>"In Holland, like in most of the civilized world, people don't have pistols in their nightstand."
Oh, that's right. Because in your part of the "civilized world", only all the criminals and government have guns. Law abiding, decent, tax-paying, regular citizens have no right to protect themselves, their family, or their property. They can just call the police and hope they are dead in the 5 to 20 minutes it takes them to get there.
>"Committing a crime to stop a more grievous crime is also a complete defense, provided it's not excessive (n-1 is generally acceptable)."
And there lies the problem- the word "excessive".
In my state, if I were to try and defend my property with deadly force (a gun, legally owned) yet there was no "clear and immediately threat to my life", *I* would be arrested and charged with a felony.
Yep- that's right. There could even be people breaking into my house at night, while I am alone. But if they had no weapons, and I shot them, suddenly I would have to PROVE MY INNOCENCE by trying to convince the Police, the DA, a Jury, etc that I felt my life was threatened.
>"They want all Mozilla users to have the same experience, so they define it as "intolerably bad" if one Mozilla user can play codec x and another Mozilla user can't. Mozilla got this wrong; it's not "intolerably bad" ; it's "regrettably bad." It's something to be angry about, but the decision is out of your hands. "
And we ALREADY have that situation. I will point to the fact that I cannot watch Netflix on Firefox + Linux; yet it works under Firefox + MS-Windows.
Easy- when you can no longer be made to be alive anymore:)
(Sounds silly, but it is kinda valid- can't restart heart, and/or can't restart breathing, and/or can't ever recover brain function/consciousness). Of course, in reality, it can be a bit more difficult to define. Personally, I think it is all about the brain. If the brain is irreversibly damaged to the point there will never be consciousness, I don't care how functional the rest of the body is, that person is DEAD.
Don't be so judgmental! Actually, there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with the way I do it.... it is exactly what I need and want. I have to log into that server several times a day when I am not at work, anyway, to maintain it and I have been running Claws remotely for many years. It is fast and efficient.
It has never been easy to run any version of IE under any version of WINE. The best we had it was an old project called "IES4Linux", but that was for IE 6, and didn't work all that well, and is now dead:(
About the only reason I would want to run WINE is to run [shutter] Internet Explorer so I can access some damn [private/business] web sites that STILL don't support anything else.
And yet WINE *STILL* cannot run Internet Explorer 7+ worth a damn (last ratings from 1.4.X)! Wouldn't one think that would be high on the list?
Since it is not tested by anyone under 1.4 yet, I guess I should try hacking on it forever and see if it will work yet. But not holding my breath:(
Don't get me wrong- I think the WINE project is wonderful, and they have a lot of really good support for a lot of applications; just not the one I need.
>Some X11 data compresses quite well so in some cases ssh actually improves performance.
That is also true...(as long as you can take the even more CPU hit on both sides... which is not a good thing on a multiuser application server) but I was speaking only about encryption, not compression.
Also note that most implementations of ssh have compression off by default- it must be requested (-C). And compression can actually *hurt* performance on a fast/local network, because it will increase latency/jerkiness of the data flow and/or some CPU's cannot compress as fast as the data could have been transmitted uncompressed.
I don't know why *you* would. But I have lots of useful things I do remotely with X. I have some management stuff that is much easier to do with a GUI. I can remotely even remotely run my mail client. Certainly, it is not for everyone, though (or even most people).
I am NOT proposing ANYONE should use a jammer. But if they did, it would make sense for it to have a momentary-only switch that activated only as long as a button was being held.
It should only take a few seconds to force calls to drop and there would be no reason to keep it on. And when they try to call back, press it for a few seconds again. I bet it wouldn't take that many tries before they give up- and if not, it is at least entertaining.
Meanwhile, other data connections around you would probably survive or retry.
Exactly. It is sad, but I now carry earplugs and/or earphones everywhere with me. If I am assaulted with noise I don't want to hear, I can turn it off. A $1 fix that has proven to be priceless. I just wish it could stop those damn ultra-bass boom box cars (those just need to be targeted with missiles).
>"This guy is my new hero, even though he later backed down and said he wasn't going to use it anymore. I for one am fed up with the constant assault of cell phone conversations from people who have no idea how to be considerate to those around them."
And yet if he flips that on, then he is also potentially disrupting the signal for all the other people are are SILENTLY and perhaps CONSIDERATELY using their mobile devices to check email, browse the web, stream radio, or whatever.
