If you use a real OS and a real file sharing protocol(not MS garbage) then you won't have any problems at all. I use AFP(though NFS works equally as well) to view HD media over wifi and works perfectly. Ditch windows and you will have 0 problems.(The previous sentence pretty much works in any context)
Yes. Although at the moment I'm running a Debian box as the server, and an XP client in the livingroom running Media Player Classic. Works great. I used to have Windows 2000 Advanced Server on the same hardware (it's an old 1.4 Ghz Athlon system) and it had difficulty maintaining a single video stream without stuttering. Now I'll have a couple of laptops and my media PC all playing different AVI files off the server (the media system wired, the laptops wireless) and they play smooth as silk. The kicker really is the server. I've had Linux on the media system too, playing with Xine. That also worked extremely well, especially over NFS.
I spent a couple hundred bucks on Newegg, put together a MicroATX box in a home theater case (looks like a DVD player, virtually silent.) I've run Linux on it and played videos with Xine, and I've had XP on there with the Mega Codec Pack's Media Player Classic. Plays everything I've ever thrown at it, including Quicktime videos (hell, it even plays Real's media, as if anyone still uses it.) I used a $35 ATI Radeon with HDMI out, and plugged it into a 65" Samsung DLP TV. Plays everything in 1080p, smooth as silk. Better even than the upsampling Samsung DVD player I bought with the TV.
e might note that a few other countries have contributed to the infrastructure and software that make up the Internet. True, it started life with roughly 100% US DoD funding. But the Brits got involved fairly early on, as did the Scandinavians.
The original design of TCP/IP itself had key contributors from other countries, one gentleman from France (whose name I would have to Google but I'm too tired to bother) was a crucial part of that effort. I have never claimed that engineers and scientists from other nations didn't contribute to the original development of the Internet as we know it. The reality is, however, that we spent the lion's share of resources in developing and promoting it, and as a consequence still control critical parts of it. Nothing is stopping any other country from investing in their own international connectivity either: but we put it there and we let everyone use it, so why should they bother.
It's interesting that the US corporate world can control so much of the Internet's international backbone, while providing such generally crappy service to local customers.
Well, this is, to me, an example of why your original comment about the Internet moving into the hands of private corporations and out of the hands of government is, in my opinion, a very bad idea. The reason that we have relatively crappy service here involves a lot of factors (the sheer size of the U.S., population distribution, etc.) but the primary reason is a lack of regulation, a lack of proper government oversight. See, under the old Communications Act of 1934, the telephone company (i.e. American Telephone & Telegraph, aka AT&T) was granted a nationwide monopoly on phone service. It was recognized by Congress, at the time, that a private-sector organization would be more efficient at delivering such services than any government-run entity. However, in exchange for that monopoly, AT&T was required to provide universal coverage throughout the entire continental United States, and was subject to a substantial regulatory burden. They were also immunized from legal responsibility for any illegal activity that went through their equipment. Thus was formed the so-called "common carrier".
Virtually all modern Internet Service Providers in the U.S. (even the old telcos, who are still common carriers for the purposes of voice service) are not common carriers when it comes to data. About twenty-odd years ago they received an "exemption" from this status, when providing data service. So, they are exempt from the legal requirement to provide good service, to provide service to all, and to avoid cherry-picking. Consequently our service sucks, relative to many other nations.
The reality is that, as much as government can suck (and I don't care what country you're in) ultimately we need the institution. The principle of laissez-faire never did work in the U.S., and now that our government is under undue influence by our major corporate powers, the problem is orders of magnitude worse that it has ever been before.
Majority built and maintaned by nonUSA countries. Most of it in toto is corporations with no government affiliation. And HTML was invented in Europe, so if you want to get all pissy about who made what, try without HTML, asshole.
