Or maybe they support WebM, because the Internet does!
I think the format issue is a valid one. However atleast any more "professional" video is most likely edited before upload and hence the switch in format probably doesn't matter that much. Even more so considering people who edit their clips may opt to not use H.264 at all.
I'm not sure what your point was there. But as far as I'm concerned, "saving resources" is not a priority for me. If someone else wants to go through my waste and turn it into useful resources, then more power to them, but I'm not here to have a low environmental footprint.
it only takes around 1.2kg of food (in some species) to produce 1kg of muscle in fish.
I don't know what species that is, but you still feed them with fish. Atleast most often. So how do you solve that?
And regarding your cattle and corn: You get 1 kg chicken / 1.5 kg food I think to.
Both alternatives suck though. Chickens are probably better for the environment, but what do I know.
The best would be to eat human babies, there's way too many humans anyway and it would save a lot of resources during the livehood of what would had been a human.
Culturally unacceptable? Whatever. Maybe Twilight can help with that?
.. maybe I should had thrown in a kick on Norway there to. Similar bastards as Japan. Growing fish outside of african coast and so on. Both do whaling to.
And no, farming doesn't help since farmed fish consume even more wild fish.
And then we've got the problem with Japan ignoring everyone else doing their own race fishing up anything anywhere, fishing quotas where smaller fish is dumped but dead since you'd rather pick up bigger fishes or whatever you caught was the wrong kind. And finally devasting effects on the bottom, corals, whatever.
Humans suck, animal-eating omnivores even more so.
Nah, if you catch a pirate who's been stealing goods worth 500 million dollar just inform him that he can either pay 20 billion now or he'll be facing charges!
Here in 'Merika, we believe in this thing called the "free market" which means companies are "free" to screw us over.
I lol'd:D
Our electricity market is free here in Sweden to. And I've got the understandard that really lowered prices, at first atleast.
Anyway around 50% of our electricity is hydro power and 50% is nuclear, but back in the days there was an election about when we should stop using nuclear power, not if, there was just three variations of "no" to nuclear power. Anyway, so I think it was decided that we should stop using it in 2010.
Well, last year was 2010, and I think they have closed down two reactors pretty recently, but the rest of the ones who's been around lately is still on. Or well, should be. Because there haven't been any real maintenance and upgrades lately since they where supposed to be shut down. So around 3.5 of our 10 are kinda turned off.
Two of our biggest players is Vattenfall and E-on, Vattenfall is owned by the government and have both hydrogen and nuclear power. The funny thing though is that because of all this the nuclear plants run like shit now and did last year aswell, so Vattenfall couldn't produce as much electricity (and maybe not E-on either?) as they would had done if things worked as they should. The expected fallout of that would probably had been that consumers would had to pay more since electricity was scarce and Vattenfall would had huge issues since they didn't got any money from the electricity they didn't produced and also had to spend money on fixing things up. Right?
But nah, since they are one of the biggest players of course they lost on the nuclear power and production, but the scarcity raised prices and since they also produce hydro power they could produce more of it and actually earn more than they would had done if everything worked..
And also since it's owned by the government I think it would had been OK / cool if they just decided to keep profits steady or kept them low by selling the electricity cheap and hold prices down on the whole market for the benefit of all the consumers. But obviously they didn't.
Generally electricity cost is higher tens - lower forties öre (1/100 SEK) / kwh in the winter. Last year Swedish Kraftnät decided that it was a good idea to do maintenance on the electric grid close to one of the rivers producing hydro power which would then had led to no productivity there while they where working, in freaking February. They decided the day before that they shouldn't do it because it was cold and so on but that was too late so production was turned off anyhow and prices sky rocketed to 5 SEK / kwh.. (from like 0.4 the year before.)
Great.
I guess this is what you get when you've got idiots as politicians, let idiots vote and no-one takes responsibility.
