A millisecond delay? I'm sure there's more than a millisecond, given that it only draws a frame every 16ms at best.
I'm sure he just meant it was small but perceptible.
If DualShock 3 can detect and signal to the host a button release with no detectable lag (and it does), then there's no reason Move can't do the same thing.
Motion control is more sensitive to lag. Even when you can't detect the delay before a reaction to your button press, you can tell when the on-screen character's arm swing is lagging behind yours. Or if the swing does keep up, you're going to notice if you release at one point during your swing, but your character releases later in the swing.
It sounds like the game may be doing motion prediction to keep up with where your arm will be by the time you see the frame on the TV, but that trick won't hide the lag from something they have no advance warning of, like a button release. It would have helped to tone down the graphics a bit and lock the frame rate at 60 fps, to reduce latency. Running a motion-controlled game at 30 fps is a really bad idea.
It might be outputting video with the wrong norm. Try running 'xrandr --prop' to see the output mode, and 'xrandr --output TV1 --set mode NTSC' to change it to the North American standard, or replace NTSC with PAL for the European TV standard.
Firefox does not embed IE by default. The user has to install a third-party addon to embed IE, and hardly anyone does that.
Yet you seem to be against even allowing a common API for third parties to add on codecs.
I never said that. Also, I have no idea how this is a reply to what you quoted.
IE's renderer exists on exactly one platform.
So? It's a platform with enough market share that a person could say the solution works for nearly everyone and is therefore acceptable. I just threw your own argument back at you, and you respond with special pleading.
Refusing to support native codecs is like refusing to support WebGL because the best GL implementations happen to be composed of both proprietary hardware and software.
No it isn't. The reasons I gave for not supporting native codecs simply do not apply to WebGL.
Or to make it up to the user whether or not to support that.
It already is up to the user. You're free to install any third-party modifications you want.
That's just a statement about today. Look at the qualifiers I italicized. They will change in the future.
How so?
It should be obvious what I was saying. In the future the statement could become "on some platforms Firefox supports, there is a native video API, and that native video API occasionally supports h.264"
If Linux adoption grows, the "rely on the OS" approach will cover fewer people.
So nVidia cards would become less popular among Linux users?
Yeah, probably. That's actually pretty likely. In any case, a wise decision maker does not assume that they can reliably predict the future.
Or is it that you don't think Linux will grow by vendor support, like Dell's Ubuntu, which includes codecs?
Not all vendors are necessarily going to bundle licensed codecs.
By encouraging the widespread use of H.264 now, we'd just be handing over free leverage to the patent cartel that is MPEG LA, and they will use it...
...for how long? Patents expire.
For 20 years, minimum. Or never. It keeps getting extended because they're always adding newly filed patents that they claim are essential for decoding H.264. Their list of patents for H.264 was last revised a few weeks ago. None of their lists are older than July 1st of this year. Just about two months ago. Even MPEG2, first available in 1996, is having new patents added to the pool. So the MPEG2 pool so far has a total lifespan of 34 years, and counting. And H.264 is likely to have a longer lifespan than MPEG2.
It looks to me like they already have control.
Not over Firefox. And without Firefox, they can't monopolize HTML5 video.
Out of curiosity, do you roll your own IP stack, too?
No, and that can't be done by Firefox, and it's not needed. The IP stack is already a hardened subsystem designed to handle untrusted data. Also, you're invoking the all-or-nothing fallacy.
Giving untrusted websites free reign to feed data to libraries provided by the OS
These aren't all libraries provided by the OS. You advocated loading up any arbitrary codec that happens to be on the system. And it would be a security risk regardless. A default Firefox won't pass ANY untrusted data ANY external libraries, OS-provided or otherwise. This is a security feature. It also won't launch programs to view files without prompting first. It even has countermeasures against sites tricking a user into opening a file, such as by trying to get
No, it didn't happen. I'm already aware of that addon, but it changes nothing. Firefox does not embed IE by default. The user has to install a third-party addon to embed IE, and hardly anyone does that. A website must (shock and horror!) code to open standards to support Firefox. They can't half-ass it by flipping on the IE-mode and screw over people that didn't pay a toll to a "rights holder" that didn't do any work to create the website in the first place.
and it wasn't the end of the world, there simply isn't an analogy here. There isn't a native HTML renderer API you can call out to on every platform, or a reason to do so.
