and no choices to create competition. They don't really exist--not in the way people think. Open Market, is another matter.
Bad; Requiring farmers to purchase GM crops, or not forcing labeling so that consumers can make informed decisions. Creating support for monopolies or guaranteeing profits like the tax on blank media, or the new Healthcare bill that doesn't allow for negotiating for cheaper prices. Or the Wage Slavery law, called the "Bankruptcy Reform Act".
***
In fact, there isn't anything I can think of that doesn't have a government regulation of some kind that limits what usage I can make of anything. Because, in this world, everything we do can have a negative or positive impact on somebody else. i can't even burn my own house that I paid for.
Besides, the EU regulation is a slap on the wrist to Microsoft. They aren't really doing anything to curtail the monoply issues. MS just wants to benefit from every court case. I was suprised that it didn't result in a coupon for schools to buy Microsoft products. A penalty that results in increased sales? Brilliant!
I am more worried about the EU being influenced by business than the other way around.
Regulations that apply to everyone, equally, end up being the cost of business and net out in the end (really). The real problem occurs when regulations apply differently to all companies, create barriers to entry, or guarantee a favorable position for a company over others. Always bad is legislation that gives corporations rights and removes those of citizens--which is the trend these days. Companies should never, ever, have any right to exist or make a profit. People should always have those rights. This doesn't stop companies from protecting themselves, it just means that responsibility ultimately ends up with a person. These concepts are probably a little too subtle and involved to go into here.
Hey, where are all my free videos? You mean I won't get the clip art that comes with the full XP? Oh, there is no free clip art and movies? I don't want to miss out-- XP Enhanced Media Edition sounds like it has a lot more. It doesn't? Well, just give me the "Enhanced" version, I don't want to make the same mistake as when I got "Windows ME" for all of 6 months.
Is the name XP Hobbled available? Seems Microsoft is a bit less cynical than me. I could come up with a few names that would absolutely guarantee negative reactions. "Reduced" might actually be mistaken for "low calorie" which would mean that as many as 1 in 10 people would not complain about not getting their free clip art.
This is what our country should do as well. Most other scientific endeavors require public access to the data. I see no point in our government supporting proprietary code--our government should be doing things that help all citizens.
We desperately need opensource election software as well. We are spending about $50 million per state to put in various solutions that have no guarantee of security and are totally done out of public view. If $5 Million could be given to Universities like MIT or Georgia Tech, you could develop something cheaper and better. But I suppose, the whole point of having private industry do these things is that the pollticians involved don't want public access, control or light shined on things that feather their own pockets.
So, I absolutely don't think that opens-source will find its way into the U.S. government because it is physcally resposible, very Democratic and helps everyone equally. Very Un-American values.
Glad to here Brazil is becoming civilized in this regard, and Viva Venezuela while we are at it.
You are believing un-adulterated BS if you believe MS can't make these MediaPlayer changes without breaking Windows. They made the same comment about Windows 98 through 2000 (including ME) about Internet Explorer. Well, a third party developer made 98 Lite, a utility to strip IE out of the OS--for Free! The result? I use stripped down 98 and 2000 in kiosks and not only does it free up memory, run a little faster, but it also is more stable.
They could easily remove WiMP without hurting applications. Just remove the GUI. MS always says; "It's complicated, we'll take care of it." They have killed competition, stolen IP, and everywhere they dominate, technology stagnates. They continuously break things in Windows for competitors and use undocumented APIs to make their apps work or work better. IIS used to put Netscape browsers last on the list when they visited IIS hosted sites. Upgrades often break other applications in suspiciously convenient ways.
The previous poster is basing opinions based on assuming that MS is saying true things. There is no historically basis for assuming integrity for this company.
You see, it is the "science" that is controversial now. The Fundies have always had a problem with the questionable nature of ideas based on "theories".
I just pray that the planes won't fall out of the skies due to the lack of faith in science.
Yes, it's like rooting for Punch or Judy. This is a sock puppet fight. The same hand is up both sides skirts.
Re:Bush, Steroids and smokescreens --READ ME!
on
Juiced
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Dang, beat me to the punch.
This steroid controversy is nothing but a distraction. The federal prosecutor in this case could investigate anything he wants to. There are huge looming issues with MediCaid, America's waning financial strength, corruption in the Iraqi occupation with poor pentagon accountability, war crimes committed. But what does he investigate? A poorly hidden scandal of athlete performance enhancement.
But what of the children?
Well, now the children know more, don't they? I don't see any protection of Children from sugary cereal, flus, or an epidemic of asthma -- So please, spare me this; "concern for the children" bit. It's a little old.
It also seems that maybe steroids aren't bad, just that their illegal nature has meant that we don't know how to use them. I'm just going by the fact that a lot of these steroid using athletes could, like bench press me, and seem to be healthier than my un-steroid infested body, that is subjected to indoor office air. Who's getting excited about that?
I thought the original post had a lot of good insight. We can't have knee-jerk reactions to; "enhancing people is bad." The logic and moral insight in such statements is thin and not very interesting. And most of the people who are most upset would be the first to use the advantages of emerging science if it save their own ass.
