Right now the BBC serves H.264 streams via flash and it has pretty lousy performance (Flash) or pretty awesome performance (via the same stream in XBMC). If they want to shed Flash entirely and still serve a large proportion of the web then a limited amount of content protection is almost inevitable because the content producers (ie, not the BBC but the people who own some of the shows they broadcast) demand it.
Sure, ideally there would be no content protection at all (it really doesn't affect the free distribution of the content at all) but right now that is just not a reality.
I would love BBC iPlayer to be able to serve H.264 with HTML5 (it already does to iPhone user agent strings) since it would free me from the flash performance hog that makes HD streams stutter even on a powerful desktop machine. It won't happen if a sizeable portion of the browser market won't support it.
I'm only talking about iPlayer here, but it applies to many video services across the web - trying to force the DRM hand too early will just perpetuate Flash.
It's only a news discussion site. Why the fuck should they bother reading the article before commenting on it? This just goes to underline that reading comprehension is non existent in the slashdot world, yet still they believe they have all the facts and can pass judgement.
So I repeat - drive slowly enough so that should something surprise you around a bend you can stop or avoid it. This is why the speeds on the interstate are higher than residential/urban roads.
She has no excuse for running a person over if that person didn't literally pop out 6 feet in front of her in otherwise totally clear road. If she was driving too fast to avoid running the guy over then she was also driving too fast to avoid stopped vehicles in the road (ie, the accident that the victim was involved in before) - ie, too fast for the road conditions.
While driving you simply don't expect someone to be standing in the road in the blind spot created next to a car headlight on a somewhat dark street.
That right there is the error in your assumption. As a driver you have to "expect the unexpected" and be prepared for anything - if you see cars in the turn lane waiting for a break in the traffic then expect that a pedestrian might step out (possibly to cross the road, possibly for other reasons).
If you see a guy waiting to pull out into the road in front of you don's assume he will wait for you to pass, assume he is going to cut you off and be ready if he does. It's all about awareness when driving, and considering possible situations and assessing the traffic. It's too easy to be lulled into a false sense of security because often there *won't* be a pedestrian stepping out, or a car stopped around a blind bend, or a car sat in your blind spot in the passing lane, but complacency leads to accidents.
You are driving along a straight road like an interstate towards the sun - how is it going to surprise you? You know exactly where it is and what will happen if you happen to be in shadow.
The speed of light is approximately 3x10^8 ms^-1 in air and takes 8 minutes to reach the earth from the sun. If you're driving towards it with intermittent periods of it shining right at you and you hit someone because you can't see, you're driving too fast, period.
Whatever the timing was, her excuse was that the sun blinded her, so she is either lying to cover herself or she was driving too fast in a situation of severely reduced visibility.
So? Is the iPhone any more locked down? You can root that too and jailbreak out of the walled garden.
The point is that the step shouldn't even be necessary on Android-based phones - the platform was designed to be open from the beginning, but in reality is not all that different from the iOS ecosystem in many cases, with only a couple of main differences; the ability to sideload apps without using the official market and the existence of some properly open phones like the Nexus One.
I think it's not even relevant - her defence is "blinding sunlight" so she was already driving without due care and attention if she couldn't see him and stop in time by driving far too fast for the conditions, whether she was using her phone or not.
She killed someone while in charge of a motor vehicle, ostensibly while using a phone while driving, but even taking that out of the equation, her defence is that she was "blinded by sunlight" in which case she should have been driving more carefully - much more slowly and with greater attention paid to the scene in front of you which is obscured by the strong light source. Either way, phone or not, she killed someone by being careless. It's no different to her waving a gun around that she's not sure is loaded without looking where she's pointing it and accidentally shooting someone. That would be an accident too, but an avoidable one - just like driving into someone who was involved in another accident shorty before you came across them. You have to look where you're going, and if you can't see far enough ahead to stop in time for any reason you slow the fuck down and increase your concentration even more to be sure that if you do come across something unexpected, like a car stopped in the road, or a pedestrian, or a fallen tree - anything, that you can stop as safely as possible.