Touchy, bitch. You're also wrong. A lot of countries are bothered by the fact that so much of their traffic is routed through the United States. We have a lot of infrastructure here. And, if you'd bothered to understand what we're talking about, a lot of the international fiber was laid by U.S. corporations. The value of the Internet is largely based upon the fact that it is an international phenomenon: without the connectivity provided by the United States it wouldn't be anywhere so valuable to you. So again, my point is valid: if you don't want your traffic going through the U.S. or U.S.-controlled assets... build your own and stop complaining.
Furthermore, if you think that we simply aren't capable of coming up with something similar in function to HTML (and I wish we had, HTML as a programming "language" is a joke and really, you shouldn't remind the world that it was Europe that foisted that abomination upon us) you're very sadly mistaken. If HTML was so great, it wouldn't have been continually "extended" to the point where it's practically obsolete.
And as one final point, the Internet has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with HTML. The only purpose of the Internet is to schlep packets from here to there. HTML is just one of a set of protocols that define the World Wide Web, which is just a thin layer pasted onto the underlying Internet. An Internet which would function quite well without it. Truly, it boggles the mind how little people understand how much goes on in the global network that has absolutely nothing to do with the Web, that little bit of the Internet that they can see.
and they do a decent job of separating editorial and news.
Yes and that is one of the crucial distinctions between true journalism, and the more modern version which largely devolved into "molding public opinion." I can enjoy a good opinion piece: sometimes another person's perspective can be very useful and interesting. However, that's true only if such reporting is clearly labeled as opinion. I absolutely hate when some so-called journalist tries to pass off his own take on a particular subject as fact. Generally that's called "lying".
True. And I should have been more clear: I read my news. A good part of why I prefer that is because I can sit back, mull over what I just read, read it again if I want, take my time and decide if I agree with it... or not. Television and radio just try to forcefeed you information, and then switch to another topic before you've had a chance to realize you were just sold a bill of goods.
Me too, as long as I'm the only one that has it. Don't worry though... I'd never actually use the thing. I just want to put it on the mantelpiece so I can admire it from time to time.
To the Americans, the Soviets were cold, unfeeling monsters until a little American girl wrote a letter to the Russian Prime Minister and showed that Russians were people too.
I think some stupid, bigoted people thought that, but I lived through a couple decades of the Cold War, and I don't recall many Americans being terrified of individual Russian immigrants (not like today, where we're scared absolutely shitless of anyone who looks even vaguely Middle Eastern.) What we believed was that the Russian government was composed of cold, unfeeling monsters. And we weren't far off the mark there. Of course, to be fair, similar psychoses exist in our government(s). I think the political process selects for certain rather undesirable personality traits.
Journalism used to be about taking risks to bring critical public interest information to everyone
.
The whole point of the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press clause was to remove much of that risk, because the Founders believed that a well-informed public would make a good check on government.
It worked well, until we stopped caring about being well-informed.
Not exactly. Instead, US politicians believe that US laws apply everywhere else in the world, whenever it's convenient for them.
I have news for you. That's been the case with every economic superpower since the Persian Empire, Alexander the Great, and the Romans went on their annexation sprees. We're no better than anyone else in that regard, and what irritates me is that you think we should be for some reason. Don't like it? Build your own economic empire, build your own massive Navy to project power around the world, and maybe you'll get to do that too. Otherwise, shut the hell up. It's the way the world works, has always worked, and until we find another way, it's how it will continue to work. And no, American doesn't go into other countries and enforce our laws: we simply use the economic carrot-and-stick to make you change your laws to suit us, so in that sense, some variant of U.S. law (and not the good parts either) is applying around the world.
But that's your fault.
The difference between the U.S. and pretty much every previous "empire" is that we're just not interested in empire-building. You should be grateful that when our military was at its Cold War peak we didn't just go all Soviet on your ass. But we didn't, and the only reason you're complaining that "U.S. politicians believe" is because your own politicians are piss-ant weaklings who haven't got the balls to tell our politicians to go fuck themselves. Tell your leaders to grow a pair and stand up for you... we won't bomb you or occupy your capital. Probably we won't.