No, it's a perfect analogy. There isn't a native and licensed H.264 renderer you can call out to on every platform, either. There is a reason to do so for both HTML and H.264, and it's the same bad reason in both cases: to support viewing of content that isn't in an open format or coded to open standards.
The reason that's bad is that it encourages the problem it's meant to deal with and does an incomplete job of dealing with it at that. That's a net negative.
However, on pretty much every platform Firefox supports, there is a native video API, and that native video API most likely supports h.264,
That's just a statement about today. Look at the qualifiers I italicized. They will change in the future. If Linux adoption grows, the "rely on the OS" approach will cover fewer people. By encouraging the widespread use of H.264 now, we'd just be handing over free leverage to the patent cartel that is MPEG LA, and they will use it against us later to get as much out of us as they think they can get away with.
not that it's any of Firefox's fucking business what codecs it supports.
Actually, it is, because security is Firefox's business. Giving untrusted websites free reign to load dozens of unknown external libraries and feed unchecked data to them is a very bad idea.
For all Firefox knows, I could have a Linux-only hardware-accelerated theora card -- why should Firefox get in the way by insisting it's all software-based, so Firefox can keep a stranglehold of control on it?
Firefox shouldn't get in the way and it wouldn't get in the way. Hardware accelerated decoding is a good thing. But it should actually be hardware accelerated decoding, not hardware enabled decoding. I don't want a dongle to be required for a fully functioning browser.
I've got h.264 in hardware and in two OSes on the same machine. I've also got Firefox on the same machine. And it's only fucking zealots like you that keep me from connecting the two together.
Nobody is stopping you. You even have access to the source code to make it happen. They're just not doing the job themselves, because it's a really bad idea to have that in the standard Firefox.
If Firefox can't support GPU rendering on all operating systems, then it shouldn't support it on any.
Fixed that for you. Does it still make sense?
If so, why does Firefox currently support GPU rendering? It doesn't work on all OSes -- not all OSes have drivers for modern enough GPUs to make this work.
If not, what is your argument?
No, that version doesn't make sense. Firefox supports software rendering as a fallback when GPU rendering isn't available, and both rendering methods do the same thing. Your DOM gets rasterized whether you have GPU acceleration or not.
What I'm against is licensing tech from monopolies under restrictive terms where it can't be made available to everyone,
And why not also embed the IE engine for compatibility with IE-only sites? We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. You didn't address this point. If Firefox can't support H.264 on all operating systems, then it shouldn't support it on any.
We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS.
And why not also embed the IE engine for compatibility with IE-only sites? We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. You didn't address this point. If Firefox can't support H.264 on all operating systems, then it shouldn't support it on any.
We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS.
Firefox is all about open standards. If Firefox implements H.264, then what's next? ActiveX? We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS.
Google is putting Adobe to shame. The need for GPU acceleration is much greater with Flash and the difficulty should be similar, but Google's done the work and Adobe hasn't. To quote myself from earlier:
The penguin.swf blog is just an endless stream of excuses. Adobe absolutely can accelerate YUV->RGB. It's standard practice in software development to create a special fast path for a common scenario when performance matters. They can fall back to the slow path if the swf is trying to do something incompatible with the fast path.
Anyone writing a flash-based video player would opt for the fast path and follow whatever rules are necessary. But thanks to Adobe's laziness, that option isn't available. Flash is just a dinosaur that doesn't want to evolve.
FYI, here's how to accelerate video: Flash draws the scene in layers, back to front. For alpha blending or anti-aliasing of edges, it must read the RGB value below the layer currently being drawn to blend it with the current color. This is the problem, and there's a fairly simple solution. After rendering a YUV layer, render the layers above to an RGBA surface that starts out 100% transparent. Then send the output layers (RGB below video, YUV video, RGBA above video) to the video card for final compositing. The only scenario where this wouldn't work is if the player uses filters above the video. Have you ever seen a flash-based player that uses filters?
You know, if someone thought my arguments were really wrong, made no sense - they would in fact upvote my post, so that everyone could see just how "wrong" I was.
Who does that? Do you do that?
