Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.
on
YouTube Revamp Imminent?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Here's Ogg's problem: They want to control their own spec. Get mentioned in HTML5 and they're frozen at whatever version number the spec uses for anything that uses HTML5. If they're not done yet, they're not ready for the W3C's adoption. Do they want the usage or control of their jobs?
Google's good at supporting previous versions, they've done it a lot with AdWords/AdSense. They supported CPM ads for a long time (and maybe still do?) for existing customers even after mandating that all new users go CPC.
Google seems to have a policy of talking about new ways to do things, and not making changes suddenly. Afterall, YouTube is the dominant video sharing site right now, and they don't want to let an open source format make them risk their status. So, it looks like HTML5 is going to get a good kick from Google telling them "Hey, we'll use whatever you tell us... but you've got to finish the spec first!" We'll see what this does to that.
I wonder if they'll make the new version of the site invite-only for a few years.
HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.
on
YouTube Revamp Imminent?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
There seems to be a rather loud outcry for HTML5 in the idea list. Many of the top ten ideas use that phrase and nothing else of substance.
There's only one problem. It ain't finished yet. So we've got the same problems 801.11n had a few years ago. It's hard to implement a moving spec.
This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today. Even worse, it's the same people behind it... Ogg's video spec 's used to be called out by name for being used in HTML5 and that's still under debate. Open Source fans including Mozilla support it, while owners of other video codecs of course think they shouldn't be locked out.
So... really, HTML5 doesn't solve Google's problems with YouTube. Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call. You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use, or we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube while other sites use other codecs....and not make much of a change.
Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.
Ad companies don't care about number of eyeballs reached... but how much money they can extract from the total audience. China has more people, but they also have a poorer average person.
As posted elsewhere, is the harm to their business elsewhere greater or less than the profit they make in China? If it's greater, then that's something stock people score as a good thing.
The US model of "trust until proven untrustworthy" just doesn't work. Those who intend on cheating will agree not to cheat and then break the agreement when they think we're not looking. What would be more powerful would be a threat to block access to Google properties from China until the government is overthrown, replacing them with honest news about what China's leaders are doing to its people.
This sounds like a call for objections right now. Unless somebody comes up with a good reason they should stay, Google may start winding down Chinese operations and replace google.cn with a redirect to google.com until China replaces that with Baidu.
Couple this with Slashdot's coverage of a Baidu site hacker takeover and the constant claims of a "Don't be evil" violation for following Chinese censorship demands on google.cn... maybe there just isn't any money to be made there without problems that threaten Google's reputation that it cashes in with elsewhere. So much for free trade... this means info-technology war.
SSL is good for proving your bank is your bank provided you have control over your Certificate Authorities.
Some businesses have declared themselves a CA on all browsers on their own network... therefore allowing a man-in-the-middle intercept. If so, bother your IT department every time you need something installed. They either already require they check all new programs, or they'll quickly get annoyed by your constant requests. When asked why, tell them they declared themselves a root of trust.
Could you speed up the process by diverting funding from the body scanners? No security improvement, but it'll help you with your problems with the public.
Kids haven't been exposed to Cadmium much, and there's far too many things to test. Laws are written to blacklist things that are troublesome. We'd be much better off with a whitelist of safe things to use, but that's not how the world works.
Kids don't know enough about science to know these things are bad for them. Neither do their parents. That's why we need to get these things out of stores so something safer can take their place.
Cadmium is a known carcinogen. Like lead, it can hinder brain development in the very young, according to recent research.
and...
Some of the most troubling test results were for bracelet charms sold at Walmart, at the jewelry chain Claire's and at a dollar store.
So we've got a substance dangerous to kids in just the kind of jewelry they can afford on their allowance.
This stuff is absolutely something that needs regulation to control it. Sometimes "letting the market decide" just rolls off the bowling lane and into the gutter. No, knocking down pins in somebody else's lane doesn't count. That's why they put the gutter in.
