Communism is an economic system where workers own the means of production (the capital) instead of a third party (a capitalist). Forced employment is out of its scope. However I do believe that the workers can in fact quit (you made the claim they can't, so I assume you have some evidence). Whether they have any real alternative is a different question.
My point is that capitalistic factories, like those in the US, don't have nearly these kinds of suicide rates.
You might want to look into US history to see how the factories used to be. They were, and are, capitalistic, the conditions however have changed, mainly due to worker organization and government regulations.
Read about the Stalin years to learn more about communistic factories and farms.
I'm well aware of Stalin's atrocities and the problems with the Soviet Union. The factories and farms were owned by the an authoritarian state, certainly not by the workers.
Either way the factories in China are capitalistic, not state or worker owned. It's not about who owns the factory, but how it's run.
Because by eating your mmmmmm grilled beef, you're indirectly consuming 10x as many plants as you would otherwise?
There is an assortment of plants I wouldn't ordinary consume that can go towards the cows. We didn't start raising animals becasue we had too much plant matter to eat...
Trophic levels - important to understand in a world of 6 billion + humans.
Overpopulation is not a problem that can be solved by covering the world with wheat, soy and corn fields.
Instead, the majority of modern omnivores just eat meat because it is tasty and because the harm it causes is hidden from view.
One could argue the same for human grown plants as well. Deliberate killing of animals trying to eat the growing plants, be it shooting, traps or pesticides (if you include insects into the category of animals that can suffer anyway). Inadvertent killing during the harvesting of grain if you use anything more advanced then a sickle. Deliberate killing of animals trying to eat the stored harvest. Secondary effects of deforestation, fungicides, herbicides, pesticides and general "wild" land shrinkage.
Heck easting naturally occurring plants when competing with animals is a form of suffering inflicted on them...
Do you have any idea what communism actually is? Well doesn't matter, if there is one thing that it isn't, its people working in capitalistic factories.
Will Apple support VP8 in Safari? (and Safari Mobile?)
Yes, if a QuickTime codec is present. Default support and Safari Mobile will depend to their legal department, politics and quantum fluctuations in Jobs brain.
Having the codec is worlds a part from "must come as plugin". It will probably use the DirecShow architecture in the same way that Safari uses QuickTime. While the user still needs to install stuff, once it's done it should be basically indistinguishable from the provided H.264 from a user or web developer standpoint. And Google + YouTube have both the trust and leverage to encourage people to install codec packs.
the only consensus between major players (minus Mozilla) so far is to support the patent-encumbered H.264 format*
You might not consider Opera a major player, but they are part of the big five, have a sizeable embeded presence and the desktop version is apparently quite big in Russia and Eastern Europe.
Also, a star might be in order for W3C's video specs as well, as Google, Mozilla, Opera et al. will probably seek to standardize WebM.
"H.264 playback in Firefox" advocate if you prefer.
Was it really? Because I see a ton of H.264 content, and I don't see -- can't ever remember seeing -- tons of jpeg2k content.
I was commenting on the "destroys Theora technologically" part. If you want to see how ignoring tons of content didn't destroy the internet look at IE6.
Do I really have to spell out how an arbitrary native-code plugin system is different than a specified and controlled codec system.
I'm well aware of the differences. None-the less ActiveX was technically superior to the competition (Java) in regards to execution speed and a (Windows) compatibility. If you don't agree you'll have to spell out your definition of "technically superior", since, at face value, that doesn't include non-technical considerations like vendor independence and future-proofness. Then again simplicity is also part of technical superiority, but that is seldom mentioned considering what beast H.264 is.
Well, except it's not just the way I like it, because some asshat decided I shouldn't be able to watch H.264 videos.
There is no magical "play H.264 as per for HTML5" function call that Mozilla decided not to use. They still have to write the code, test it and, most importantly, support it in future versions. You present it as if they blocked some existing functionality, instead of deciding against creating said functionality.
And since this is a primary reason I'm not using it, why would you dismiss my opinion out of hand as a "non-user"?
It wasn't clear from your post if H.264 support specifically, Mozilla's political stances in general, or the (unspecified) other causes were your main reason for abandoning Firefox. I inferred that H.264 was a big, but not decisive factor.
At the end of the day, you're trying to promote open-ness by adding restrictions.
I didn't invent the patent system or gamed the MPEG to include as many patents into the standard as possible. Also, the failure to produce/include code for/into a free software project is not a restriction. Hindrance maybe.
Instead, I'll send users to Chrome, where these things Just Work.
Be sure to tell them how to turn off the various data collection features. Otherwise it's a decent browser.
Yes it is, there are three browsers I can publish HTML5 video for with a free software stack. Legally. If the other two ever join it then the goal of a free baseline is accomplished and H.264 advocates can enjoy their technically superior codec where permitted by law. But why would anyone want to publish outside of AOL^H^H^HYouTube anyway?
I would rather they support Theora, and I would rather Firefox support H.264.