I am just as pissed at rude phone users as anyone else, but disconnecting everyone else around you just because of one or a few bad apples is just as "wrong" if not more so. It is just as selfish and even more malicious.
Because Wayland has no support yet. Because millions of machines already support and use X11 applications. Because X11 works just fine.
As for running X on a "mobile"- phones are already more powerful than machines that ran X just fine a decade ago. And modern Android tablets and phones have plenty of memory and CPU to do it... even in Java.
There is absolutely nothing crazy about wanting to run X on a mobile device. Having more options is a wonderful thing. Now- I will agree that trying to do it in Java seems a bit strange and perhaps inefficient... but, if that is all that is available, you use what you have.
>I hope that nobody would actually consider a remote X session without tunnelling over ssh...
It depends on your network and environment. If you are on a local, secure, wired, switched network, it doesn't matter that much if the X11 traffic is not encrypted. And without encryption, it will be much simpler, faster, and more efficient.
But yes, if you plan on doing this over WiFi or the Internet, then I would strongly recommend running it through ssh or some other encrypted transport.
> What can you do with X that you can't do with ssh?
Are you really that in the dark? Ssh can't do X. It can *forward* X11, but using ssh, I would have access to only a command line and text based applications. With an Android Xserver, I can display any app on my Android tablet that is running on my desktop machine, and do it efficiently (unlike vnc). I could even use XDMCP and login to a full session on a remote machine.
And later, this can open the door to porting Linux/BSD GUI applications (and window managers, etc) to Android. I think this is extremely useful and exciting.
It looks like this first attempt is too primitive to do much with, but the possibilities are there with some additional work...
Really! I am so excited! And then I would *NOT* be able to play it on any of my Linux machines, on my TiVo, on my phone, on my Xoom tablet, on any device NOT connected to the Internet, or behind any type of restrictive connection.
And for those who DO have a device that is "approved" and "connected", they will have to deal with ISP data overages, server loads, logins, DRM, and virtual media that could just "disappear" at any time for any number of reasons.
Great job, Warner! Just what we have been waiting for.
No, I am not kidding. But you are replying out of context. This would only be acceptable if they were to gain area from the left and right overscan (the area not normally seen on a 4:3 TV).
I did not/was not proposing a mutilation of 4:3 source to force it to fit onto 16:9. I am talking about REMASTERING it from the wider film, and if not quite wide enough, tweak it slightly in ways no human could ever detect.:)
See my other posting....(I replied to myself) If they use overscan, the amount of cropping would be truly tiny. Nobody would ever notice. And it would beautifully fill a modern 16:9 screen.
If no overscan were available, however, like you said, it would be HORRIBLE.
His assumptions are like mine- that a wider aspect was originally used on the film. 15x9 according to "Apotheoun". If that entire amount were usable, only a tiny crop takes you to wonderful 16:9!
Alas, after looking at more articles, it appears it will all be 4:3:( Not sure why the main article link shows the effects in 16:9 or wider (THAT would be REALLY annoying if it shifts from 4:3 to something wider for effects, then back to 4:3 for live action).
I was really hoping they would attempt to create a wide-screen version of the series by over-scaning the original film, cropping the top and bottom a tad, and stretching a tad to end up with 16:9.
Of course, I don't know exactly what aspect the original film was, and it is likely there will be things that should not be seen to the right/left in the overscan region. And the special effects might be exactly 4:3, in which case it would be very expensive to "fix".
And one that could work with not only Android, but ANY phone. THAT is the power of non-proprietary. *THIS* should have been the interesting Slashdot story.:)
While that is a good point, there were many factors to consider and it was not enough to prevent the sale. It was a serious negative, however.
No car had everything I wanted, I had to settle for the best available choice. Thankfully, I could find a used ipod that worked, but years from now, if it fails, I might not be so lucky.
Slashdot Mirror
>"In Holland, like in most of the civilized world, people don't have pistols in their nightstand."
Oh, that's right. Because in your part of the "civilized world", only all the criminals and government have guns. Law abiding, decent, tax-paying, regular citizens have no right to protect themselves, their family, or their property. They can just call the police and hope they are dead in the 5 to 20 minutes it takes them to get there.
Very civilized, indeed.
>"Committing a crime to stop a more grievous crime is also a complete defense, provided it's not excessive (n-1 is generally acceptable)."
And there lies the problem- the word "excessive".