MD5 hashes are a formula that results in a "checksum"... basically if I have a program that makes an MD5 hash, and you have a program that makes an MD5 hash... then given the same input we should get the same output. It's proof that much more likely than not you got the file I sent got to you without any changes mistaken or otherwise on the way to you. If your download's hash doesn't match the published hash... something's not right with what you downloaded.
The inconsistency stems from the fact that these so-called "antivirus software research labs" are just Windows terminals with neckbeards in each. Symantec's neckbeard prefers browsing porn sites with ActiveX. Fortinet's neckbeard gets his latest and greatest malware from careless P2P downloads. Kapersky's neckbeard gets his viruses from phishing and gambling sites.
Windows users have gotten smart about updating, people know better than to take ActiveX downloads from free porn sites, and people have wised up about trusting what they get from P2P. All sources are now seeing lower virus rates and the statistical noise is becoming louder than actual results... so these top lists are becoming worthless, there ain't much to be worried about anymore.
How do you know the binary you install is the same as the source?
MD5 hash for the win! If your hash doesn't match the published hash, something's up.
Unless you propose that all software be compiled and signed by a trusted authority or be compiled on the end user's device... Already happening on several platforms. MS Office VBA, MacOS, etc. Unsigned code is allowed, but requires a user's approval to a warning that the publisher is unknown.
And if someone introduces the ability to download and execute arbitrary code, perhaps via a clever and well-hidden exploit?
Would require an app that asks for rights to contact the network, and network traffic can be monitored. Somebody will notice.
Nice that there are newcomers to the party, but Amazon hedges its bets with a iPod Touch / iPhone Kindle App. So, you don't need these new things if you want e-books and video on the same device.
Streaming radio uses a lot less bandwidth than streaming video, and video apps without Wi-Fi only rules have gotten consistent "no"s with the exception of only Apple's YouTube app.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's Ogg's problem: They want to control their own spec. Get mentioned in HTML5 and they're frozen at whatever version number the spec uses for anything that uses HTML5. If they're not done yet, they're not ready for the W3C's adoption. Do they want the usage or control of their jobs?
Google's good at supporting previous versions, they've done it a lot with AdWords/AdSense. They supported CPM ads for a long time (and maybe still do?) for existing customers even after mandating that all new users go CPC.
Google seems to have a policy of talking about new ways to do things, and not making changes suddenly. Afterall, YouTube is the dominant video sharing site right now, and they don't want to let an open source format make them risk their status. So, it looks like HTML5 is going to get a good kick from Google telling them "Hey, we'll use whatever you tell us... but you've got to finish the spec first!" We'll see what this does to that.
I wonder if they'll make the new version of the site invite-only for a few years.
There seems to be a rather loud outcry for HTML5 in the idea list. Many of the top ten ideas use that phrase and nothing else of substance.
There's only one problem. It ain't finished yet. So we've got the same problems 801.11n had a few years ago. It's hard to implement a moving spec.
This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today. Even worse, it's the same people behind it... Ogg's video spec 's used to be called out by name for being used in HTML5 and that's still under debate. Open Source fans including Mozilla support it, while owners of other video codecs of course think they shouldn't be locked out.
So... really, HTML5 doesn't solve Google's problems with YouTube. Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call. You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use, or we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube while other sites use other codecs....and not make much of a change.
Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.
Ad companies don't care about number of eyeballs reached... but how much money they can extract from the total audience. China has more people, but they also have a poorer average person.
As posted elsewhere, is the harm to their business elsewhere greater or less than the profit they make in China? If it's greater, then that's something stock people score as a good thing.
The US model of "trust until proven untrustworthy" just doesn't work. Those who intend on cheating will agree not to cheat and then break the agreement when they think we're not looking. What would be more powerful would be a threat to block access to Google properties from China until the government is overthrown, replacing them with honest news about what China's leaders are doing to its people.
This sounds like a call for objections right now. Unless somebody comes up with a good reason they should stay, Google may start winding down Chinese operations and replace google.cn with a redirect to google.com until China replaces that with Baidu.