I'd say other people are downmodding you for the same reason I'd downmod you right now if I had modpoints: you just want the party you serve to be in power, but you don't care what they do with that power. And you make stuff up to support whatever you want to claim. The quoted text is a perfect example.
DLL Hell on Linux is actually far worse than DLL hell on Windows, package management tools or not, its not a problem they can solve, again, contrary to popular belief. If you think package management tools can solve the problem then you clearly don't understand the problem.
You dispute other people's facts but offer no facts of your own. Meanwhile, your arrogant attitude is an obvious cover that's overcompensating for your complete lack of knowledge on the subject. I'll bet you congratulate yourself when nobody can tear down your argument even though you've advanced no argument to tear down in the first place. You are a troll.
I don't think 20 years is that long to wait to write something down. Is it uncommon to wait 20 years before writing one's autobiography?
It may be common to do that, but that doesn't make the practice accurate. Two decades is a long time to wait if you want any kind of accuracy, and remember, ~20 years is the shortest possible time. Everyone else waited longer. It may not be suspicious if one person waits, but the story becomes less and less probable for each witness that decides to wait a long time, and the longer they wait the less credible the story is. If I were traveling with the savior of all humankind, I think I'd have strong motivation to keep a daily journal.
We don't usually think people have forgotten all the details or are fabricating stories of their own life, even if they are telling things that happened 20 years ago.
Well, we should think that. Even eyewitness testimony taken shortly after an event can be full of inaccuracies without any intent to mislead by the witness. Memory is always a reconstruction of events based on current beliefs, not a playback of a recording from the past. A good autobiographer should interview people and collect documentation, rather than go from memory.
If you look through 1 Thessalonians (the book the link you cited lists as being the first book in the New Testament), it mentions Christians in a fairly large area. There's already an established community of Christians. This book isn't establishing a new religion, it's encouraging people who are Christians already. Given how important the resurrection is to Christianity, I don't think the Christians of the time would have bought it had Paul suddenly said "Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you these last 20 years, not only did Jesus die for us, He came back to life too!"
I don't necessarily believe the book was written in 50 AD by Paul. Just that it's the earliest possibility. So there's a lot of leeway for whoever wrote it to pretend that the book is older and falsely document the time it was supposedly written in. The book can't corroborate itself by saying Christians already existed at the time of its publication.
But what I've read and watched indicates that there were early Christians who believed in a death and resurrection of Jesus, but they believed those things happened in another realm of existence, like in Greek mythology. It was later on that Jesus was inserted into history. I recommend "The God Who Wasn't There", which I'm sure can make some points I've forgotten about entirely.
Most of the early teaching of Christianity was oral. If you notice, Paul wrote many of his epistles while he was in prison. It may be that they early Christians were too busy travelling around preaching to take the time to write down a complete account. Maybe as they decided to settle down, they also decided to write a more permanent record of the things they had been teaching most of their lives.
You could provide good excuses for a lack of evidence, but the excuse doesn't turn a lack of evidence into evidence. If I catch someone on video stealing my property, then I have evidence. If he manages to obtain or erase the video, then I no longer have evidence. The fact that I can explain the lack of a videotape doesn't corroborate my story because there would also be no videotape if the story were made up.
Today our evidence primarily deals with the question of whether these accounts have been reliably preserved and recorded by credible witnesses.
If Jesus died in 33 AD, then why was it first written about around 50 AD? How accurate can a detailed account be when it's written 20 years after the events?
And than what about the books that were written even later? How old were these people when they supposedly witnessed Jesus, and why did they write their stories down 40+ years later? Weren't they afraid of dying before they could get the word out? I think it's just far easier to falsely claim something happened 20-40 years ago than to say it just happened recently.
Evidence for one point of view has to eliminate or reduce the chance that a competing point of view is correct, otherwise it isn't evidence. The books of the New Testament are only evidence if you can remove or diminish the possibility that they weren't true first-hand accounts, and I don't think you can.
The reality is, the amount of revenue derived partially from these programmers has absolutely nothing to do with what their compensation is or should be.
The amount of revenue derived from these programmers also has absolutely nothing to do with how much money the company deserves to make, so why not split the undeserved money evenly?
If criticism equates to "hatred and intolerance", then you are hateful and intolerant for your own comment. But that's nonsense. Written criticism in an on-topic discussion just does not compare to unwanted physical confrontation, intimidation and bullying, housing and job discrimination, or the codifying of unequal treatment into the law.