1) Decide to turn of nuclear power. 2) Turn some off. 3) Ignore maintenance and upgrades. 4) Don't build any alternatives (a few freaking wind plants but who gives a shit? They just cost money.) 5) Wait. 6) Profit! / SNAFU
Maybe they could had thought ahead like 5-10 years and come to the conclusion that "wait, we don't have the electricity production capacity available that we can turn of the nuclear reactors in 5-10 years time. Maybe we should be running them for some time longer?"
And what good is the election anyway then there was no "Yes, I like to have nuclear power!"
Free market was also allowed to fix the ISP situation, when ADSL and cable became common. Back in 2002 at Nordic University Computer Club Conference/NUCCC there was this guy from Swedish University Networks / SUNET who talked about the cost of building fiber to everyone just as the electricity network connects to "everyone" for around 50 billion SEK. That never happened because politicians are retarded and I guess it wasn't the cool thing to invest in seen from the general public and old farts. So inst
I switched from altavista and not MSN search though. I wonder if MSN really was the biggest/most used player even back then?
But then my sisters boyfriends IE uses bing by default.
(And the browser take a freaking minute to respond before starting up. I have no idea wtf is wrong with it. Either it's just all the crap starting up in the background after boot or it's Norton or he must have done something stupid with his browser. I don't feel comfortable telling him to ditch Norton (as if you could;D) and use Chrome. If it was my sisters laptop the situation would had been different. Though she's old enough (29) to have her own opinion to;))
Personally I don't get why you don't have the same technology used by all players.
If I bought a GSM/3G/4G phone here in Sweden I would be able to use it with all operators (well, maybe not 4G? I don't know if it's only Telia who got 4G yet?)
If I have had a Symbian phone back then I would to. But would everyone?
Also I don't see why and I'd rather expect that all those applications would be available today aswell.
I don't know if Symbian^3 can run the non-QT Symbian apps but probably it can? And atleast on the Nokia devices you don't have to get the application from one specific source (which may be a disadvantage but as long as people _use_ one source atleast I guess it should be just fine.) For MeeGo I guess it would be easier to port Irssi, OpenSSH, and so on.
Its interesting to see Apple to have such great products, but get so hung up on the minutia of wanting to control the hardware so badly, that they fail to see the real gold was in getting the software on as many units as possible.
You're wrong though.
The later is more or less what they do.
You could install software on Windows Mobile and Symbian to, but few made it, and with a smaller amount of applications available I assume.
Like it or not but the centralized application repository has made many more install many more applications on their phones.
If it was up to anyone to provide them do you really think people would had installed in equal numbers?
Also I assume Apple want to keep the experience nice and tidy / secure, and hence be able to control the applications. If they let all kinds of crap (oh well..;D) and virus / trojan software become installed on the phones would it had been as much of a success?
So yeah, they control the hardware, and the applications you can install on it, _BUT_ that _DO_ help them get the phones to as many phones as possible and generate huge profits for Apple.
Additional crap: Say the phone would had ran straight Debian or whatever and be totally open, and have no central repository but let people post whatever they developed on their webpages and have others download them. How many phone specific applications would you had seen on the phones? How many would had used them? Know which ones was popular? How many would had been developing them? So on so on.
Even though I don't like the lockin and don't have or will get an iPhone I just have to accept the fact that the AppStore has made many more people install third-party applications on their phones.
Even more impressive than you consider that (atleast earlier, maybe we're too far into the year now, but it doesn't matter much for the comparision) Android only had a 3.5% market share just a year ago (eventually more, as said, so what if it was 13-14 months ago?..)
People draw very weird conclusions for that though. Earlier I guess the conclusion was that Android would never get a foot in, and that iPhone was small but much bigger than Android. Now iPhone is pretty big and Android have had amazing growth. So now the conclusion is that everyone want only iPhones or that Android will beat all other mobile OSes.
And when Playstation bet Nintendo and killed of Sega (Sega killed themselves..:D) and the Gamecube sold even worse people wheren't slow to conclude that Nintendo was dying and would never come back on top. And who thought Xbox would get in? Seriously? Before the mod chips?