Couple this with Slashdot's coverage of a Baidu site hacker takeover and the constant claims of a "Don't be evil" violation for following Chinese censorship demands on google.cn... maybe there just isn't any money to be made there without problems that threaten Google's reputation that it cashes in with elsewhere. So much for free trade... this means info-technology war.
SSL is good for proving your bank is your bank provided you have control over your Certificate Authorities.
Some businesses have declared themselves a CA on all browsers on their own network... therefore allowing a man-in-the-middle intercept. If so, bother your IT department every time you need something installed. They either already require they check all new programs, or they'll quickly get annoyed by your constant requests. When asked why, tell them they declared themselves a root of trust.
Notice Slashdot reports on kids jewelry from China, not say, tech parts from China. How are they doing on that?
Could you speed up the process by diverting funding from the body scanners? No security improvement, but it'll help you with your problems with the public.
Kids haven't been exposed to Cadmium much, and there's far too many things to test. Laws are written to blacklist things that are troublesome. We'd be much better off with a whitelist of safe things to use, but that's not how the world works.
Kids don't get enough nickels in their allowance to make Ni-Cads.
Kids don't know enough about science to know these things are bad for them. Neither do their parents. That's why we need to get these things out of stores so something safer can take their place.
Let's put these things together.... from TFA:
Cadmium is a known carcinogen. Like lead, it can hinder brain development in the very young, according to recent research.
and...
Some of the most troubling test results were for bracelet charms sold at Walmart, at the jewelry chain Claire's and at a dollar store.
So we've got a substance dangerous to kids in just the kind of jewelry they can afford on their allowance.
This stuff is absolutely something that needs regulation to control it. Sometimes "letting the market decide" just rolls off the bowling lane and into the gutter. No, knocking down pins in somebody else's lane doesn't count. That's why they put the gutter in.
MD5 hashes are a formula that results in a "checksum"... basically if I have a program that makes an MD5 hash, and you have a program that makes an MD5 hash... then given the same input we should get the same output. It's proof that much more likely than not you got the file I sent got to you without any changes mistaken or otherwise on the way to you. If your download's hash doesn't match the published hash... something's not right with what you downloaded.
The inconsistency stems from the fact that these so-called "antivirus software research labs" are just Windows terminals with neckbeards in each. Symantec's neckbeard prefers browsing porn sites with ActiveX. Fortinet's neckbeard gets his latest and greatest malware from careless P2P downloads. Kapersky's neckbeard gets his viruses from phishing and gambling sites.
Windows users have gotten smart about updating, people know better than to take ActiveX downloads from free porn sites, and people have wised up about trusting what they get from P2P. All sources are now seeing lower virus rates and the statistical noise is becoming louder than actual results... so these top lists are becoming worthless, there ain't much to be worried about anymore.
How do you know the binary you install is the same as the source?
MD5 hash for the win! If your hash doesn't match the published hash, something's up.
Unless you propose that all software be compiled and signed by a trusted authority or be compiled on the end user's device...
Already happening on several platforms. MS Office VBA, MacOS, etc. Unsigned code is allowed, but requires a user's approval to a warning that the publisher is unknown.
And if someone introduces the ability to download and execute arbitrary code, perhaps via a clever and well-hidden exploit?
Would require an app that asks for rights to contact the network, and network traffic can be monitored. Somebody will notice.
Nice that there are newcomers to the party, but Amazon hedges its bets with a iPod Touch / iPhone Kindle App. So, you don't need these new things if you want e-books and video on the same device.
It is hard to get an SSL cert that says you're somebody you're not.
Suddenly your .exe doesn't match the MD5 hash of the real program. People will notice.
Streaming radio uses a lot less bandwidth than streaming video, and video apps without Wi-Fi only rules have gotten consistent "no"s with the exception of only Apple's YouTube app.
I think this is just another case of if the Earth wasn't destined to exist, it wouldn't exist.