Exactly what every other H.264 advocate says... after being asked about the discrepancy. The internet isn't flooded with complaints about the choice for IE9 or Safari, just about Firefox.
Right now, H.264 destroys Theora technologically, and there's tons of content in H.264, including content directly from most camcorders.
Last I recall the same was said for JPEG2000, that hasn't gone anywhere and the internet world is still turning. JPEGs haven't clogged the intertubes, neither would Theora videos. H.264 content from cameras (the ones that aren't DV anyway) rarely goes live unedited, when it does, make sure you actually have a license to use it commercially.
Oh, and with Ubuntu's support, it's official:
"Support" is not the same as giving an option for OEMs to pay MPEG LA. The Ubuntu that everyone and their dog downloads will not have H.264 bundled or available for free and legal download.
It's also the right technical choice, whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not.
So was using ActiveX, calling out to native code in a controlled manner.
The fact that you're willing to sabotage Firefox technologically for political reasons says a lot about you, and it's a big reason why I'm not using Firefox anymore.
The fact that you want to sabotage the stated goal of a project you aren't even using says a lot about you.
At the end of the day companies get a free pass when they make political decisions for competitive reasons and FLOSS gets pounded into the ground by non-users.
You've caught an implication that does not exist, I have not had the same job for 20 years. I've had about ten in the last 20 years.
Was, or was not, the job you landed in the are you worked in for the last 20 years. Did you, or did you not, present your work experience, not your highschool diploma as a reason to hire you?
If those were 'was' and 'did' then you missed the point. You started before every half-way qualified job wanted a degree or equivalent experience. Try getting a job without your credentials.
Can you prove this positive statement? It has in the past, for example TeX has made major contributions to typesetting (before widesread software patents too...). It's still happening, for example, there is Spiro, but it's only coincidence that I have heard of it. Vorbis was pretty darn good, speex is well regarded, FLAC is among the best. I'm not aware of everything that is happening under the popularity radar? Are you?
Why is "no one" (see Dirac, Snow) working on the next video standard? They are not interested in video codecs (lack of focus is a much bigger issue then lack of innovation in FLOSS), they don't want to fuck with patent threats or they are already busily besting the inventors in implementing their inventions (see x264 and similar).
And there is nothing stopping Microsoft and Apple from implementing Theora. However you don't seem to demand that their give up their business decisions to do it. Why then is it ok to demand that Mozilla fuck with portability, user friendliness (there won't always be a H.264 decoder on the host and suddenly Firefox works differently without an user-obvious reason) and compromise their goals in regards to openness?
I have a high school diploma from over 20 years ago.
That voids the rest of your post. To show competency by working you have to a actually be able to get into a job that lets you do that. You could do it 20 years ago, these days its a crapshot. Few, if any, places will hire you for a job that lets you demonstrate any competence without experience or a degree and since the only way to get that experience is to get the job in the first place...
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently so are iPhones, guess what they don't support?
Communism is an economic system where workers own the means of production (the capital) instead of a third party (a capitalist). Forced employment is out of its scope. However I do believe that the workers can in fact quit (you made the claim they can't, so I assume you have some evidence). Whether they have any real alternative is a different question.
You might want to look into US history to see how the factories used to be. They were, and are, capitalistic, the conditions however have changed, mainly due to worker organization and government regulations.
I'm well aware of Stalin's atrocities and the problems with the Soviet Union. The factories and farms were owned by the an authoritarian state, certainly not by the workers.
Either way the factories in China are capitalistic, not state or worker owned. It's not about who owns the factory, but how it's run.
And eastern Germany was a democratic country, that's what the phrase "Democratic Republic" means...
There is an assortment of plants I wouldn't ordinary consume that can go towards the cows. We didn't start raising animals becasue we had too much plant matter to eat...
Overpopulation is not a problem that can be solved by covering the world with wheat, soy and corn fields.
One could argue the same for human grown plants as well. Deliberate killing of animals trying to eat the growing plants, be it shooting, traps or pesticides (if you include insects into the category of animals that can suffer anyway). Inadvertent killing during the harvesting of grain if you use anything more advanced then a sickle. Deliberate killing of animals trying to eat the stored harvest. Secondary effects of deforestation, fungicides, herbicides, pesticides and general "wild" land shrinkage.
Heck easting naturally occurring plants when competing with animals is a form of suffering inflicted on them...
Do you have any idea what communism actually is? Well doesn't matter, if there is one thing that it isn't, its people working in capitalistic factories.
Yes, if a QuickTime codec is present. Default support and Safari Mobile will depend to their legal department, politics and quantum fluctuations in Jobs brain.
Having the codec is worlds a part from "must come as plugin". It will probably use the DirecShow architecture in the same way that Safari uses QuickTime. While the user still needs to install stuff, once it's done it should be basically indistinguishable from the provided H.264 from a user or web developer standpoint. And Google + YouTube have both the trust and leverage to encourage people to install codec packs.