I'd suggest that if you give anyone the power, they will abuse it. Just as those ancient Scandinavians took advantage of their early access to the seas, so might moderns do with complete power over the internet. They're Scandinavian, true, but they're still human and still subject to human nature.
Well, the reason the U.S. is a reasonably good steward at this point (besides the fact that we built and maintain so much of it, which is what pisses a lot of people off. That's too bad... they're welcome to make a similar investment if they want) is that we're so economically dependent upon the thing. We don't dare switch it off, don't dare get too heavy-handed with it. That simply would not be the case with any nation that isn't in a similar bind.
The Internet might be a better place if this problem were fixed.
It'll get "fixed" when the countries that are complaining about that stop expecting the U.S. to make them a gift of those assets, and start spending the money to build out their own. But they'd rather we keep footing the bill. It's just easier that way, plus which they get to complain continuously and publicly, which is all it takes to make most politicians happy anyway, no matter what country you're from.
Of course, the corporate world is slowly becoming a truly international culture that is independent of mere government
Yes and no. On the manufacturing side, you're correct (well, if "truly international" means "China", that is.) When it comes to strategic assets, not so much.
The Internet might be a better place if this problem were fixed.
Maybe. Maybe not. Given the dependence our economy, and that of our trading partners, has on the Internet the odds of the U.S. government ever turning it off, other than in a declared war, are pretty remote. It would cost just too many billions, and too many of our allies would get hurt in the process. I know it's popular to rag on the U.S. all day long, but again... all of this talk about what the U.S. government could or would do is just talk. And who would you want running the backbone? A consortium comprised of China, Russia and North Korea? Who? It won't be Sweden or Norway, it'll be one of the big boys who takes the reins if we let go.
and that's why the best news program on tv is a fucking comedy show, they don't hide it
Yes. It's also why, as an American myself, I get news about my own country from foreign sources. Generally Canada and the BBC, for the most part. "Freedom of the Press" has been re-interpreted to mean "we have the freedom to say whatever the FUCK we want and call it 'news' and you can't do a God damned thing about it, you sheep.'" And yes, it does piss me off that I get more reasoned, more accurate, more truthful information about my own country's political processes from news organizations in other nations. Yes, Mr. Murdoch, I'm talking about you, and those like you.
Might as well just rescind the Freedom of the Press clause in the First Amendment. Not sure it's doing much good nowadays anyway, and so far as I'm concerned if you're just going to get up on that soundstage, in front of those cameras, and lie to me, you don't deserve the protections that Amendment affords you.
Some styles just ship better. IPAs for instance were specifically designed to withstand transport. A subtle flavor profile with low ABV like a Pilsner lager probably responds very differently to abuse and age.
I have no idea what you just said but it sounded great.
That means there's libre-free software and a service provided by a non-distro company which is, for selected distros, gratis-free. For now.
I like your Latin-based distinction of "free" better than the free-as-in-beer v.s. free-as-in-speech method.
I'll have to remember it for the next time I give a speech on OSS at the Roman senate.
Mods, he's not trolling or insulting your precious open source. Geez.
Slashdot Mirror
If you use a real OS and a real file sharing protocol(not MS garbage) then you won't have any problems at all. I use AFP(though NFS works equally as well) to view HD media over wifi and works perfectly. Ditch windows and you will have 0 problems.(The previous sentence pretty much works in any context)
Yes. Although at the moment I'm running a Debian box as the server, and an XP client in the livingroom running Media Player Classic. Works great. I used to have Windows 2000 Advanced Server on the same hardware (it's an old 1.4 Ghz Athlon system) and it had difficulty maintaining a single video stream without stuttering. Now I'll have a couple of laptops and my media PC all playing different AVI files off the server (the media system wired, the laptops wireless) and they play smooth as silk. The kicker really is the server. I've had Linux on the media system too, playing with Xine. That also worked extremely well, especially over NFS.