I think people will enhance in every way what they were born with, if it gives them an advantage and doesn't have too many downsides. When you are competing, the pressure is too great to improve. If someone is doing something you are not, they have a better chance at winning. And the one thing I've noticed is that this culture cares about winning more than any other value. The shock and dismay of people at torture to get an advantage in war, at steroids to get an advantage in sports, to sex to get an advantage on the insipid "The Apprentice" is about as deep as saying; "God bless you." when someone sneezes. It has no more thought or feeling than that, and they are both something we say so that we can feel like; "good people." Most people don't know the tradition stems from the belief that spirits entered and exited the body through the breathe. The "Bless you", was to protect someone from actually losing their soul. Note, that this also means that most Christians at that time, thought that the first breathe was when the soul entered the body. So, as a form of birth control, smothering a newborn before its first breathe was little talked about but generally accepted. Abortions were usually only done to preserve the appearance of propriety in a lady--manual labor and having a lot of kids was something people actually wanted in those days. I just think history is chock full of examples of "moral outrage" becoming part of the everyday life. It's amazing to think that a woman would at one time be put in a stockade for uncovering her hair in public. How obvious is drug use a sin against God? I reject outright simple statements that these answers are obvious. Obvious moral insights have changed more than fashions over the years.
I'm not promoting drug use--I myself have never used an illegal drug. But I question everything, and I sincerely question the point of making drugs illegal. We should inform people and do what we can to protect them from unintended harm. But everyone should own their own life. My God thinks that is obvious. What I don't think is obvious is whether to allow performance enhancing drugs in sports. Is stopping it worse than allowing it? If you try to stop it, does it just benefit people who know how to hide the drug use? And if you succeed, won't the fans just get bored of the sport, and have moral outrage over performance enhancing surgery in rugby?
When it comes to the issue of "enhancing" what God gave us, I look at my own life; It took me 35 years of life to actually become really productive--not that I'm lazy, I just have higher standards and a non-linear life, others, might have been satisfied at 20, just defeating
I think it's worth a shot to try a new model. Right now we have the appearance of security, while we have people who are easily scammed.
This may stray from the topic, but I like the new method that would test, say a bank login, by sending the encrypted password, and challenging it to see if the bank can decrypt it (which it can, if it can authenticate the user). I don't think the issue right now is strong passwords as much as it is identifying that two parties know who each-other is. And as much as identity is important, likewise is privacy.
A challenge/repsonse system I think would be a better move.
Of course, I have always thought that we would one day move to fashion accessories for authentication like a crypto-ring. A ring is something you keep on you, but is something that can be replaced if stolen (unlike fingerprints). A hand gesture and a flaw pattern in a gem can be pretty unique and hard to copy (and easily/cheaply tested and created). The person buys any old died quartz ring. The unique flaws in the quartz are scanned (like an eye map), then the person decides on a gesture that gets tracked by the machine. Like a signature which has kinesthetic properties, so that it is hard for anyone else to duplicate.
Cable companies probably have to keep a lot of excess bandwidth because the are also providers they have broadband users, who can change usage rates at any time.
Also, this isn't like turn a knob on a hose and running more water through a pipe. All the signals have to be processed or boosted and re-transmitted. I think bandwidth is a limited resource and is costs real money to increase, even when a cable is just sitting there.
It looks like they learned from MPEG 4 and made it easier and cheaper. They will probably see a lot more usage of this.
$.20 for encoder/decoder and $.02 for distributing the compressed video if over 12 minutes. That is a lot more reasonable and straight-forward. Now if they could only make it clearer about how it should be named; AVC, MPEG-HD, MPEG 4-AVC, H.264, etcetera.
I didn't think it made sense that they capped it at $10.5 million. There are a few companies--namely providers, who are going to do the lions share of distribution. Only getting $10.5 mill from Cox, Dish Network and about a dozen others seems really cheap. These are Billion dollar operations.
Well, at least it won't be a hassle to put it on a DVD.
The Data rate varies on DVD depending upon how much material has to go on it (and whether there are "angles"--other tracks and alternate language tracks). If you are "minting" a DVD (imaging it from a master), you want a data rate around 9.5 MPS or less, otherwise you risk skips on poorer players. The quality of the DVD disks and the dyes can also have some effect. Good presses that you buy from the studios can get a higher data rate than one you burn off your computer.
Short run DVDs, and DVD-Rs that you might make, should stay under 8 megs per sec. I'll target a VBR at 7.5 and let it stray up and down from that.
I'm not sure what the data rate on SDTV is. It depends I'm sure. Satellite seems to have slightly better quality than cable--but I don't have any facts on that. I think that the data rate on a DVD is slightly higher than what Dish Network puts out, and they have decent quality. I'm sure that the HD signals are more than DVD--probably twice as much and probably using two traditional channels. This is why H264 is a big deal for them.
H.264 isn't really "out" yet, as far as I know. I think when it is official, and being compressed on good equipment, it will be a lot better than what you see now.
