To all who consider this, a very valid question in my opinion, a troll - get out doors sometime, because you need a life outside of all your Apple insta-defending.
Its getting seriously annoying that you cannot ask a seemingly innocent question on Slashdot these days without corporate whores and fanbois lining up to mod you down at the mere hint of any negativity in your post. Go fuck yourselves.
Re:Something baffles me slightly
on
iOS 4 Releases Today
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The iPad's specs are better then any currently available iPhone or iPod touch, so I'm not sure what you're saying. Should Apple have released a less capable iPhone 4? If you're asking why they aren't releasing iOS 4 for the iPad today, yeah that's a decent question.
The iPad was first released a little over two months ago, while the iPhone 3GS was released a year ago - the iPhone 4 will be with us in the next few days.
With that in mind, the iPad has the same amount of ram and the same quality screen as the previous generation of iPhone and iPod Touch, despite being released ten months later, and only two or so months before the new iPhone version. Why?
The screen I could live without, but doubling the ram would have been extremely handy - there have already been suggestions that the iMovie app will not run on the iPad because of ram restrictions.
Why has Apple created a disparity between its two newest products, released only a couple of months apart? The iPhone 4 will have twice as much ram as the iPad, a better screen and now a newer OS - why is the iPad looking like the second rate child here?
Don't get me wrong, I have an iPad and I love it, but I am baffled as to why Apple once again puts noses out of shape by making such an obvious difference in spec between the two products. Its almost as tho the iPad is the last of the previous generation, rather than the current generation.
It's funny to see how Slashdot was was railing against MS about Trusted Computing, DRM and Palladium. Now Apple implements them in a shiny box and not only there's not a peep about the DRM in the iDevices but many Slashdot posters fawn all over and write long justifications about how it is good. I guess Trusted Computing was meant to come wrapped in a pretty box for the masses to not notice it. Now even MS is following in the same footsteps with Windows Phone 7 Series. Sad.
Are we visiting the same Slashdot? There is lots of outcry here about the DRM and walled garden that is the Apple mobile platform, just hang around in this story for another twenty minutes or so and you will see plenty of comments about it.
Once they have proven their launcher with a valid success rate, then their launch costs are valid - until then, they are just a newcomer touting cheaper rates on an unproven platform. They may fail on the next 10 launches, and spend a lot more money finding out what the issues are.
Unless Iridiums technology plans have changed, their satellites are designed for LEO and not GEO, which is why they have so many of them.
When it comes to cost, you have to enter the market at below the market rates if you are to carve yourself a niche - Boeing, Lockheed and others have an established success rate, while SpaceX does not. Its typically difficult to insure a satellite, so Iridium have to take the chance that SpaceX can give them a good launch success rate, when they can go to Boeing et al for an established launcher (although still not guaranteed, but having a proven track record is better than not in these things). The trade off to that chance is a supremely low cost to the launches, which will essentially create a track record for SpaceX (or not).
I wish SpaceX all the best, but I don't see anything here to get excited about - they haven't launched them yet.
No, it shouldn't. There's a million ways you could do subtitles. There are lots of different formats and there are many ways you could serve up the subtitle content that restricting it to a certain way only limits a developer.
So its OK to set standards for everything else, except for the things you don't want them to?
I have seen issues where, although rendered above the video stream, links are not clickable, and other issues where components that should be rendered above are infact rendered below the stream.
I haven't experienced any of these issues and it sounds like your z-index is the problem.
Z-indexes are not the cause of the issues I am seeing (why should anything in a container div be in a different z-index to its parent when not set explicitly?)
Did you account for all browsers when you wrote the video tags?
Thats the issue - we have 5 established web browsers today (Opera, Safari, Chrome, Firefox and IE), 4 of which have professed a desire to work closely toward a standard - in this day and age, why should there have to be accommodations made for different browsers when targetting a brand new standard? If the browsers can implement it differently enough that you have to code to the browser rather than the standard, the standard is not strict enough.
It ties you down to one javascript framework - its really something that should be provided by the <video> element itself, and handled by the player, not by external javascript. Having to handle subtitles externally is like having to handle the audio separately.
They need to eliminate cross browser issues with overlaying html over the video stream.
What issues?