MythTV, do all the processing on the backend server and have a lightweight (quiet) frontend it should bolt onto your existing ubuntu server
Question: my server is running Debian Lenny. Can I run the backend on that?
I spent a couple hundred bucks on Newegg, put together a MicroATX box in a home theater case (looks like a DVD player, virtually silent.) I've run Linux on it and played videos with Xine, and I've had XP on there with the Mega Codec Pack's Media Player Classic. Plays everything I've ever thrown at it, including Quicktime videos (hell, it even plays Real's media, as if anyone still uses it.) I used a $35 ATI Radeon with HDMI out, and plugged it into a 65" Samsung DLP TV. Plays everything in 1080p, smooth as silk. Better even than the upsampling Samsung DVD player I bought with the TV.
I've stopped using anything that has a WD disk, they tend to fail too often, but not as bad as Maxtor.
I've had the opposite experience with WD, rarely had a failure. Ditto on Maxtor through.
e might note that a few other countries have contributed to the infrastructure and software that make up the Internet. True, it started life with roughly 100% US DoD funding. But the Brits got involved fairly early on, as did the Scandinavians.
The original design of TCP/IP itself had key contributors from other countries, one gentleman from France (whose name I would have to Google but I'm too tired to bother) was a crucial part of that effort. I have never claimed that engineers and scientists from other nations didn't contribute to the original development of the Internet as we know it. The reality is, however, that we spent the lion's share of resources in developing and promoting it, and as a consequence still control critical parts of it. Nothing is stopping any other country from investing in their own international connectivity either: but we put it there and we let everyone use it, so why should they bother.
It's interesting that the US corporate world can control so much of the Internet's international backbone, while providing such generally crappy service to local customers.
Well, this is, to me, an example of why your original comment about the Internet moving into the hands of private corporations and out of the hands of government is, in my opinion, a very bad idea. The reason that we have relatively crappy service here involves a lot of factors (the sheer size of the U.S., population distribution, etc.) but the primary reason is a lack of regulation, a lack of proper government oversight. See, under the old Communications Act of 1934, the telephone company (i.e. American Telephone & Telegraph, aka AT&T) was granted a nationwide monopoly on phone service. It was recognized by Congress, at the time, that a private-sector organization would be more efficient at delivering such services than any government-run entity. However, in exchange for that monopoly, AT&T was required to provide universal coverage throughout the entire continental United States, and was subject to a substantial regulatory burden. They were also immunized from legal responsibility for any illegal activity that went through their equipment. Thus was formed the so-called "common carrier".
Virtually all modern Internet Service Providers in the U.S. (even the old telcos, who are still common carriers for the purposes of voice service) are not common carriers when it comes to data. About twenty-odd years ago they received an "exemption" from this status, when providing data service. So, they are exempt from the legal requirement to provide good service, to provide service to all, and to avoid cherry-picking. Consequently our service sucks, relative to many other nations.
The reality is that, as much as government can suck (and I don't care what country you're in) ultimately we need the institution. The principle of laissez-faire never did work in the U.S., and now that our government is under undue influence by our major corporate powers, the problem is orders of magnitude worse that it has ever been before.
Majority built and maintaned by nonUSA countries. Most of it in toto is corporations with no government affiliation. And HTML was invented in Europe, so if you want to get all pissy about who made what, try without HTML, asshole.
Touchy, bitch. You're also wrong. A lot of countries are bothered by the fact that so much of their traffic is routed through the United States. We have a lot of infrastructure here. And, if you'd bothered to understand what we're talking about, a lot of the international fiber was laid by U.S. corporations. The value of the Internet is largely based upon the fact that it is an international phenomenon: without the connectivity provided by the United States it wouldn't be anywhere so valuable to you. So again, my point is valid: if you don't want your traffic going through the U.S. or U.S.-controlled assets ... build your own and stop complaining.