And I don't see the issue with licensing H.264. I thought broadcasters have to license MPEG 2 as it is now. I would also think that licensing (codecs and compression) would be the least expensive part of the broadcasters overhead. Licensing terms and agreements are headaches for developers and little companies. I don't think big operations will be too offput by H.264 if it gets them HD or more bandwidth.
At a guess, I would say that bandwidth and licensing content are expenses that make the medium licensing costs trivial by comparison. I think a broadcaster could better chime in on this one.
Probably an early implementation. I don't know too much about H.264--but I think I read that it was going to allow adaptive region compression. My guess on that is, that instead of the 8x8 or 16x16 blocks that MPEG compresses, there might be different sized blocks and even different algorithms used in a scene. Part of the reason it is even more processor intensive than MPEG 2 to compress H.264, may be because there is a lot of work done to "best guess" what type of compression would work. So the quality of hardware and software are going to make a huge difference. I also think it uses wavelets, which have a capacity to compress complex items better than MPEG/JPEG techniques but requires more technique (more than one way to compress).
I still don't know what has become of Fractal compression--if it has died out or been encompassed in something else. There was a company in Atlanta, GA that was up on this technology--they still use it to up rez files (create bigger ones from smaller without the distortion of nearest neighbor techniques). Truely amazing stuff--but it may not be practical in video--could be too CPU intensive.
Getting back to your "it sucks" comment. So I think it very likely there are some early demo pieces that look pretty bad. This will change as the money will flow to whichever vendor can create the best solution. Hopefully they haven't created a lockout with licensing. Confusing licensing, I think (besides MS stealing MPEG 4 tech to put in WM9--of course--when will committees learn to not let them become members anymore?) was one of the things that made MPEG 4 not catch on as well as it should have. Maybe they've learned. I'm hoping it is cheap or free at small volumes.
I wouldn't be suprised if they built in the ability to embed custom codecs in the video--if they didn't then they should have. If you look at the size of a typical video, having an adaptive codec and adding that for a few K in size if it means a better quality and smaller size just makes sense.
A patent for an XML document is sort of redundant, since the purpose of XML is to allow documents to work with other applications. So, XML itself is prior art here. Not only is this patent office overburdened, they have people who don't know some of the more principle technologies.
[Begin Rant] The reason Microsoft gets sued for patent infringment is that they are often caught stealing other companies Intellectual Property. MS doesn't usually sue companies that it competes with, since they usually die off or get bought out. Their favorite technique is to steal IP, delay any court proceedings, then buy up a 51% share (usually cheap because the company is getting crushed and has no market by this time) and vote to not sue themselves. They did it to Stacker. I've kind of quit bothering to keep track of their various misdeeds. They've learned to buy up polliticians so not much will be done about it.
They could defend themselves better through real innovation. But they have rarely been successful with their own ideas. All the great things they are known for came from other companies. Even OLE (I forget the company), Active X, Video For Windows (QuickTime), Internet Explorer (Spyglass/Mosaic), Drive compression (Stacker), video streaming for the web (Burst), Windows 1-3 (Mac OS 7), Excel (VisiCalc), Word (MacWrite), Windows Networking (Novell), DOS (CPM), etcetera, etcetera. There are whole websites devoted to the littered bodies. I just have to do my part when anyone suggests that Microsoft is a good company. There is a difference between good and bad corporate behavior. Some companies compete well and hard and that is OK. But MS is still run like a pirate outfit and they constantly abuse the marketplace in ever new and exciting ways. IBM, on the other hand, has changed its ways and now is a tough but fair and innovative corporate citizen. It annoys me to see the cult of the winner in the U.S. love anyone who gets power, no matter how. There are honorable people like the late Sam Walton (hate the kids), and many others who saw a need and filled it. 'nuff said.
The networks are going to move to H.264 very quickly. It compresses HD (High Definition) into about the same bandwidth as current "Standard" definition channels now. That may leave some excess capacity, because I think that there will be a lot of SD content for a long time to come.
I think it is more expedient to adapt "burst mode" video transfer (faster than real time data download) that would cover a huge selection of content, so that 90% of what customers want to see can be downloaded on existing cable and satellite networks in a day. I think the BitTorrent model will be a good idea and a stepping stone. It will have to exist in the margins with the "hard to get" video on demand like NetFlicks.
I think they should jump the gun and build an iTunes like experience for video downloads. If they don't immediately (in the next 6 months) get a customer base, then they will never take off.
Look for Apple to jump into the fray as well. It would be easier for them to create a filesharing network on Akamai then it would be for BitTorrent to build an iTunes and micropayment system.
At CBIT, various companies will be demoing multi-channel, high-demand H.264 video compression hardware. I expect anyone delivering video will make the fastest transition in history to the new format because it essentially gives them 4x the bandwidth they currently have. Whether customers really have to have HD to see Hollywood squares isn't really the issue. It will be culturally embarassing for a broadcast to NOT be HD in about a year. It was kind of the same thing with companies having web sites during the '90s.