I have seen issues where, although rendered above the video stream, links are not clickable, and other issues where components that should be rendered above are infact rendered below the stream.
Having done a fair bit with HTML5 video over the past few weeks, I can safely say that although its looking good, and I enjoyed producing HTML5 video apps, its not a flash killer yet.
They need to sort out the HTML5 subtitle standard, and someone needs to actually support it.
They need to sort out the cue points standard, and someone needs to support it. (No, events fired every X ms or so is not enough)
They need to eliminate cross browser issues with overlaying html over the video stream.
They need to enable adaptive streaming.
They need to do a lot more work, but what has been done so far is very nice.
This is actually an improvement over what they announced earlier this year. When they unveiled iOS4, they said no one could collect that data. They've loosened that.
An improvement in shit over bullshit is still shit.
The same goes for Elite - fantastic game, first sequel was decent, second sequel was terrible and nothing for 15 years:( I would love a modern Elite (EVE is almost it, but I would like something that doesn't tether me to the internet).
The fact that it is 'their freaking store' is precisely the issue here - if iAd is allowed better access and terms than third party networks, then Apple is on shaky ground.
Your Nike/Adidas example is poor, since you can always go elsewhere to buy footware - you are limited to Apples store in this case.
In the UK the test applied is whether the advertised fact is true for the average person - and looking around on the train I can see that most people texting or browsing (and I can see three iPhones from here, plus about 4 others) are holding their phones at about nipple height. That may or may not pass the 'average person' test.
Anti-trust law, yes they need to be a 'monopoly', but anti-competitive law, no they do not. And Apple has been very anti-competitive on several fronts.
I did some government biding some time ago. It was such a joke, they would request bids for "150 Dell Latitude D830's to be delivered over a 12 month period" The thing was, Dell was bidding and the government would through out anything that was not a Dell Latitude D830. So No comparable systems and no way to beat Dell's bid. As far as I was concerned it was a rigged bid and most of them went that way.
So, For the government to request bids on "Windows Vista" and to ignore all other desktop OS's is the same thing as far as I am concerned.
I disagree - there is the probability that there already exists an infrastructure built around Windows desktops, including systems management and applications. In such a case, does it really make sense to consider bids for an alternative desktop OS, which would require extra unbudgeted expenditure in order to integrate into the existing infrastructure (or replace the existing infrastructure altogether, with all the costs associated with that)?
With regard to the Dell example, I regularly got Dell equipment cheaper from a Dell reseller than from Dell direct (and we were placing orders for $90 - $150K of equipment), but I understand your example - however, a different laptop is not exactly comparable to having to swap an entire OS and its ecosystem.
Except that that series of events does not collaborate your earlier post - the bundling of the "Microsoft Exchange/Messaging" client did not support the release of the later "Microsoft Exchange" server as you still needed "Microsoft Outlook" to use its features, so the two events are not linked as you suggested they were.
Your point is valid, except for the fact that Outlook was never bundled with Windows, Outlook Express was - using OE with Exchange gained you nothing of note, you needed the (non-bundled) Outlook to work with Exchanges enterprise features.
You are both idiots. Microsoft was a convicted Monopolist
You can add yourself to the idiot list - there is no such thing as a 'convicted monopolist', as the monopoly law is civil law and does not deal in convictions. Microsoft was found to be a monopolist, and was found to have abused that monopoly, and a civil judgement was handed down on that basis - there was no criminal conviction.
'Convicted monopolist' is simply a Slashdot marketing term.
I don't know if they have changed anything since, but my experiences with the first version of Numbers on a Core Duo Macbook Pro were appalling - only a few dozen data points set into three graphs caused the entire machine to crawl whenever you did anything in Calc. By contrast, Office 2004 running under Rosetta worked beautifully - it was quick and responsive, the graphs were actually clearer as well.
I think its amazing that someone isn't allowed to dislike something these days without someone else insulting them. If Mozilla truly gave a shit about those that dislike the Awesome Bar, they would give us a method to turn it off. They haven't, so whats anal retentive about disliking it?
Slashdot Mirror
To all who consider this, a very valid question in my opinion, a troll - get out doors sometime, because you need a life outside of all your Apple insta-defending.