Furthermore, if you think that we simply aren't capable of coming up with something similar in function to HTML (and I wish we had, HTML as a programming "language" is a joke and really, you shouldn't remind the world that it was Europe that foisted that abomination upon us) you're very sadly mistaken. If HTML was so great, it wouldn't have been continually "extended" to the point where it's practically obsolete.
And as one final point, the Internet has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with HTML. The only purpose of the Internet is to schlep packets from here to there. HTML is just one of a set of protocols that define the World Wide Web, which is just a thin layer pasted onto the underlying Internet. An Internet which would function quite well without it. Truly, it boggles the mind how little people understand how much goes on in the global network that has absolutely nothing to do with the Web, that little bit of the Internet that they can see.
Your argument is silly.
I made no argument. Look, don't try to ruin my little attempt at humor by trying to actually analyze it.
and they do a decent job of separating editorial and news.
Yes and that is one of the crucial distinctions between true journalism, and the more modern version which largely devolved into "molding public opinion." I can enjoy a good opinion piece: sometimes another person's perspective can be very useful and interesting. However, that's true only if such reporting is clearly labeled as opinion. I absolutely hate when some so-called journalist tries to pass off his own take on a particular subject as fact. Generally that's called "lying".
Bravo! Well said!
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.
Most decent journalism is in print.
True. And I should have been more clear: I read my news. A good part of why I prefer that is because I can sit back, mull over what I just read, read it again if I want, take my time and decide if I agree with it ... or not. Television and radio just try to forcefeed you information, and then switch to another topic before you've had a chance to realize you were just sold a bill of goods.
I most definitely want an Internet kill switch
Me too, as long as I'm the only one that has it. Don't worry though ... I'd never actually use the thing. I just want to put it on the mantelpiece so I can admire it from time to time.
What! This cannot be! Surely the country's most handsome politicians wouldn't fail so thoroughly at a test of practical skill?
Why not? They fail so thoroughly at everything else! :p
Flamebait? It's too bad that the truth doesn't provide an absolute defense against Troll and Flamebait mods.
Wasn't that how it was with the Cold War?
To the Americans, the Soviets were cold, unfeeling monsters until a little American girl wrote a letter to the Russian Prime Minister and showed that Russians were people too.
I think some stupid, bigoted people thought that, but I lived through a couple decades of the Cold War, and I don't recall many Americans being terrified of individual Russian immigrants (not like today, where we're scared absolutely shitless of anyone who looks even vaguely Middle Eastern.) What we believed was that the Russian government was composed of cold, unfeeling monsters. And we weren't far off the mark there. Of course, to be fair, similar psychoses exist in our government(s). I think the political process selects for certain rather undesirable personality traits.
What differentitates someone who investigates for The Daily Rag from someone who investigates and publishes on his personal blog?
It's very simple, you see, a real journalist has this thing called a "Press Pass" that distinguishes him from the lay public and mere "bloggers".
Journalism used to be about taking risks to bring critical public interest information to everyone
. The whole point of the First Amendment's Freedom of the Press clause was to remove much of that risk, because the Founders believed that a well-informed public would make a good check on government.
It worked well, until we stopped caring about being well-informed.
Not exactly. Instead, US politicians believe that US laws apply everywhere else in the world, whenever it's convenient for them.
I have news for you. That's been the case with every economic superpower since the Persian Empire, Alexander the Great, and the Romans went on their annexation sprees. We're no better than anyone else in that regard, and what irritates me is that you think we should be for some reason. Don't like it? Build your own economic empire, build your own massive Navy to project power around the world, and maybe you'll get to do that too. Otherwise, shut the hell up. It's the way the world works, has always worked, and until we find another way, it's how it will continue to work. And no, American doesn't go into other countries and enforce our laws: we simply use the economic carrot-and-stick to make you change your laws to suit us, so in that sense, some variant of U.S. law (and not the good parts either) is applying around the world.
... we won't bomb you or occupy your capital. Probably we won't.
But that's your fault.