People seem to only be able to look at the current trend and extrapolate it into the future assuming everything will be the same and nothing will change in the future and current trends can survive forever. Well guess what?...
Atleast it's nice to see that totally new concepts and player can actually become a major player on the market and that everything isn't stuck in same old. As it more or less is and has ever been on the PC market.
By that logic _ANY_ attempt whatsoever at any time won't do.
See you in person? What about a look a like?
Test your DNA? Not 100% secure ATM. And what if it's a clone?
"uh, this isn't secure, it can be broken!", no shit. So never worth doing?
Do you lock your door? Have your wallet in your pants? Save money in the bank?
Why? People can easily brute force their way into your apartment / house anyway, rob you or pick your wallet,..
Also back in reality it's a _HUGE_ difference in "can be done" and "could be done if you had a gazillion years and unlimited amounts of energy available."
Break a 40 bit key? Sure.
Break a 1 073 741 824 bit key? Obviously also possible. Though it will take some time, so does it matter that it "could" be done? And if you think that is too easy to make sense just raise it by an exponent of thousand or so..
But since people rely on much less secure shit than this would be it kinda mean something, to them.
I don't give a rats ass about people knowing by personal id number. But sure you could write that, my name, address and such down on a piece of paper / order whatever and do something in my name.
But the personal id doesn't change that. Knowing that doesn't prove you're me. With or without it the order would most likely had been accepted because someone THOUGHT you where me anyway.
So yeah, it can be used in bad ways. But so could any information used to claim to be me.
But since it doesn't prove anything who gives a shit? Order something in my name and I say "I've not made this order", then what? Yeah. Exactly =P, nothing:)
At least Visa had tried to start having people type a Visa password when doing online purchases. Good for Visa and less fraud I assume. Not necessary a good thing to me since it somewhat more proves that it was really me who ordered =P, throw in a certificate and it would be even more so.
But since I'm not after to fraud Visa I don't give a shit and rather keep my card "more safe" in case I would never notice the fraud or whatever.
So if the smartcard was spoofed, we'd be right fucked, huh.
If someone can sign your name on a paper and send it by mail you'd be fucked to....
Also if we speak things online and this isn't used as the only security measure how does things improve without using it? Say pin vs pin + certificate?
Slashdot Mirror
And when can I get it straight onto my eye? With 4k resolution graphics.
Well done for defeating yourself...
No, he most likely know that DVD use Mpeg-2 for video.
His claim was for the audio track, where it's true, and if either format lasted for so freaking long why did they switch?
Or maybe they support WebM, because the Internet does!
I think the format issue is a valid one. However atleast any more "professional" video is most likely edited before upload and hence the switch in format probably doesn't matter that much. Even more so considering people who edit their clips may opt to not use H.264 at all.
..in this case, as in: "All Your Apps are Approved By Steve", or UBOUGHTAPL-GOTSCREWD, for short.
Steve dont do Generic.
Fart sounding alarm clocks that actually work for instance after new years eve store?
You can also try any of these replacing App with Soft, Software, Program, Executable (a bit geeky there) and any other App synonym you can think off.
Microsoft DRM'd 1's and 0's (optional: store.)
M$ App store? :D
Though yeah, cool if they stole the word iApp ;D
Makes me wonder though, now when Apples market cap actually is bigger than Microsoft should we maybe switch?
iPhone$, iPad$, App$?
I don't see the problem for Microsoft. Why not call it Microsoft market? Microsoft store? Windows store? Mobile store? Exploitz'n'crapware'r'us?
.. or just sell iPhones.
Most of the videos are streamed using Flash so they would be safe then ;)
I'm not sure what your point was there. But as far as I'm concerned, "saving resources" is not a priority for me. If someone else wants to go through my waste and turn it into useful resources, then more power to them, but I'm not here to have a low environmental footprint.
k, so better turned into food then =P
Isn't part of the flavor differences supposed to be coming from stress? Rather than slow growth bla whatever.
Gravel?!? Think of the living, breathing bacteria on that gravel! Think of the BACTERIA!!