In my state, if I were to try and defend my property with deadly force (a gun, legally owned) yet there was no "clear and immediately threat to my life", *I* would be arrested and charged with a felony.
Yep- that's right. There could even be people breaking into my house at night, while I am alone. But if they had no weapons, and I shot them, suddenly I would have to PROVE MY INNOCENCE by trying to convince the Police, the DA, a Jury, etc that I felt my life was threatened.
SCREWED UP.
And some sites use Flash. And others use JAVA. But those *do* work under all platforms, unlike Silverlight.
>"They want all Mozilla users to have the same experience, so they define it as "intolerably bad" if one Mozilla user can play codec x and another Mozilla user can't. Mozilla got this wrong; it's not "intolerably bad" ; it's "regrettably bad." It's something to be angry about, but the decision is out of your hands. "
And we ALREADY have that situation. I will point to the fact that I cannot watch Netflix on Firefox + Linux; yet it works under Firefox + MS-Windows.
>"When Are You Dead?"
Easy- when you can no longer be made to be alive anymore :)
(Sounds silly, but it is kinda valid- can't restart heart, and/or can't restart breathing, and/or can't ever recover brain function/consciousness). Of course, in reality, it can be a bit more difficult to define. Personally, I think it is all about the brain. If the brain is irreversibly damaged to the point there will never be consciousness, I don't care how functional the rest of the body is, that person is DEAD.
Don't be so judgmental! Actually, there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with the way I do it.... it is exactly what I need and want. I have to log into that server several times a day when I am not at work, anyway, to maintain it and I have been running Claws remotely for many years. It is fast and efficient.
It has never been easy to run any version of IE under any version of WINE. The best we had it was an old project called "IES4Linux", but that was for IE 6, and didn't work all that well, and is now dead :(
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page
>"worth a damn (last ratings from 1.4.X)!"
Sorry, that is a typo and should read:
"worth a damn (last ratings from 1.3.X)!"
About the only reason I would want to run WINE is to run [shutter] Internet Explorer so I can access some damn [private/business] web sites that STILL don't support anything else.
And yet WINE *STILL* cannot run Internet Explorer 7+ worth a damn (last ratings from 1.4.X)! Wouldn't one think that would be high on the list?
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=25 (IE9 = garbage, IE 8 = bronze, IE 7 = bronze/garbage)
Since it is not tested by anyone under 1.4 yet, I guess I should try hacking on it forever and see if it will work yet. But not holding my breath :(
Don't get me wrong- I think the WINE project is wonderful, and they have a lot of really good support for a lot of applications; just not the one I need.
>Some X11 data compresses quite well so in some cases ssh actually improves performance.
That is also true...(as long as you can take the even more CPU hit on both sides... which is not a good thing on a multiuser application server) but I was speaking only about encryption, not compression.
Also note that most implementations of ssh have compression off by default- it must be requested (-C). And compression can actually *hurt* performance on a fast/local network, because it will increase latency/jerkiness of the data flow and/or some CPU's cannot compress as fast as the data could have been transmitted uncompressed.
I don't know why *you* would. But I have lots of useful things I do remotely with X. I have some management stuff that is much easier to do with a GUI. I can remotely even remotely run my mail client. Certainly, it is not for everyone, though (or even most people).
I am NOT proposing ANYONE should use a jammer. But if they did, it would make sense for it to have a momentary-only switch that activated only as long as a button was being held.
It should only take a few seconds to force calls to drop and there would be no reason to keep it on. And when they try to call back, press it for a few seconds again. I bet it wouldn't take that many tries before they give up- and if not, it is at least entertaining.
Meanwhile, other data connections around you would probably survive or retry.
>"I found earplugs to work perfectly"
+1
Exactly. It is sad, but I now carry earplugs and/or earphones everywhere with me. If I am assaulted with noise I don't want to hear, I can turn it off. A $1 fix that has proven to be priceless. I just wish it could stop those damn ultra-bass boom box cars (those just need to be targeted with missiles).
>"This guy is my new hero, even though he later backed down and said he wasn't going to use it anymore. I for one am fed up with the constant assault of cell phone conversations from people who have no idea how to be considerate to those around them."
And yet if he flips that on, then he is also potentially disrupting the signal for all the other people are are SILENTLY and perhaps CONSIDERATELY using their mobile devices to check email, browse the web, stream radio, or whatever.