Religion is false superstitious nonsense, and people die because of it. People waste their lives because of it. Decision making is garbage in, garbage out. When you base decisions on falsehoods, you make bad choices. These are all a factual claims, not opinion. You can argue that the claims are false, but to say that they are offensive in any way is to say that the truth itself might be offensive to you, and you therefore admit having a motivation to be in denial of the truth.
All you accomplish by calling a claim hateful and intolerant instead of disputing it is imply that you can't come up with a counter-argument.
Where did anybody say that PepsiCo paid money to "bypass the normal selection criteria and post bad science?"
In the slashdot summary:
[...] and many more have voiced concerns over parent company Seed's decision to include a paid blog under the nutrition category from PepsiCo.
In the first linked article, multiple times -- here's one:
They aren't going to be doing any scienceblogging — this is straight-up commercial propaganda.
In the very first reply to this story:
Translation: "Damn, how do we get away with this next time? Do you know how much money Pepsi was giving us for selling out your reputations? [...]"
In my first reply to you:
PepsiCo was paying ScienceBlogs.com to be able to post their blog there
And just about every comment in this discussion that's critical of ScienceBlogs.com. How did you miss the point so many times?
Why is it okay for one industry to be on the site, but not another?
That's a strawman. I'm saying it's OK for any industry to be there as long as they meet the standards and aren't paying to get in. PepsiCo was paying to get in. Are you seriously trying to tell me that PepsiCo would have been accepted on their own merit but just wanted to get rid of excess money?
Now, if you have documentation as to PepsiCo bribing anyone at ScienceBlogs then I and many others would like to see it
because even if the so called bribe was refused after it was disclosed, it brings into question anything posted on the site as ScienceBlogs would have zero credibility.
Wow, a momentary glimmer of understanding the issue. Hold on to that, and don't let go...
Please read the first paragraph of Wikipedia's article on ScienceBlogs. It's an invite only merit-based blog network. The whole point is to host only blogs that are good science. If PepsiCo paid money to bypass the normal selection criteria and post bad science, then that's bribery plain and simple. I shouldn't have to explain why that's bad.
The law does treat men and women differently. Only men are allowed to marry women. Women can't. And only women are allowed to marry men. Men can't.
The issue parallels segregation, but with a bizarro twist where people from each population are forbidden from intermingling with their own group instead of the other group. The notion that men and women have the same rights under a gay marriage ban makes as much sense as the "separate but equal" argument.
The actual issue is gender discrimination. A marriage is either allowed or not allowed based on the gender of the two people getting married. Though the law was motivated by a prejudice against gays, the actual law, as codified, is a law that discriminates based on gender.
Hint: if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.
I doubt you really believe that. How about pedophiles in a kindergarten?
Keeping pedophiles out of kindergarten isn't sexual discrimination. Try again.
Until Valve says anything about a Linux client, it's just rumor and speculation.
That's absurd. It's no longer just a rumor once it's been proven, regardless of where or who the proof comes from. What we have is better than an official announcement, since an announcement could be false.
We have the actual binary. Sure, it's a largely non-functional pre-alpha, but the build was frequently being updated, which indicates active development. And now the URL is an error 403 Forbidden. I'll bet the URL only works from Valve's internal IPs now, but that's just my speculation. The existence of a Linux client, however, is confirmed fact.
You have a mental schema about evil liberal conspiracies taking over the word that causes you to see it everywhere, kind of like how we can all see faces in things that aren't faces. If you want to see the world accurately, you have to kill that schema. Start by avoiding the propaganda. Your reading comprehension will improve.
Slashdot Mirror
A millisecond delay? I'm sure there's more than a millisecond, given that it only draws a frame every 16ms at best.
I'm sure he just meant it was small but perceptible.
If DualShock 3 can detect and signal to the host a button release with no detectable lag (and it does), then there's no reason Move can't do the same thing.
Motion control is more sensitive to lag. Even when you can't detect the delay before a reaction to your button press, you can tell when the on-screen character's arm swing is lagging behind yours. Or if the swing does keep up, you're going to notice if you release at one point during your swing, but your character releases later in the swing.