Plus, really High Quality TV might distract the population from drought destroyed crops and an oil shortage this summer. Expect to see more nudity on TV, since this also worked in the USSR. No, I'm not kidding. Nobody believed Cassandra either.;-)
The importance of the article has nothing to do with its brilliance. It's that once the main stream media finally recognizes something then it has traction in the culture.
The press is usually about 2 to 10 years behind the curve.
Just worry when they say; "It can't fail." Because then there will be an IPO that sucks in the sucker money so that the income model can fail. Just stating the obvious.
There should be more mod categories, not merely positive or negative.
Like you could be +2 interesting and +2 evil, or +2 Flamebait and +1 Funny. Negative mods should be when people think you're Flamebait but not that flaming.
Then could reveal more intellectual conversation, or more humourous.
I also think interesting/informative should be merged, since there isn't that much difference. You could also have mods towards Liberal or Conservative, but I guess that is covered with other value judgements that are more descriptive anyway. Why someone believes something is more interesting than what they believe --but how do you mod that?
Slashdot Mirror
I've created whole websites in Flash. Having plumbed the inner workings of JavaScript, HTML and Cascading Style Sheets I concluded that for anything complicated, it was easier to do it in Flash. And, if you know what you are doing, the file will be smaller than HTML. Web standards take a lot of testing on other browsers and versions and you still can't guarantee what the user will see.
With Flash, most people just look at the annoying ads--but that is the annoyance of advertising. Flash is a tool to engage and annoy. But it is also the best tool for the web.
Other than the various specialty and video/graphic plugins on browsers, really 90% of what you need to display specialized content is contained in Flash and Acrobat. If you combined all the best of both, the browser becomes merely a container for the Media file. Flash remoting and other tech allows stand-alone apps that don't even need the browser. The browser is useful to take you to content--but really sucks (as far as the non-standard standards and poor object models it uses) in actually displaying content. You can just look at all the download and browser accelerators out their to realize how there is a lot of room for improvement on how browsers packet and deliver information to users.
Flash has better compression and PDFs are much easier to create than decent HTML-based web pages. The only true downside to PDF+Flash that I can see is reorganizing content to fill the screen (a programming issue--but doable for some). So, just as JAVA was a threat until Microsoft polluted it, the upcoming Flash+PDF platform can make the browser obsolete. Once banks realize that they could create user content that was more secure, faster to download (you can store and share library elements and build whole interfaces and graphics out of code), and easier to debug, then they will quit depending on buggy HTML and web-based code and just do it all in Flash.
Of course, the inertia of human habits is usually the strongest factor in human decision making. As all the Slashdot geeks know, what really separates Geek from non-Geek is all about a fear of learning new things. The Acrobat PDF standard, however, is pretty well embraced by the business community. Allowing geeks to enhance PDF files without interfering or confusing non-geeks might be the magic ticket for adoption. I definitely think Adobe must have thought long and hard about human factors. Flash Paper would improve compression in Acrobat files. I could also see separate Libraries for content and code to enhance acrobat on client-side solutions. Especially with sites a user will visit more than once.
But watch Microsoft as they buy up similar companies and perhaps dependent technologies (Like Sorenson) to hedge this threat. They've been wanting to create their own TCP-IP protocol for years -- claiming that it was the real issue with web security rather than ActiveX+VBscript. I wouldn't be surprised if they use a third party company to bring a monopoly lawsuit. Not that they might not have a case, but just the pile of hypocrisy that would entail boggles the mind.
Personally, I hope that Adobe sells off FreeHand, Fontographer, and the Adobe version of Flash (forget the name) so that this marketplace still sees competition.
Sony should add a system of Royalties to the game, wherein a player pays his duties to whichever crown his Half-elf, nuetral-good character is allied with.
Not correctly filling out the Royalty form and filing late causes the character to lose 10% APR/compounded to Luck/Karma.
Sony could really give an insentive to early adopters of the game who are already clerics, and they would receive game world gold for helping other players pay their Roayalties.
Now, how fun is that for excapism? Weee!
This list should be a lot longer. Various banks (like Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America) and Credit Card companies, HR & Block (I think), the IRS, and numerous other companies have had important customer data compromised.
There probably is a web site on this...
Hard to find with all the security alerts.
This is why it is vital that the Gov needs to use a Public/Private key system with authenticity handshaking with SSN (make the SSN a public ID, that is verified by a changeable password, businesses only receive a notice from the Gov that you are authorized to use it). The current system is absolutely broken. I've gotten three calls at home with someone trying to verify my wifes SSN so that they could use it for Identiy theft (tip; if a business doesn't want to give you an address, they are crooks).
I think if anything will kill Windows, it is Windows.
In my opinion, LINUX shines where you don't even see it. From a print server, to an ethernet hub, and embedded devices to a car DJ system, LINUX is great for people wanting to create inexpensive solutions that always work and where the cost of an OS may be more thant the cost of the device.
Its flexibility and customization work for it for custom solutions. If it becomes the perfect Desktop, then that "Flavor" of Linux will probably lose its suitability for the device. Just as Windows and Mac OS are not good for devices.
Personally, I would love to see more attention to multimedia support like flash, quicktime and Macromedia Director supporting Linux, and vendors selling more towards Kiosk solutions (I'm sure there are some, but none come to mind). A streamlined Linux would be better to deploy a kiosk and keep costs down.