Eat homephatic gravel :)
Or why not homephatic cows? Dilute one cow, dilute it again, again, again, ...
And you'd get plenty of meat power! And less cow. It's a win - win!
Patent pending!
it only takes around 1.2kg of food (in some species) to produce 1kg of muscle in fish.
I don't know what species that is, but you still feed them with fish. Atleast most often. So how do you solve that?
And regarding your cattle and corn: You get 1 kg chicken / 1.5 kg food I think to.
Both alternatives suck though. Chickens are probably better for the environment, but what do I know.
The best would be to eat human babies, there's way too many humans anyway and it would save a lot of resources during the livehood of what would had been a human.
Culturally unacceptable? Whatever. Maybe Twilight can help with that?
.. maybe I should had thrown in a kick on Norway there to. Similar bastards as Japan. Growing fish outside of african coast and so on. Both do whaling to.
I mean, what happened to fish?
They got fished?
And no, farming doesn't help since farmed fish consume even more wild fish.
And then we've got the problem with Japan ignoring everyone else doing their own race fishing up anything anywhere, fishing quotas where smaller fish is dumped but dead since you'd rather pick up bigger fishes or whatever you caught was the wrong kind. And finally devasting effects on the bottom, corals, whatever.
Humans suck, animal-eating omnivores even more so.
I thought that the answer to pirates was more DRM
Nah, if you catch a pirate who's been stealing goods worth 500 million dollar just inform him that he can either pay 20 billion now or he'll be facing charges!
Excess methane creating a serious fire hazard?
That's seen as an advantage.
Here in 'Merika, we believe in this thing called the "free market" which means companies are "free" to screw us over.
I lol'd :D
Our electricity market is free here in Sweden to. And I've got the understandard that really lowered prices, at first atleast.
Anyway around 50% of our electricity is hydro power and 50% is nuclear, but back in the days there was an election about when we should stop using nuclear power, not if, there was just three variations of "no" to nuclear power. Anyway, so I think it was decided that we should stop using it in 2010.
Well, last year was 2010, and I think they have closed down two reactors pretty recently, but the rest of the ones who's been around lately is still on. Or well, should be. Because there haven't been any real maintenance and upgrades lately since they where supposed to be shut down. So around 3.5 of our 10 are kinda turned off.
Two of our biggest players is Vattenfall and E-on, Vattenfall is owned by the government and have both hydrogen and nuclear power. The funny thing though is that because of all this the nuclear plants run like shit now and did last year aswell, so Vattenfall couldn't produce as much electricity (and maybe not E-on either?) as they would had done if things worked as they should. The expected fallout of that would probably had been that consumers would had to pay more since electricity was scarce and Vattenfall would had huge issues since they didn't got any money from the electricity they didn't produced and also had to spend money on fixing things up. Right?
But nah, since they are one of the biggest players of course they lost on the nuclear power and production, but the scarcity raised prices and since they also produce hydro power they could produce more of it and actually earn more than they would had done if everything worked ..
And also since it's owned by the government I think it would had been OK / cool if they just decided to keep profits steady or kept them low by selling the electricity cheap and hold prices down on the whole market for the benefit of all the consumers. But obviously they didn't.
Generally electricity cost is higher tens - lower forties öre (1/100 SEK) / kwh in the winter. Last year Swedish Kraftnät decided that it was a good idea to do maintenance on the electric grid close to one of the rivers producing hydro power which would then had led to no productivity there while they where working, in freaking February. They decided the day before that they shouldn't do it because it was cold and so on but that was too late so production was turned off anyhow and prices sky rocketed to 5 SEK / kwh .. (from like 0.4 the year before.)
Great.
I guess this is what you get when you've got idiots as politicians, let idiots vote and no-one takes responsibility.
1) Decide to turn of nuclear power.
2) Turn some off.
3) Ignore maintenance and upgrades.
4) Don't build any alternatives (a few freaking wind plants but who gives a shit? They just cost money.)
5) Wait.