It sounds like the game may be doing motion prediction to keep up with where your arm will be by the time you see the frame on the TV, but that trick won't hide the lag from something they have no advance warning of, like a button release. It would have helped to tone down the graphics a bit and lock the frame rate at 60 fps, to reduce latency. Running a motion-controlled game at 30 fps is a really bad idea.
Is the state liable when people
- die after drinking 10 liters of alcohol bought from the supermarket?
No.
- die after jumping from a bridge that has a guardrail that was lower than 3m?
No.
- die after shooting themselves in the head with an officially-licensed firearm?
No.
- die after shooting themselves in the head with an unlicensed firearm?
No.
- die after being shot in the head by a mugger owning an illegal firearm?
No.
Since when is the state liable for not preventing stupid people from doing stupid things?
Any time a reasonable state regulation (such as speed limits) would have prevented said stupid people from killing an innocent third party.
It might be outputting video with the wrong norm. Try running 'xrandr --prop' to see the output mode, and 'xrandr --output TV1 --set mode NTSC' to change it to the North American standard, or replace NTSC with PAL for the European TV standard.
Firefox does not embed IE by default. The user has to install a third-party addon to embed IE, and hardly anyone does that.
Yet you seem to be against even allowing a common API for third parties to add on codecs.
I never said that. Also, I have no idea how this is a reply to what you quoted.
IE's renderer exists on exactly one platform.
So? It's a platform with enough market share that a person could say the solution works for nearly everyone and is therefore acceptable. I just threw your own argument back at you, and you respond with special pleading.
Refusing to support native codecs is like refusing to support WebGL because the best GL implementations happen to be composed of both proprietary hardware and software.
No it isn't. The reasons I gave for not supporting native codecs simply do not apply to WebGL.
Or to make it up to the user whether or not to support that.
It already is up to the user. You're free to install any third-party modifications you want.
That's just a statement about today. Look at the qualifiers I italicized. They will change in the future.
How so?
It should be obvious what I was saying. In the future the statement could become "on some platforms Firefox supports, there is a native video API, and that native video API occasionally supports h.264"
If Linux adoption grows, the "rely on the OS" approach will cover fewer people.
So nVidia cards would become less popular among Linux users?
Yeah, probably. That's actually pretty likely. In any case, a wise decision maker does not assume that they can reliably predict the future.
Or is it that you don't think Linux will grow by vendor support, like Dell's Ubuntu, which includes codecs?
Not all vendors are necessarily going to bundle licensed codecs.
By encouraging the widespread use of H.264 now, we'd just be handing over free leverage to the patent cartel that is MPEG LA, and they will use it...
...for how long? Patents expire.
For 20 years, minimum. Or never. It keeps getting extended because they're always adding newly filed patents that they claim are essential for decoding H.264. Their list of patents for H.264 was last revised a few weeks ago. None of their lists are older than July 1st of this year. Just about two months ago. Even MPEG2, first available in 1996, is having new patents added to the pool. So the MPEG2 pool so far has a total lifespan of 34 years, and counting. And H.264 is likely to have a longer lifespan than MPEG2.
It looks to me like they already have control.
Not over Firefox. And without Firefox, they can't monopolize HTML5 video.
Out of curiosity, do you roll your own IP stack, too?
No, and that can't be done by Firefox, and it's not needed. The IP stack is already a hardened subsystem designed to handle untrusted data. Also, you're invoking the all-or-nothing fallacy.
Giving untrusted websites free reign to feed data to libraries provided by the OS
These aren't all libraries provided by the OS. You advocated loading up any arbitrary codec that happens to be on the system. And it would be a security risk regardless. A default Firefox won't pass ANY untrusted data ANY external libraries, OS-provided or otherwise. This is a security feature. It also won't launch programs to view files without prompting first. It even has countermeasures against sites tricking a user into opening a file, such as by trying to get
And why not also embed the IE engine for compatibility with IE-only sites?
Aside from the fact that this has happened
No, it didn't happen. I'm already aware of that addon, but it changes nothing. Firefox does not embed IE by default. The user has to install a third-party addon to embed IE, and hardly anyone does that. A website must (shock and horror!) code to open standards to support Firefox. They can't half-ass it by flipping on the IE-mode and screw over people that didn't pay a toll to a "rights holder" that didn't do any work to create the website in the first place.
and it wasn't the end of the world, there simply isn't an analogy here. There isn't a native HTML renderer API you can call out to on every platform, or a reason to do so.