"Software That Doesn't Suck®" is actually a registered trademark of the Macintosh text editor swiss army knife for programmers called "BBEdit", by Bare Bones Software. You can see their slogan in all it's glory here. The slogan is now It doesn't suck.®. but I prefer their former slogan "Software That Doesn't Suck®".
I always thought their company kind of hip. By the way, their apps generally don't suck.
All of this is assuming that TiVo won't support already purchased HD products. My guess is, that unless they are crazy, they will make an announcement that anyone buying an HD Tv will be guaranteed an upgrade when and if it is needed.
Of course, I have no control over the sane actions of others--this is only what "I" would do.
Next, taking advantage of FREE rainwater or drilling a well will be seen as a "Leftist" (read; untaxed) action.
Open Source software just raises the bar. Nobody charges for a simple notepad like application--that becomes the standard or "base". The value you get by just having a computer. Open Office, raises that bar, so that a presentation and a document are the basics of what you get when you buy a computer.
This only forces "Solution Providers" and software companies to raise the bar to try and persuade customers that they provide enough value that it is worth paying for. That sounds like market forces to me.
It is interesting that, with the almost Zero cost of producing copies of software, that most "decent" applications, cost about $500 (the ones you might base a business on). And that this now exceeds the average cost of the computer. You are still going to need about 3 or 4 applications (like content manager or PIM, database, document and presentation, and a decent email/calendaring application for a Salesperson, for instance) to actually be productive.
The hardware is a smaller portion of that cost. No complaints. But is cheaper computers a sign of "Socialism"? No, that is real competition and improvement that we like in Capitalism. Software being, in general, impervious to deflationary costs savings, points to the Network Effects of Monopoly, and is the sort of capitalism that government needs to regulate so that Capitalism remains beneficial to the populace.
So, I see OSS as a consumer response to balance Oligarchy forces in many First World nations like the United States. OSS might have just remained the province of geeks and hobbyists if the government were doing its job.
I can see a parallel with this and the move by the Minutemen trying to guard the boarder with Mexico. This is like Open Source Security, due to the fact that the government is more persuaded by business interests than consumers and so therefore only makes a pretense of securing our quality of life and rights. I don't know if the Minutemen are vigilantes or the absolute right sort of patriot who says; "enough, I'm taking government into my own hands." But I know that almost every report is calling them "Yahoos" and "Vigilantes" --so it is likely they are responsible and doing the right thing. Now, pretending that they are securing the border and not preventing the citizens from ACTUALLY securing the border; here is the NeoGovernment response
But I do firmly have the opinion that those who create Open Source Software, are the sort of citizens that we need. Those that seek to give more than they take. Who want to make things better more than see what they can get. More my sort of Patriot and hero than those normally paraded about. Is sacrifice and civic responsibility "socialist" unless it is part of a Church function? I think that is the real talking point.
More effective, would be a website that published banker's and credit card company executives SSN. Perhaps a few college administrators as we. And don't forget to throw in a few Senators. These people wont' act until it's their butt on the line.
What I would like to see, is the SSN becoming public like you say, but then having a "private key" component that is encrypted as well. The government, and authorized bodies, would decrypt the private key and send it back--showing that they were authorized to receive the authentic password. All the user would need to remember is their current password, that could be changed without ruining ones credit. Businesses would see the unique identifier for the person, and a note from the government authorization service that the person was authorized to use the SSN.
We need real protection because everything now is about our credit. Especially since we are moving back to a system supporting indentured servants.
The government, by its existence, "interferes" in everything.
Some are good, some are bad.
Good; Roads and Trains. UL (Underwriters Laboratory) regulation on the safety of electornic devices. Seatbelts and housing codes. Guaranteeing quality and safety actually creates consumer confidence in products and results in sales. Not regulating things, would often result in poor marketplace adoption in a lot of areas -- not a concept that is even discussed these days. With someone using the words; "Free Market", you just know that you are in for a lack of real understanding. Free Market is just a term to explain why people should feel OK about getting a bad deal--a total Free Market always ends up with a few monopolies and no choices to create competition. They don't really exist--not in the way people think. Open Market, is another matter.
Bad; Requiring farmers to purchase GM crops, or not forcing labeling so that consumers can make informed decisions. Creating support for monopolies or guaranteeing profits like the tax on blank media, or the new Healthcare bill that doesn't allow for negotiating for cheaper prices. Or the Wage Slavery law, called the "Bankruptcy Reform Act".
***
In fact, there isn't anything I can think of that doesn't have a government regulation of some kind that limits what usage I can make of anything. Because, in this world, everything we do can have a negative or positive impact on somebody else. i can't even burn my own house that I paid for.
Besides, the EU regulation is a slap on the wrist to Microsoft. They aren't really doing anything to curtail the monoply issues. MS just wants to benefit from every court case. I was suprised that it didn't result in a coupon for schools to buy Microsoft products. A penalty that results in increased sales? Brilliant!
I am more worried about the EU being influenced by business than the other way around.