Its getting seriously annoying that you cannot ask a seemingly innocent question on Slashdot these days without corporate whores and fanbois lining up to mod you down at the mere hint of any negativity in your post. Go fuck yourselves.
The iPad's specs are better then any currently available iPhone or iPod touch, so I'm not sure what you're saying. Should Apple have released a less capable iPhone 4? If you're asking why they aren't releasing iOS 4 for the iPad today, yeah that's a decent question.
The iPad was first released a little over two months ago, while the iPhone 3GS was released a year ago - the iPhone 4 will be with us in the next few days.
With that in mind, the iPad has the same amount of ram and the same quality screen as the previous generation of iPhone and iPod Touch, despite being released ten months later, and only two or so months before the new iPhone version. Why?
The screen I could live without, but doubling the ram would have been extremely handy - there have already been suggestions that the iMovie app will not run on the iPad because of ram restrictions.
Why has Apple created a disparity between its two newest products, released only a couple of months apart? The iPhone 4 will have twice as much ram as the iPad, a better screen and now a newer OS - why is the iPad looking like the second rate child here?
Don't get me wrong, I have an iPad and I love it, but I am baffled as to why Apple once again puts noses out of shape by making such an obvious difference in spec between the two products. Its almost as tho the iPad is the last of the previous generation, rather than the current generation.
It's funny to see how Slashdot was was railing against MS about Trusted Computing, DRM and Palladium. Now Apple implements them in a shiny box and not only there's not a peep about the DRM in the iDevices but many Slashdot posters fawn all over and write long justifications about how it is good. I guess Trusted Computing was meant to come wrapped in a pretty box for the masses to not notice it. Now even MS is following in the same footsteps with Windows Phone 7 Series. Sad.
Are we visiting the same Slashdot? There is lots of outcry here about the DRM and walled garden that is the Apple mobile platform, just hang around in this story for another twenty minutes or so and you will see plenty of comments about it.
There were plenty of nuclear submarines deployed for the invasion of Iraq - they were one of the central platforms for cruise missile launches.
Once they have proven their launcher with a valid success rate, then their launch costs are valid - until then, they are just a newcomer touting cheaper rates on an unproven platform. They may fail on the next 10 launches, and spend a lot more money finding out what the issues are.
Unless Iridiums technology plans have changed, their satellites are designed for LEO and not GEO, which is why they have so many of them.
When it comes to cost, you have to enter the market at below the market rates if you are to carve yourself a niche - Boeing, Lockheed and others have an established success rate, while SpaceX does not. Its typically difficult to insure a satellite, so Iridium have to take the chance that SpaceX can give them a good launch success rate, when they can go to Boeing et al for an established launcher (although still not guaranteed, but having a proven track record is better than not in these things). The trade off to that chance is a supremely low cost to the launches, which will essentially create a track record for SpaceX (or not).
I wish SpaceX all the best, but I don't see anything here to get excited about - they haven't launched them yet.
Boeing, Lockheed and other private companies already handle deals like these regularly - SpaceX is just a new entrant into the market.
No, it shouldn't. There's a million ways you could do subtitles. There are lots of different formats and there are many ways you could serve up the subtitle content that restricting it to a certain way only limits a developer.
So its OK to set standards for everything else, except for the things you don't want them to?
I have seen issues where, although rendered above the video stream, links are not clickable, and other issues where components that should be rendered above are infact rendered below the stream.
I haven't experienced any of these issues and it sounds like your z-index is the problem.
Z-indexes are not the cause of the issues I am seeing (why should anything in a container div be in a different z-index to its parent when not set explicitly?)
did you set your z-indexes properly?
Yes
Did you account for all browsers when you wrote the video tags?
Thats the issue - we have 5 established web browsers today (Opera, Safari, Chrome, Firefox and IE), 4 of which have professed a desire to work closely toward a standard - in this day and age, why should there have to be accommodations made for different browsers when targetting a brand new standard? If the browsers can implement it differently enough that you have to code to the browser rather than the standard, the standard is not strict enough.
What's wrong with the jquery srt plugin?
It ties you down to one javascript framework - its really something that should be provided by the <video> element itself, and handled by the player, not by external javascript. Having to handle subtitles externally is like having to handle the audio separately.
What issues?