You might not consider Opera a major player, but they are part of the big five, have a sizeable embeded presence and the desktop version is apparently quite big in Russia and Eastern Europe.
Also, a star might be in order for W3C's video specs as well, as Google, Mozilla, Opera et al. will probably seek to standardize WebM.
Good news, after that we get mostly into code names that eventually turn into numbers such as 1.1 and 1.2.
Yikes. I don't think the DMCA protections the video sites enjoy would apply to viewers...
"H.264 playback in Firefox" advocate if you prefer.
I was commenting on the "destroys Theora technologically" part. If you want to see how ignoring tons of content didn't destroy the internet look at IE6.
I'm well aware of the differences. None-the less ActiveX was technically superior to the competition (Java) in regards to execution speed and a (Windows) compatibility. If you don't agree you'll have to spell out your definition of "technically superior", since, at face value, that doesn't include non-technical considerations like vendor independence and future-proofness. Then again simplicity is also part of technical superiority, but that is seldom mentioned considering what beast H.264 is.
There is no magical "play H.264 as per for HTML5" function call that Mozilla decided not to use. They still have to write the code, test it and, most importantly, support it in future versions. You present it as if they blocked some existing functionality, instead of deciding against creating said functionality.
It wasn't clear from your post if H.264 support specifically, Mozilla's political stances in general, or the (unspecified) other causes were your main reason for abandoning Firefox. I inferred that H.264 was a big, but not decisive factor.
I didn't invent the patent system or gamed the MPEG to include as many patents into the standard as possible. Also, the failure to produce/include code for/into a free software project is not a restriction. Hindrance maybe.
Be sure to tell them how to turn off the various data collection features. Otherwise it's a decent browser.
Yes it is, there are three browsers I can publish HTML5 video for with a free software stack. Legally. If the other two ever join it then the goal of a free baseline is accomplished and H.264 advocates can enjoy their technically superior codec where permitted by law. But why would anyone want to publish outside of AOL^H^H^HYouTube anyway?
Exactly what every other H.264 advocate says... after being asked about the discrepancy. The internet isn't flooded with complaints about the choice for IE9 or Safari, just about Firefox.
Last I recall the same was said for JPEG2000, that hasn't gone anywhere and the internet world is still turning. JPEGs haven't clogged the intertubes, neither would Theora videos. H.264 content from cameras (the ones that aren't DV anyway) rarely goes live unedited, when it does, make sure you actually have a license to use it commercially.
"Support" is not the same as giving an option for OEMs to pay MPEG LA. The Ubuntu that everyone and their dog downloads will not have H.264 bundled or available for free and legal download.
So was using ActiveX, calling out to native code in a controlled manner.
The fact that you want to sabotage the stated goal of a project you aren't even using says a lot about you.
At the end of the day companies get a free pass when they make political decisions for competitive reasons and FLOSS gets pounded into the ground by non-users.
Was, or was not, the job you landed in the are you worked in for the last 20 years. Did you, or did you not, present your work experience, not your highschool diploma as a reason to hire you?
If those were 'was' and 'did' then you missed the point. You started before every half-way qualified job wanted a degree or equivalent experience. Try getting a job without your credentials.
Can you prove this positive statement? It has in the past, for example TeX has made major contributions to typesetting (before widesread software patents too...). It's still happening, for example, there is Spiro, but it's only coincidence that I have heard of it. Vorbis was pretty darn good, speex is well regarded, FLAC is among the best. I'm not aware of everything that is happening under the popularity radar? Are you?
Why is "no one" (see Dirac, Snow) working on the next video standard? They are not interested in video codecs (lack of focus is a much bigger issue then lack of innovation in FLOSS), they don't want to fuck with patent threats or they are already busily besting the inventors in implementing their inventions (see x264 and similar).
Not to mention all the expensive politicizing they had to do to get their patents included in the standard! Such innovation must be rewarded!
Also, how is not giving buyers permission to use video from their cameras commercially "not a problem" for Canon and Panasonic?
So should we just give up on this whole web-bound HTML and go with the clear outside winner that is Word Documents?
How many mobile devices play all H.264 profiles? How many have additional restrictions even with Baseline?
And there is nothing stopping Microsoft and Apple from implementing Theora. However you don't seem to demand that their give up their business decisions to do it. Why then is it ok to demand that Mozilla fuck with portability, user friendliness (there won't always be a H.264 decoder on the host and suddenly Firefox works differently without an user-obvious reason) and compromise their goals in regards to openness?
Microsoft and Apple still refuse to support Theora without collective outrage, and Mozilla continues to be held to a different standard.
That voids the rest of your post. To show competency by working you have to a actually be able to get into a job that lets you do that. You could do it 20 years ago, these days its a crapshot. Few, if any, places will hire you for a job that lets you demonstrate any competence without experience or a degree and since the only way to get that experience is to get the job in the first place...
Care to guess how many colors your media can store?