The difference between the U.S. and pretty much every previous "empire" is that we're just not interested in empire-building. You should be grateful that when our military was at its Cold War peak we didn't just go all Soviet on your ass. But we didn't, and the only reason you're complaining that "U.S. politicians believe" is because your own politicians are piss-ant weaklings who haven't got the balls to tell our politicians to go fuck themselves. Tell your leaders to grow a pair and stand up for you
But that's your problem.
Why Scandinavians, per se?
I'd suggest that if you give anyone the power, they will abuse it. Just as those ancient Scandinavians took advantage of their early access to the seas, so might moderns do with complete power over the internet. They're Scandinavian, true, but they're still human and still subject to human nature.
Well, the reason the U.S. is a reasonably good steward at this point (besides the fact that we built and maintain so much of it, which is what pisses a lot of people off. That's too bad ... they're welcome to make a similar investment if they want) is that we're so economically dependent upon the thing. We don't dare switch it off, don't dare get too heavy-handed with it. That simply would not be the case with any nation that isn't in a similar bind.
The Internet might be a better place if this problem were fixed.
It'll get "fixed" when the countries that are complaining about that stop expecting the U.S. to make them a gift of those assets, and start spending the money to build out their own. But they'd rather we keep footing the bill. It's just easier that way, plus which they get to complain continuously and publicly, which is all it takes to make most politicians happy anyway, no matter what country you're from.
Of course, the corporate world is slowly becoming a truly international culture that is independent of mere government
Yes and no. On the manufacturing side, you're correct (well, if "truly international" means "China", that is.) When it comes to strategic assets, not so much.
The Internet might be a better place if this problem were fixed.
Maybe. Maybe not. Given the dependence our economy, and that of our trading partners, has on the Internet the odds of the U.S. government ever turning it off, other than in a declared war, are pretty remote. It would cost just too many billions, and too many of our allies would get hurt in the process. I know it's popular to rag on the U.S. all day long, but again ... all of this talk about what the U.S. government could or would do is just talk. And who would you want running the backbone? A consortium comprised of China, Russia and North Korea? Who? It won't be Sweden or Norway, it'll be one of the big boys who takes the reins if we let go.
and that's why the best news program on tv is a fucking comedy show, they don't hide it
Yes. It's also why, as an American myself, I get news about my own country from foreign sources. Generally Canada and the BBC, for the most part. "Freedom of the Press" has been re-interpreted to mean "we have the freedom to say whatever the FUCK we want and call it 'news' and you can't do a God damned thing about it, you sheep.'" And yes, it does piss me off that I get more reasoned, more accurate, more truthful information about my own country's political processes from news organizations in other nations. Yes, Mr. Murdoch, I'm talking about you, and those like you.
Might as well just rescind the Freedom of the Press clause in the First Amendment. Not sure it's doing much good nowadays anyway, and so far as I'm concerned if you're just going to get up on that soundstage, in front of those cameras, and lie to me, you don't deserve the protections that Amendment affords you.
When I was there, I learned that Pilsner Urquell is brewed to 12%, and then watered down to 3.1%.
Also note that Budweis is also a Czech town. So aren't they really the ones to blame for lame beers?
Maybe ... but I'd still like to get my hands on a few cases before they "just add water."
Some styles just ship better. IPAs for instance were specifically designed to withstand transport. A subtle flavor profile with low ABV like a Pilsner lager probably responds very differently to abuse and age.
I have no idea what you just said but it sounded great.
To the average slashdotter, there is no distinction there.
What? It runs Linux?
Have you ever heard of a LISP Machine? Who says that LISP code is not in the kernel?
Personally, I've always thought they should have called it "Bogart".
Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Semper ubi sub ubi.
That means there's libre-free software and a service provided by a non-distro company which is, for selected distros, gratis-free. For now.
I like your Latin-based distinction of "free" better than the free-as-in-beer v.s. free-as-in-speech method. I'll have to remember it for the next time I give a speech on OSS at the Roman senate.
Mods, he's not trolling or insulting your precious open source. Geez.