Regulations that apply to everyone, equally, end up being the cost of business and net out in the end (really). The real problem occurs when regulations apply differently to all companies, create barriers to entry, or guarantee a favorable position for a company over others. Always bad is legislation that gives corporations rights and removes those of citizens--which is the trend these days. Companies should never, ever, have any right to exist or make a profit. People should always have those rights. This doesn't stop companies from protecting themselves, it just means that responsibility ultimately ends up with a person. These concepts are probably a little too subtle and involved to go into here.
"Reduced Media Edition"?
Hey, where are all my free videos? You mean I won't get the clip art that comes with the full XP? Oh, there is no free clip art and movies? I don't want to miss out-- XP Enhanced Media Edition sounds like it has a lot more. It doesn't? Well, just give me the "Enhanced" version, I don't want to make the same mistake as when I got "Windows ME" for all of 6 months.
Is the name XP Hobbled available? Seems Microsoft is a bit less cynical than me. I could come up with a few names that would absolutely guarantee negative reactions. "Reduced" might actually be mistaken for "low calorie" which would mean that as many as 1 in 10 people would not complain about not getting their free clip art.
This is what our country should do as well. Most other scientific endeavors require public access to the data. I see no point in our government supporting proprietary code--our government should be doing things that help all citizens.
We desperately need opensource election software as well. We are spending about $50 million per state to put in various solutions that have no guarantee of security and are totally done out of public view. If $5 Million could be given to Universities like MIT or Georgia Tech, you could develop something cheaper and better. But I suppose, the whole point of having private industry do these things is that the pollticians involved don't want public access, control or light shined on things that feather their own pockets.
So, I absolutely don't think that opens-source will find its way into the U.S. government because it is physcally resposible, very Democratic and helps everyone equally. Very Un-American values.
Glad to here Brazil is becoming civilized in this regard, and Viva Venezuela while we are at it.
You are believing un-adulterated BS if you believe MS can't make these MediaPlayer changes without breaking Windows. They made the same comment about Windows 98 through 2000 (including ME) about Internet Explorer. Well, a third party developer made 98 Lite, a utility to strip IE out of the OS--for Free! The result? I use stripped down 98 and 2000 in kiosks and not only does it free up memory, run a little faster, but it also is more stable.
They could easily remove WiMP without hurting applications. Just remove the GUI. MS always says; "It's complicated, we'll take care of it." They have killed competition, stolen IP, and everywhere they dominate, technology stagnates. They continuously break things in Windows for competitors and use undocumented APIs to make their apps work or work better. IIS used to put Netscape browsers last on the list when they visited IIS hosted sites. Upgrades often break other applications in suspiciously convenient ways.
The previous poster is basing opinions based on assuming that MS is saying true things. There is no historically basis for assuming integrity for this company.
You see, it is the "science" that is controversial now. The Fundies have always had a problem with the questionable nature of ideas based on "theories".
I just pray that the planes won't fall out of the skies due to the lack of faith in science.
We are all in great trouble...
Yes, it's like rooting for Punch or Judy. This is a sock puppet fight. The same hand is up both sides skirts.
Dang, beat me to the punch.
This steroid controversy is nothing but a distraction. The federal prosecutor in this case could investigate anything he wants to. There are huge looming issues with MediCaid, America's waning financial strength, corruption in the Iraqi occupation with poor pentagon accountability, war crimes committed. But what does he investigate? A poorly hidden scandal of athlete performance enhancement.
But what of the children?
Well, now the children know more, don't they? I don't see any protection of Children from sugary cereal, flus, or an epidemic of asthma -- So please, spare me this; "concern for the children" bit. It's a little old.
It also seems that maybe steroids aren't bad, just that their illegal nature has meant that we don't know how to use them. I'm just going by the fact that a lot of these steroid using athletes could, like bench press me, and seem to be healthier than my un-steroid infested body, that is subjected to indoor office air. Who's getting excited about that?
I thought the original post had a lot of good insight. We can't have knee-jerk reactions to; "enhancing people is bad." The logic and moral insight in such statements is thin and not very interesting. And most of the people who are most upset would be the first to use the advantages of emerging science if it save their own ass.
I think people will enhance in every way what they were born with, if it gives them an advantage and doesn't have too many downsides. When you are competing, the pressure is too great to improve. If someone is doing something you are not, they have a better chance at winning. And the one thing I've noticed is that this culture cares about winning more than any other value. The shock and dismay of people at torture to get an advantage in war, at steroids to get an advantage in sports, to sex to get an advantage on the insipid "The Apprentice" is about as deep as saying; "God bless you." when someone sneezes. It has no more thought or feeling than that, and they are both something we say so that we can feel like; "good people." Most people don't know the tradition stems from the belief that spirits entered and exited the body through the breathe. The "Bless you", was to protect someone from actually losing their soul. Note, that this also means that most Christians at that time, thought that the first breathe was when the soul entered the body. So, as a form of birth control, smothering a newborn before its first breathe was little talked about but generally accepted. Abortions were usually only done to preserve the appearance of propriety in a lady--manual labor and having a lot of kids was something people actually wanted in those days. I just think history is chock full of examples of "moral outrage" becoming part of the everyday life. It's amazing to think that a woman would at one time be put in a stockade for uncovering her hair in public. How obvious is drug use a sin against God? I reject outright simple statements that these answers are obvious. Obvious moral insights have changed more than fashions over the years.