There are two applicable laws in the UK (obviously, the US is slightly different, but from my own perspective) - one is "driving without due care and attention" and the other is "death by dangerous driving" - the second one is there because driving a car is a serious responsibility; it's a potentially lethal weapon that requires your attention and respect when in control. If you don't treat it with respect and you kill someone, you might as well have been standing in a room full of people with a revolver while blindfolded and randomly firing in 6 directions.
Yes, AFTER the FIRST accident perhaps - a minor one involving the victim who was standing by his car after a minor bump exchanging insurance details and other post-accident stuff with another driver when he was hit by Facebook girl because she wasn't looking where she was going. Her excuse was she was blinded by the sun, in which case, why was she driving so fast and not paying extra attention? Driving into oncoming winter sunlight is like driving in fog - slow down!
All very sensible, but in the medium of text on a discussion board, a lot of a nuances of communication and language in general are lost, so a little extra effort to convey your meaning doesn't hurt. You don't have to go overboard on the pedantry to do it, and it removes some of the ambiguity.
All you have to do is insert "I think" into your statement above to clear up any confusion. I don't think eight extra characters, including the extra space, is being overly pedantic and repetitive, do you?
You have no way of deducing my opinion of the quality of Watchmen based on my statements. I'm just talking about the way the two opposing viewpoints were presented.
Who says I didn't think the summary editorial was a little bit of a troll too? My point was addressing the positive response featured in the thread that was clearly an opinion, compared to the "fact" posited by the troll post that it was bad.
I can take Taco's words as his subjective opinion in a conversation (we do it all the time, since it gets tiresome to add "in my opinion" to everything), but he should be a little more explicit in a written editorial.
There's no hypocrisy in wanting more boobs and less cock, nor is there really any hypocrisy in calling my sexuality into question because of your own insecurity, but there is in claiming the movie went from "great" to "good" merely because an element in some scenes that didn't change the movie at all in any way. Had Dr M been covered in those scenes to spare the blushes of casual homophobes and those not mature enough to handle seeing a cock on screen (but seemingly mature enough to handle any amount of female nudity with no issue whatsoever) then nothing else at all would have changed.
Thus, the only reason you downrated the movie was your hypocrisy that male genitalia somehow make a film worse and female ones make it better, even if completely immaterial from the plot (ignoring the symbolism surrounding his nakedness as a demonstration of his distancing from reality - likely written into the original story based on reactions such as yours).
The iOS App Store is compatible with the GPLv2 and several other open source style licences, and contains a fair amount of software distributed under them.
Here's a short list (with links to source code and to iTunes store)
The FSF can moan as much as it likes - the "disappointment" that Apple complied with their request to remove Gnu Go rather than change their licensing terms at that time was amusing. What did they expect Apple to do when they demanded it be taken down because the licence was being violated?!
FSF: Remove Gnu Go! The GPL is incompatible with your store! Apple: ok, done. FSF: Aww you removed it rather than change the licence! Apple: You said remove it, so we did. FSF: Apple hates freedom! They aren't doing what we are demanding that they do!
They fixed it in later iterations of the App Store terms though. Apple itself has no aversion to Open Source as a concept - it makes use of and contributes heavily to many open source projects, including several that it started itself and released into the wild. It's just been a tricky integration with the walled ecosystem of the App Store. It's never going to be GPLv3 compatible, but that doesn't mean it's not deliberately hostile to open source.
Not sure about the Mac App Store, but the iOS App Store is GPLv2 compatible - they changed the terms after the first round of "submit GPL app to store than demand they change the licence because they're infringing" that has cropped up a couple of times.
Slashdot Mirror
Right now the BBC serves H.264 streams via flash and it has pretty lousy performance (Flash) or pretty awesome performance (via the same stream in XBMC). If they want to shed Flash entirely and still serve a large proportion of the web then a limited amount of content protection is almost inevitable because the content producers (ie, not the BBC but the people who own some of the shows they broadcast) demand it.
Sure, ideally there would be no content protection at all (it really doesn't affect the free distribution of the content at all) but right now that is just not a reality.
I would love BBC iPlayer to be able to serve H.264 with HTML5 (it already does to iPhone user agent strings) since it would free me from the flash performance hog that makes HD streams stutter even on a powerful desktop machine. It won't happen if a sizeable portion of the browser market won't support it.