No, it's a perfect analogy. There isn't a native and licensed H.264 renderer you can call out to on every platform, either. There is a reason to do so for both HTML and H.264, and it's the same bad reason in both cases: to support viewing of content that isn't in an open format or coded to open standards.
The reason that's bad is that it encourages the problem it's meant to deal with and does an incomplete job of dealing with it at that. That's a net negative.
However, on pretty much every platform Firefox supports, there is a native video API, and that native video API most likely supports h.264,
That's just a statement about today. Look at the qualifiers I italicized. They will change in the future. If Linux adoption grows, the "rely on the OS" approach will cover fewer people. By encouraging the widespread use of H.264 now, we'd just be handing over free leverage to the patent cartel that is MPEG LA, and they will use it against us later to get as much out of us as they think they can get away with.
not that it's any of Firefox's fucking business what codecs it supports.
Actually, it is, because security is Firefox's business. Giving untrusted websites free reign to load dozens of unknown external libraries and feed unchecked data to them is a very bad idea.
For all Firefox knows, I could have a Linux-only hardware-accelerated theora card -- why should Firefox get in the way by insisting it's all software-based, so Firefox can keep a stranglehold of control on it?
Firefox shouldn't get in the way and it wouldn't get in the way. Hardware accelerated decoding is a good thing. But it should actually be hardware accelerated decoding, not hardware enabled decoding. I don't want a dongle to be required for a fully functioning browser.
I've got h.264 in hardware and in two OSes on the same machine. I've also got Firefox on the same machine. And it's only fucking zealots like you that keep me from connecting the two together.
Nobody is stopping you. You even have access to the source code to make it happen. They're just not doing the job themselves, because it's a really bad idea to have that in the standard Firefox.
If Firefox can't support GPU rendering on all operating systems, then it shouldn't support it on any.
Fixed that for you. Does it still make sense?
If so, why does Firefox currently support GPU rendering? It doesn't work on all OSes -- not all OSes have drivers for modern enough GPUs to make this work.
If not, what is your argument?
No, that version doesn't make sense. Firefox supports software rendering as a fallback when GPU rendering isn't available, and both rendering methods do the same thing. Your DOM gets rasterized whether you have GPU acceleration or not.
What I'm against is licensing tech from monopolies under restrictive terms where it can't be made available to everyone,
And why not also embed the IE engine for compatibility with IE-only sites? We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. You didn't address this point. If Firefox can't support H.264 on all operating systems, then it shouldn't support it on any.
We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS.
And why not also embed the IE engine for compatibility with IE-only sites? We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. You didn't address this point. If Firefox can't support H.264 on all operating systems, then it shouldn't support it on any.
We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS. We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS.
Firefox is all about open standards. If Firefox implements H.264, then what's next? ActiveX? We don't need to regress back to the days where websites only work if you have the "correct" OS.
Google is putting Adobe to shame. The need for GPU acceleration is much greater with Flash and the difficulty should be similar, but Google's done the work and Adobe hasn't. To quote myself from earlier:
The penguin.swf blog is just an endless stream of excuses. Adobe absolutely can accelerate YUV->RGB. It's standard practice in software development to create a special fast path for a common scenario when performance matters. They can fall back to the slow path if the swf is trying to do something incompatible with the fast path.
Anyone writing a flash-based video player would opt for the fast path and follow whatever rules are necessary. But thanks to Adobe's laziness, that option isn't available. Flash is just a dinosaur that doesn't want to evolve.
FYI, here's how to accelerate video: Flash draws the scene in layers, back to front. For alpha blending or anti-aliasing of edges, it must read the RGB value below the layer currently being drawn to blend it with the current color. This is the problem, and there's a fairly simple solution. After rendering a YUV layer, render the layers above to an RGBA surface that starts out 100% transparent. Then send the output layers (RGB below video, YUV video, RGBA above video) to the video card for final compositing. The only scenario where this wouldn't work is if the player uses filters above the video. Have you ever seen a flash-based player that uses filters?
You know, if someone thought my arguments were really wrong, made no sense - they would in fact upvote my post, so that everyone could see just how "wrong" I was.