I have seen issues where, although rendered above the video stream, links are not clickable, and other issues where components that should be rendered above are infact rendered below the stream.
Having done a fair bit with HTML5 video over the past few weeks, I can safely say that although its looking good, and I enjoyed producing HTML5 video apps, its not a flash killer yet.
They need to sort out the HTML5 subtitle standard, and someone needs to actually support it.
They need to sort out the cue points standard, and someone needs to support it. (No, events fired every X ms or so is not enough)
They need to eliminate cross browser issues with overlaying html over the video stream.
They need to enable adaptive streaming.
They need to do a lot more work, but what has been done so far is very nice.
This is actually an improvement over what they announced earlier this year. When they unveiled iOS4, they said no one could collect that data. They've loosened that.
An improvement in shit over bullshit is still shit.
The same goes for Elite - fantastic game, first sequel was decent, second sequel was terrible and nothing for 15 years :( I would love a modern Elite (EVE is almost it, but I would like something that doesn't tether me to the internet).
Sure, if you do it yourself - if you get someone else to do it for you, why shouldn't they charge?
The fact that it is 'their freaking store' is precisely the issue here - if iAd is allowed better access and terms than third party networks, then Apple is on shaky ground.
Your Nike/Adidas example is poor, since you can always go elsewhere to buy footware - you are limited to Apples store in this case.
In the UK the test applied is whether the advertised fact is true for the average person - and looking around on the train I can see that most people texting or browsing (and I can see three iPhones from here, plus about 4 others) are holding their phones at about nipple height. That may or may not pass the 'average person' test.
Anti-trust law, yes they need to be a 'monopoly', but anti-competitive law, no they do not. And Apple has been very anti-competitive on several fronts.
So every time the government needs to replace a number of desktops, it also has to consider replacing the entire IT infrastructure?
I did some government biding some time ago. It was such a joke, they would request bids for "150 Dell Latitude D830's to be delivered over a 12 month period" The thing was, Dell was bidding and the government would through out anything that was not a Dell Latitude D830. So No comparable systems and no way to beat Dell's bid. As far as I was concerned it was a rigged bid and most of them went that way.
So, For the government to request bids on "Windows Vista" and to ignore all other desktop OS's is the same thing as far as I am concerned.
I disagree - there is the probability that there already exists an infrastructure built around Windows desktops, including systems management and applications. In such a case, does it really make sense to consider bids for an alternative desktop OS, which would require extra unbudgeted expenditure in order to integrate into the existing infrastructure (or replace the existing infrastructure altogether, with all the costs associated with that)?
With regard to the Dell example, I regularly got Dell equipment cheaper from a Dell reseller than from Dell direct (and we were placing orders for $90 - $150K of equipment), but I understand your example - however, a different laptop is not exactly comparable to having to swap an entire OS and its ecosystem.
Except that that series of events does not collaborate your earlier post - the bundling of the "Microsoft Exchange/Messaging" client did not support the release of the later "Microsoft Exchange" server as you still needed "Microsoft Outlook" to use its features, so the two events are not linked as you suggested they were.
Your point is valid, except for the fact that Outlook was never bundled with Windows, Outlook Express was - using OE with Exchange gained you nothing of note, you needed the (non-bundled) Outlook to work with Exchanges enterprise features.
You are both idiots. Microsoft was a convicted Monopolist
You can add yourself to the idiot list - there is no such thing as a 'convicted monopolist', as the monopoly law is civil law and does not deal in convictions. Microsoft was found to be a monopolist, and was found to have abused that monopoly, and a civil judgement was handed down on that basis - there was no criminal conviction.
'Convicted monopolist' is simply a Slashdot marketing term.
I don't know if they have changed anything since, but my experiences with the first version of Numbers on a Core Duo Macbook Pro were appalling - only a few dozen data points set into three graphs caused the entire machine to crawl whenever you did anything in Calc. By contrast, Office 2004 running under Rosetta worked beautifully - it was quick and responsive, the graphs were actually clearer as well.
I think its amazing that someone isn't allowed to dislike something these days without someone else insulting them. If Mozilla truly gave a shit about those that dislike the Awesome Bar, they would give us a method to turn it off. They haven't, so whats anal retentive about disliking it?