I'm only talking about iPlayer here, but it applies to many video services across the web - trying to force the DRM hand too early will just perpetuate Flash.
Cute, you think the local Fox channels have any independence.
I'm not sure you understand what "whoosh" means.
I need to know what it is in horses per submarine, just to get it in terms I can understand.
Remember, this is the news channel that doesn't understand how a pie chart works (or simply cannot add to 100).
http://ebroodle.typepad.com/ebroodle/2009/11/republican-pie-chart-fail.html
You expect them to understand anything more complex than an abacus?
It's only a news discussion site. Why the fuck should they bother reading the article before commenting on it? This just goes to underline that reading comprehension is non existent in the slashdot world, yet still they believe they have all the facts and can pass judgement.
So I repeat - drive slowly enough so that should something surprise you around a bend you can stop or avoid it. This is why the speeds on the interstate are higher than residential/urban roads.
She has no excuse for running a person over if that person didn't literally pop out 6 feet in front of her in otherwise totally clear road. If she was driving too fast to avoid running the guy over then she was also driving too fast to avoid stopped vehicles in the road (ie, the accident that the victim was involved in before) - ie, too fast for the road conditions.
While driving you simply don't expect someone to be standing in the road in the blind spot created next to a car headlight on a somewhat dark street.
That right there is the error in your assumption. As a driver you have to "expect the unexpected" and be prepared for anything - if you see cars in the turn lane waiting for a break in the traffic then expect that a pedestrian might step out (possibly to cross the road, possibly for other reasons).
If you see a guy waiting to pull out into the road in front of you don's assume he will wait for you to pass, assume he is going to cut you off and be ready if he does. It's all about awareness when driving, and considering possible situations and assessing the traffic. It's too easy to be lulled into a false sense of security because often there *won't* be a pedestrian stepping out, or a car stopped around a blind bend, or a car sat in your blind spot in the passing lane, but complacency leads to accidents.
You are driving along a straight road like an interstate towards the sun - how is it going to surprise you? You know exactly where it is and what will happen if you happen to be in shadow.
The speed of light is approximately 3x10^8 ms^-1 in air and takes 8 minutes to reach the earth from the sun. If you're driving towards it with intermittent periods of it shining right at you and you hit someone because you can't see, you're driving too fast, period.
Whatever the timing was, her excuse was that the sun blinded her, so she is either lying to cover herself or she was driving too fast in a situation of severely reduced visibility.
So? Is the iPhone any more locked down? You can root that too and jailbreak out of the walled garden.
The point is that the step shouldn't even be necessary on Android-based phones - the platform was designed to be open from the beginning, but in reality is not all that different from the iOS ecosystem in many cases, with only a couple of main differences; the ability to sideload apps without using the official market and the existence of some properly open phones like the Nexus One.
I think it's not even relevant - her defence is "blinding sunlight" so she was already driving without due care and attention if she couldn't see him and stop in time by driving far too fast for the conditions, whether she was using her phone or not.
On two separate phones? One belonging to the victim and the other belonging to the driver? You know, like in this case.
She killed someone while in charge of a motor vehicle, ostensibly while using a phone while driving, but even taking that out of the equation, her defence is that she was "blinded by sunlight" in which case she should have been driving more carefully - much more slowly and with greater attention paid to the scene in front of you which is obscured by the strong light source. Either way, phone or not, she killed someone by being careless. It's no different to her waving a gun around that she's not sure is loaded without looking where she's pointing it and accidentally shooting someone. That would be an accident too, but an avoidable one - just like driving into someone who was involved in another accident shorty before you came across them. You have to look where you're going, and if you can't see far enough ahead to stop in time for any reason you slow the fuck down and increase your concentration even more to be sure that if you do come across something unexpected, like a car stopped in the road, or a pedestrian, or a fallen tree - anything, that you can stop as safely as possible.
There are two applicable laws in the UK (obviously, the US is slightly different, but from my own perspective) - one is "driving without due care and attention" and the other is "death by dangerous driving" - the second one is there because driving a car is a serious responsibility; it's a potentially lethal weapon that requires your attention and respect when in control. If you don't treat it with respect and you kill someone, you might as well have been standing in a room full of people with a revolver while blindfolded and randomly firing in 6 directions.