Who does that? Do you do that?
I'd say other people are downmodding you for the same reason I'd downmod you right now if I had modpoints: you just want the party you serve to be in power, but you don't care what they do with that power. And you make stuff up to support whatever you want to claim. The quoted text is a perfect example.
DLL Hell on Linux is actually far worse than DLL hell on Windows, package management tools or not, its not a problem they can solve, again, contrary to popular belief. If you think package management tools can solve the problem then you clearly don't understand the problem.
You dispute other people's facts but offer no facts of your own. Meanwhile, your arrogant attitude is an obvious cover that's overcompensating for your complete lack of knowledge on the subject. I'll bet you congratulate yourself when nobody can tear down your argument even though you've advanced no argument to tear down in the first place. You are a troll.
Btrfs is already in Linux, an OS that is relevant and will stay relevant. The BSDs don't matter.
I don't think 20 years is that long to wait to write something down. Is it uncommon to wait 20 years before writing one's autobiography?
It may be common to do that, but that doesn't make the practice accurate. Two decades is a long time to wait if you want any kind of accuracy, and remember, ~20 years is the shortest possible time. Everyone else waited longer. It may not be suspicious if one person waits, but the story becomes less and less probable for each witness that decides to wait a long time, and the longer they wait the less credible the story is. If I were traveling with the savior of all humankind, I think I'd have strong motivation to keep a daily journal.
We don't usually think people have forgotten all the details or are fabricating stories of their own life, even if they are telling things that happened 20 years ago.
Well, we should think that. Even eyewitness testimony taken shortly after an event can be full of inaccuracies without any intent to mislead by the witness. Memory is always a reconstruction of events based on current beliefs, not a playback of a recording from the past. A good autobiographer should interview people and collect documentation, rather than go from memory.
If you look through 1 Thessalonians (the book the link you cited lists as being the first book in the New Testament), it mentions Christians in a fairly large area. There's already an established community of Christians. This book isn't establishing a new religion, it's encouraging people who are Christians already. Given how important the resurrection is to Christianity, I don't think the Christians of the time would have bought it had Paul suddenly said "Oh yeah, I forgot to tell you these last 20 years, not only did Jesus die for us, He came back to life too!"
I don't necessarily believe the book was written in 50 AD by Paul. Just that it's the earliest possibility. So there's a lot of leeway for whoever wrote it to pretend that the book is older and falsely document the time it was supposedly written in. The book can't corroborate itself by saying Christians already existed at the time of its publication.
But what I've read and watched indicates that there were early Christians who believed in a death and resurrection of Jesus, but they believed those things happened in another realm of existence, like in Greek mythology. It was later on that Jesus was inserted into history. I recommend "The God Who Wasn't There", which I'm sure can make some points I've forgotten about entirely.
Most of the early teaching of Christianity was oral. If you notice, Paul wrote many of his epistles while he was in prison. It may be that they early Christians were too busy travelling around preaching to take the time to write down a complete account. Maybe as they decided to settle down, they also decided to write a more permanent record of the things they had been teaching most of their lives.
You could provide good excuses for a lack of evidence, but the excuse doesn't turn a lack of evidence into evidence. If I catch someone on video stealing my property, then I have evidence. If he manages to obtain or erase the video, then I no longer have evidence. The fact that I can explain the lack of a videotape doesn't corroborate my story because there would also be no videotape if the story were made up.
Today our evidence primarily deals with the question of whether these accounts have been reliably preserved and recorded by credible witnesses.
If Jesus died in 33 AD, then why was it first written about around 50 AD? How accurate can a detailed account be when it's written 20 years after the events?
And than what about the books that were written even later? How old were these people when they supposedly witnessed Jesus, and why did they write their stories down 40+ years later? Weren't they afraid of dying before they could get the word out? I think it's just far easier to falsely claim something happened 20-40 years ago than to say it just happened recently.
Evidence for one point of view has to eliminate or reduce the chance that a competing point of view is correct, otherwise it isn't evidence. The books of the New Testament are only evidence if you can remove or diminish the possibility that they weren't true first-hand accounts, and I don't think you can.
You're complaining about (perceived) tribalism in response to your own tribal affiliation. Very ironic.
The reality is, the amount of revenue derived partially from these programmers has absolutely nothing to do with what their compensation is or should be.