I'm not promoting drug use--I myself have never used an illegal drug. But I question everything, and I sincerely question the point of making drugs illegal. We should inform people and do what we can to protect them from unintended harm. But everyone should own their own life. My God thinks that is obvious. What I don't think is obvious is whether to allow performance enhancing drugs in sports. Is stopping it worse than allowing it? If you try to stop it, does it just benefit people who know how to hide the drug use? And if you succeed, won't the fans just get bored of the sport, and have moral outrage over performance enhancing surgery in rugby?
When it comes to the issue of "enhancing" what God gave us, I look at my own life; It took me 35 years of life to actually become really productive--not that I'm lazy, I just have higher standards and a non-linear life, others, might have been satisfied at 20, just defeating
I think it's worth a shot to try a new model. Right now we have the appearance of security, while we have people who are easily scammed.
This may stray from the topic, but I like the new method that would test, say a bank login, by sending the encrypted password, and challenging it to see if the bank can decrypt it (which it can, if it can authenticate the user). I don't think the issue right now is strong passwords as much as it is identifying that two parties know who each-other is. And as much as identity is important, likewise is privacy.
A challenge/repsonse system I think would be a better move.
Of course, I have always thought that we would one day move to fashion accessories for authentication like a crypto-ring. A ring is something you keep on you, but is something that can be replaced if stolen (unlike fingerprints). A hand gesture and a flaw pattern in a gem can be pretty unique and hard to copy (and easily/cheaply tested and created). The person buys any old died quartz ring. The unique flaws in the quartz are scanned (like an eye map), then the person decides on a gesture that gets tracked by the machine. Like a signature which has kinesthetic properties, so that it is hard for anyone else to duplicate.
Cable companies probably have to keep a lot of excess bandwidth because the are also providers they have broadband users, who can change usage rates at any time.
Also, this isn't like turn a knob on a hose and running more water through a pipe. All the signals have to be processed or boosted and re-transmitted. I think bandwidth is a limited resource and is costs real money to increase, even when a cable is just sitting there.
Great link--mod this up.
It looks like they learned from MPEG 4 and made it easier and cheaper. They will probably see a lot more usage of this.
$.20 for encoder/decoder and $.02 for distributing the compressed video if over 12 minutes. That is a lot more reasonable and straight-forward. Now if they could only make it clearer about how it should be named; AVC, MPEG-HD, MPEG 4-AVC, H.264, etcetera.
I didn't think it made sense that they capped it at $10.5 million. There are a few companies--namely providers, who are going to do the lions share of distribution. Only getting $10.5 mill from Cox, Dish Network and about a dozen others seems really cheap. These are Billion dollar operations.
Well, at least it won't be a hassle to put it on a DVD.
The Data rate varies on DVD depending upon how much material has to go on it (and whether there are "angles"--other tracks and alternate language tracks). If you are "minting" a DVD (imaging it from a master), you want a data rate around 9.5 MPS or less, otherwise you risk skips on poorer players. The quality of the DVD disks and the dyes can also have some effect. Good presses that you buy from the studios can get a higher data rate than one you burn off your computer.
Short run DVDs, and DVD-Rs that you might make, should stay under 8 megs per sec. I'll target a VBR at 7.5 and let it stray up and down from that.
I'm not sure what the data rate on SDTV is. It depends I'm sure. Satellite seems to have slightly better quality than cable--but I don't have any facts on that. I think that the data rate on a DVD is slightly higher than what Dish Network puts out, and they have decent quality. I'm sure that the HD signals are more than DVD--probably twice as much and probably using two traditional channels. This is why H264 is a big deal for them.
H.264 isn't really "out" yet, as far as I know. I think when it is official, and being compressed on good equipment, it will be a lot better than what you see now.
And I don't see the issue with licensing H.264. I thought broadcasters have to license MPEG 2 as it is now. I would also think that licensing (codecs and compression) would be the least expensive part of the broadcasters overhead. Licensing terms and agreements are headaches for developers and little companies. I don't think big operations will be too offput by H.264 if it gets them HD or more bandwidth.
At a guess, I would say that bandwidth and licensing content are expenses that make the medium licensing costs trivial by comparison. I think a broadcaster could better chime in on this one.
Probably an early implementation. I don't know too much about H.264--but I think I read that it was going to allow adaptive region compression. My guess on that is, that instead of the 8x8 or 16x16 blocks that MPEG compresses, there might be different sized blocks and even different algorithms used in a scene. Part of the reason it is even more processor intensive than MPEG 2 to compress H.264, may be because there is a lot of work done to "best guess" what type of compression would work. So the quality of hardware and software are going to make a huge difference. I also think it uses wavelets, which have a capacity to compress complex items better than MPEG/JPEG techniques but requires more technique (more than one way to compress).