Yes, AFTER the FIRST accident perhaps - a minor one involving the victim who was standing by his car after a minor bump exchanging insurance details and other post-accident stuff with another driver when he was hit by Facebook girl because she wasn't looking where she was going. Her excuse was she was blinded by the sun, in which case, why was she driving so fast and not paying extra attention? Driving into oncoming winter sunlight is like driving in fog - slow down!
It's in the FA, but hey, this is /.
All very sensible, but in the medium of text on a discussion board, a lot of a nuances of communication and language in general are lost, so a little extra effort to convey your meaning doesn't hurt. You don't have to go overboard on the pedantry to do it, and it removes some of the ambiguity.
All you have to do is insert "I think" into your statement above to clear up any confusion. I don't think eight extra characters, including the extra space, is being overly pedantic and repetitive, do you?
Who says I agree or disagree?
You have no way of deducing my opinion of the quality of Watchmen based on my statements. I'm just talking about the way the two opposing viewpoints were presented.
Who says I didn't think the summary editorial was a little bit of a troll too? My point was addressing the positive response featured in the thread that was clearly an opinion, compared to the "fact" posited by the troll post that it was bad.
I can take Taco's words as his subjective opinion in a conversation (we do it all the time, since it gets tiresome to add "in my opinion" to everything), but he should be a little more explicit in a written editorial.
There's no hypocrisy in wanting more boobs and less cock, nor is there really any hypocrisy in calling my sexuality into question because of your own insecurity, but there is in claiming the movie went from "great" to "good" merely because an element in some scenes that didn't change the movie at all in any way. Had Dr M been covered in those scenes to spare the blushes of casual homophobes and those not mature enough to handle seeing a cock on screen (but seemingly mature enough to handle any amount of female nudity with no issue whatsoever) then nothing else at all would have changed.
Thus, the only reason you downrated the movie was your hypocrisy that male genitalia somehow make a film worse and female ones make it better, even if completely immaterial from the plot (ignoring the symbolism surrounding his nakedness as a demonstration of his distancing from reality - likely written into the original story based on reactions such as yours).
Ah, so now the definition of "Open" is twisted yet again to fall on the side opposite MS/Apple/Sony. How convenient.
So, the GPLv3 is restrictive by design but still open.
H.264 is restricted by patents and royalties but it not an open standard in the eyes of the FSF and co, somehow.
So how does that apply to the BSD licence?
The iOS App Store is compatible with the GPLv2 and several other open source style licences, and contains a fair amount of software distributed under them.
Here's a short list (with links to source code and to iTunes store)
http://maniacdev.com/2010/06/35-open-source-iphone-app-store-apps-updated-with-10-new-apps/
The FSF can moan as much as it likes - the "disappointment" that Apple complied with their request to remove Gnu Go rather than change their licensing terms at that time was amusing. What did they expect Apple to do when they demanded it be taken down because the licence was being violated?!
FSF: Remove Gnu Go! The GPL is incompatible with your store!
Apple: ok, done.
FSF: Aww you removed it rather than change the licence!
Apple: You said remove it, so we did.
FSF: Apple hates freedom! They aren't doing what we are demanding that they do!
They fixed it in later iterations of the App Store terms though. Apple itself has no aversion to Open Source as a concept - it makes use of and contributes heavily to many open source projects, including several that it started itself and released into the wild. It's just been a tricky integration with the walled ecosystem of the App Store. It's never going to be GPLv3 compatible, but that doesn't mean it's not deliberately hostile to open source.
Not sure about the Mac App Store, but the iOS App Store is GPLv2 compatible - they changed the terms after the first round of "submit GPL app to store than demand they change the licence because they're infringing" that has cropped up a couple of times.
http://maniacdev.com/2010/06/35-open-source-iphone-app-store-apps-updated-with-10-new-apps/ gives a list of open source apps on the iOS version of the store (with links to source code). I don't see that the Mac App Store would be any different.
For precisely that reason - the negative point claimed it was bad as a fact. The positive one claimed it was good in the author's opinion.
Ah, so now we see the true colours.
Raise the flag of hypocrisy and throw in a little superiority over other countries for good measure!