The amount of revenue derived from these programmers also has absolutely nothing to do with how much money the company deserves to make, so why not split the undeserved money evenly?
If criticism equates to "hatred and intolerance", then you are hateful and intolerant for your own comment. But that's nonsense. Written criticism in an on-topic discussion just does not compare to unwanted physical confrontation, intimidation and bullying, housing and job discrimination, or the codifying of unequal treatment into the law.
Religion is false superstitious nonsense, and people die because of it. People waste their lives because of it. Decision making is garbage in, garbage out. When you base decisions on falsehoods, you make bad choices. These are all a factual claims, not opinion. You can argue that the claims are false, but to say that they are offensive in any way is to say that the truth itself might be offensive to you, and you therefore admit having a motivation to be in denial of the truth.
All you accomplish by calling a claim hateful and intolerant instead of disputing it is imply that you can't come up with a counter-argument.
Where did anybody say that PepsiCo paid money to "bypass the normal selection criteria and post bad science?"
In the slashdot summary:
[...] and many more have voiced concerns over parent company Seed's decision to include a paid blog under the nutrition category from PepsiCo.
In the first linked article, multiple times -- here's one:
They aren't going to be doing any scienceblogging — this is straight-up commercial propaganda.
In the very first reply to this story:
Translation: "Damn, how do we get away with this next time? Do you know how much money Pepsi was giving us for selling out your reputations? [...]"
In my first reply to you:
PepsiCo was paying ScienceBlogs.com to be able to post their blog there
And just about every comment in this discussion that's critical of ScienceBlogs.com. How did you miss the point so many times?
Why is it okay for one industry to be on the site, but not another?
That's a strawman. I'm saying it's OK for any industry to be there as long as they meet the standards and aren't paying to get in. PepsiCo was paying to get in. Are you seriously trying to tell me that PepsiCo would have been accepted on their own merit but just wanted to get rid of excess money?
Now, if you have documentation as to PepsiCo bribing anyone at ScienceBlogs then I and many others would like to see it
Citation 1
Citation 2
NOTE: You should have seen these by now...
because even if the so called bribe was refused after it was disclosed, it brings into question anything posted on the site as ScienceBlogs would have zero credibility.
Wow, a momentary glimmer of understanding the issue. Hold on to that, and don't let go...
Please read the first paragraph of Wikipedia's article on ScienceBlogs. It's an invite only merit-based blog network. The whole point is to host only blogs that are good science. If PepsiCo paid money to bypass the normal selection criteria and post bad science, then that's bribery plain and simple. I shouldn't have to explain why that's bad.
It seems that most of the rants on this story are with regard to PepsiCo being paid to post on the blog.
PepsiCo was paying ScienceBlogs.com to be able to post their blog there, not the other way around. Now does the uproar make sense to you?
The law does treat men and women differently. Only men are allowed to marry women. Women can't. And only women are allowed to marry men. Men can't.
The issue parallels segregation, but with a bizarro twist where people from each population are forbidden from intermingling with their own group instead of the other group. The notion that men and women have the same rights under a gay marriage ban makes as much sense as the "separate but equal" argument.
The actual issue is gender discrimination. A marriage is either allowed or not allowed based on the gender of the two people getting married. Though the law was motivated by a prejudice against gays, the actual law, as codified, is a law that discriminates based on gender.
Hint: if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.
I doubt you really believe that. How about pedophiles in a kindergarten?
Keeping pedophiles out of kindergarten isn't sexual discrimination. Try again.
Until Valve says anything about a Linux client, it's just rumor and speculation.
That's absurd. It's no longer just a rumor once it's been proven, regardless of where or who the proof comes from. What we have is better than an official announcement, since an announcement could be false.
We have the actual binary. Sure, it's a largely non-functional pre-alpha, but the build was frequently being updated, which indicates active development. And now the URL is an error 403 Forbidden. I'll bet the URL only works from Valve's internal IPs now, but that's just my speculation. The existence of a Linux client, however, is confirmed fact.
You have a mental schema about evil liberal conspiracies taking over the word that causes you to see it everywhere, kind of like how we can all see faces in things that aren't faces. If you want to see the world accurately, you have to kill that schema. Start by avoiding the propaganda. Your reading comprehension will improve.