I still don't know what has become of Fractal compression--if it has died out or been encompassed in something else. There was a company in Atlanta, GA that was up on this technology--they still use it to up rez files (create bigger ones from smaller without the distortion of nearest neighbor techniques). Truely amazing stuff--but it may not be practical in video--could be too CPU intensive.
Getting back to your "it sucks" comment.
So I think it very likely there are some early demo pieces that look pretty bad. This will change as the money will flow to whichever vendor can create the best solution. Hopefully they haven't created a lockout with licensing. Confusing licensing, I think (besides MS stealing MPEG 4 tech to put in WM9--of course--when will committees learn to not let them become members anymore?) was one of the things that made MPEG 4 not catch on as well as it should have. Maybe they've learned. I'm hoping it is cheap or free at small volumes.
I wouldn't be suprised if they built in the ability to embed custom codecs in the video--if they didn't then they should have. If you look at the size of a typical video, having an adaptive codec and adding that for a few K in size if it means a better quality and smaller size just makes sense.
A patent for an XML document is sort of redundant, since the purpose of XML is to allow documents to work with other applications. So, XML itself is prior art here. Not only is this patent office overburdened, they have people who don't know some of the more principle technologies.
[Begin Rant]
The reason Microsoft gets sued for patent infringment is that they are often caught stealing other companies Intellectual Property. MS doesn't usually sue companies that it competes with, since they usually die off or get bought out. Their favorite technique is to steal IP, delay any court proceedings, then buy up a 51% share (usually cheap because the company is getting crushed and has no market by this time) and vote to not sue themselves. They did it to Stacker. I've kind of quit bothering to keep track of their various misdeeds. They've learned to buy up polliticians so not much will be done about it.
They could defend themselves better through real innovation. But they have rarely been successful with their own ideas. All the great things they are known for came from other companies. Even OLE (I forget the company), Active X, Video For Windows (QuickTime), Internet Explorer (Spyglass/Mosaic), Drive compression (Stacker), video streaming for the web (Burst), Windows 1-3 (Mac OS 7), Excel (VisiCalc), Word (MacWrite), Windows Networking (Novell), DOS (CPM), etcetera, etcetera. There are whole websites devoted to the littered bodies. I just have to do my part when anyone suggests that Microsoft is a good company. There is a difference between good and bad corporate behavior. Some companies compete well and hard and that is OK. But MS is still run like a pirate outfit and they constantly abuse the marketplace in ever new and exciting ways. IBM, on the other hand, has changed its ways and now is a tough but fair and innovative corporate citizen. It annoys me to see the cult of the winner in the U.S. love anyone who gets power, no matter how. There are honorable people like the late Sam Walton (hate the kids), and many others who saw a need and filled it. 'nuff said.
[/end rant]
If someone has time, please challenge this.
The networks are going to move to H.264 very quickly. It compresses HD (High Definition) into about the same bandwidth as current "Standard" definition channels now. That may leave some excess capacity, because I think that there will be a lot of SD content for a long time to come.
;-)
I think it is more expedient to adapt "burst mode" video transfer (faster than real time data download) that would cover a huge selection of content, so that 90% of what customers want to see can be downloaded on existing cable and satellite networks in a day. I think the BitTorrent model will be a good idea and a stepping stone. It will have to exist in the margins with the "hard to get" video on demand like NetFlicks.
I think they should jump the gun and build an iTunes like experience for video downloads. If they don't immediately (in the next 6 months) get a customer base, then they will never take off.
Look for Apple to jump into the fray as well. It would be easier for them to create a filesharing network on Akamai then it would be for BitTorrent to build an iTunes and micropayment system.
At CBIT, various companies will be demoing multi-channel, high-demand H.264 video compression hardware. I expect anyone delivering video will make the fastest transition in history to the new format because it essentially gives them 4x the bandwidth they currently have. Whether customers really have to have HD to see Hollywood squares isn't really the issue. It will be culturally embarassing for a broadcast to NOT be HD in about a year. It was kind of the same thing with companies having web sites during the '90s.
Plus, really High Quality TV might distract the population from drought destroyed crops and an oil shortage this summer. Expect to see more nudity on TV, since this also worked in the USSR. No, I'm not kidding. Nobody believed Cassandra either.
The importance of the article has nothing to do with its brilliance. It's that once the main stream media finally recognizes something then it has traction in the culture.
The press is usually about 2 to 10 years behind the curve.
Just worry when they say; "It can't fail." Because then there will be an IPO that sucks in the sucker money so that the income model can fail. Just stating the obvious.
Like the sig.
There should be more mod categories, not merely positive or negative.
Like you could be +2 interesting and +2 evil, or +2 Flamebait and +1 Funny. Negative mods should be when people think you're Flamebait but not that flaming.
Then could reveal more intellectual conversation, or more humourous.
I also think interesting/informative should be merged, since there isn't that much difference. You could also have mods towards Liberal or Conservative, but I guess that is covered with other value judgements that are more descriptive anyway. Why someone believes something is more interesting than what they believe --but how do you mod that?