I am just as pissed at rude phone users as anyone else, but disconnecting everyone else around you just because of one or a few bad apples is just as "wrong" if not more so. It is just as selfish and even more malicious.
Because Wayland has no support yet. Because millions of machines already support and use X11 applications. Because X11 works just fine.
As for running X on a "mobile"- phones are already more powerful than machines that ran X just fine a decade ago. And modern Android tablets and phones have plenty of memory and CPU to do it... even in Java.
There is absolutely nothing crazy about wanting to run X on a mobile device. Having more options is a wonderful thing. Now- I will agree that trying to do it in Java seems a bit strange and perhaps inefficient... but, if that is all that is available, you use what you have.
>I hope that nobody would actually consider a remote X session without tunnelling over ssh...
It depends on your network and environment. If you are on a local, secure, wired, switched network, it doesn't matter that much if the X11 traffic is not encrypted. And without encryption, it will be much simpler, faster, and more efficient.
But yes, if you plan on doing this over WiFi or the Internet, then I would strongly recommend running it through ssh or some other encrypted transport.
> What can you do with X that you can't do with ssh?
Are you really that in the dark? Ssh can't do X. It can *forward* X11, but using ssh, I would have access to only a command line and text based applications. With an Android Xserver, I can display any app on my Android tablet that is running on my desktop machine, and do it efficiently (unlike vnc). I could even use XDMCP and login to a full session on a remote machine.
And later, this can open the door to porting Linux/BSD GUI applications (and window managers, etc) to Android. I think this is extremely useful and exciting.
It looks like this first attempt is too primitive to do much with, but the possibilities are there with some additional work...
>Wow, what a deal.
Really! I am so excited! And then I would *NOT* be able to play it on any of my Linux machines, on my TiVo, on my phone, on my Xoom tablet, on any device NOT connected to the Internet, or behind any type of restrictive connection.
And for those who DO have a device that is "approved" and "connected", they will have to deal with ISP data overages, server loads, logins, DRM, and virtual media that could just "disappear" at any time for any number of reasons.
Great job, Warner! Just what we have been waiting for.
No TV or player can remaster the video from the original film, trying to capture more width.
What you are describing is a 25% stretch operation, which looks horrible.
No, I am not kidding. But you are replying out of context. This would only be acceptable if they were to gain area from the left and right overscan (the area not normally seen on a 4:3 TV).
I did not/was not proposing a mutilation of 4:3 source to force it to fit onto 16:9. I am talking about REMASTERING it from the wider film, and if not quite wide enough, tweak it slightly in ways no human could ever detect. :)
Look at the example someone else did, that I linking in my other post: http://subtuum.com/index.php?/topic/1958-star-trek-tng-remastered/
See my other posting....(I replied to myself) If they use overscan, the amount of cropping would be truly tiny. Nobody would ever notice. And it would beautifully fill a modern 16:9 screen.
If no overscan were available, however, like you said, it would be HORRIBLE.
Reply to self:
Ah, here is a perfect illustration of what they could have done:
http://subtuum.com/index.php?/topic/1958-star-trek-tng-remastered/
His assumptions are like mine- that a wider aspect was originally used on the film. 15x9 according to "Apotheoun". If that entire amount were usable, only a tiny crop takes you to wonderful 16:9!
Alas, after looking at more articles, it appears it will all be 4:3 :( Not sure why the main article link shows the effects in 16:9 or wider (THAT would be REALLY annoying if it shifts from 4:3 to something wider for effects, then back to 4:3 for live action).
I was really hoping they would attempt to create a wide-screen version of the series by over-scaning the original film, cropping the top and bottom a tad, and stretching a tad to end up with 16:9.
Of course, I don't know exactly what aspect the original film was, and it is likely there will be things that should not be seen to the right/left in the overscan region. And the special effects might be exactly 4:3, in which case it would be very expensive to "fix".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overscan
I can see the Apple fans are already modding the post down.
I propose this as a *far* more interesting possibility:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/27/realvnc-teams-up-with-sony-to-bring-android-apps-to-the-dashboar/
And one that could work with not only Android, but ANY phone. THAT is the power of non-proprietary. *THIS* should have been the interesting Slashdot story. :)
While that is a good point, there were many factors to consider and it was not enough to prevent the sale. It was a serious negative, however.
No car had everything I wanted, I had to settle for the best available choice. Thankfully, I could find a used ipod that worked, but years from now, if it fails, I might not be so lucky.