6) Profit! / SNAFU
Maybe they could had thought ahead like 5-10 years and come to the conclusion that "wait, we don't have the electricity production capacity available that we can turn of the nuclear reactors in 5-10 years time. Maybe we should be running them for some time longer?"
And what good is the election anyway then there was no "Yes, I like to have nuclear power!"
Free market was also allowed to fix the ISP situation, when ADSL and cable became common. Back in 2002 at Nordic University Computer Club Conference /NUCCC there was this guy from Swedish University Networks / SUNET who talked about the cost of building fiber to everyone just as the electricity network connects to "everyone" for around 50 billion SEK. That never happened because politicians are retarded and I guess it wasn't the cool thing to invest in seen from the general public and old farts. So inst
I switched from altavista and not MSN search though. I wonder if MSN really was the biggest/most used player even back then?
But then my sisters boyfriends IE uses bing by default.
(And the browser take a freaking minute to respond before starting up. I have no idea wtf is wrong with it. Either it's just all the crap starting up in the background after boot or it's Norton or he must have done something stupid with his browser. I don't feel comfortable telling him to ditch Norton (as if you could ;D) and use Chrome. If it was my sisters laptop the situation would had been different. Though she's old enough (29) to have her own opinion to ;))
Personally I don't get why you don't have the same technology used by all players.
If I bought a GSM/3G/4G phone here in Sweden I would be able to use it with all operators (well, maybe not 4G? I don't know if it's only Telia who got 4G yet?)
Though they don't all use each others antennas.
But how many people used them?
If I have had a Symbian phone back then I would to. But would everyone?
Also I don't see why and I'd rather expect that all those applications would be available today aswell.
I don't know if Symbian^3 can run the non-QT Symbian apps but probably it can? And atleast on the Nokia devices you don't have to get the application from one specific source (which may be a disadvantage but as long as people _use_ one source atleast I guess it should be just fine.)
For MeeGo I guess it would be easier to port Irssi, OpenSSH, and so on.
I don't think they where after app store income but rather the information, users, brand knowledge and release more products.
Any app store incoming is just an additional bonus.
Its interesting to see Apple to have such great products, but get so hung up on the minutia of wanting to control the hardware so badly, that they fail to see the real gold was in getting the software on as many units as possible.
You're wrong though.
The later is more or less what they do.
You could install software on Windows Mobile and Symbian to, but few made it, and with a smaller amount of applications available I assume.
Like it or not but the centralized application repository has made many more install many more applications on their phones.
If it was up to anyone to provide them do you really think people would had installed in equal numbers?
Also I assume Apple want to keep the experience nice and tidy / secure, and hence be able to control the applications. If they let all kinds of crap (oh well .. ;D) and virus / trojan software become installed on the phones would it had been as much of a success?
So yeah, they control the hardware, and the applications you can install on it, _BUT_ that _DO_ help them get the phones to as many phones as possible and generate huge profits for Apple.
Additional crap:
Say the phone would had ran straight Debian or whatever and be totally open, and have no central repository but let people post whatever they developed on their webpages and have others download them. How many phone specific applications would you had seen on the phones? How many would had used them? Know which ones was popular? How many would had been developing them? So on so on.
Even though I don't like the lockin and don't have or will get an iPhone I just have to accept the fact that the AppStore has made many more people install third-party applications on their phones.
Even more impressive than you consider that (atleast earlier, maybe we're too far into the year now, but it doesn't matter much for the comparision) Android only had a 3.5% market share just a year ago (eventually more, as said, so what if it was 13-14 months ago? ..)
People draw very weird conclusions for that though. Earlier I guess the conclusion was that Android would never get a foot in, and that iPhone was small but much bigger than Android. Now iPhone is pretty big and Android have had amazing growth. So now the conclusion is that everyone want only iPhones or that Android will beat all other mobile OSes.
And when Playstation bet Nintendo and killed of Sega (Sega killed themselves .. :D) and the Gamecube sold even worse people wheren't slow to conclude that Nintendo was dying and would never come back on top. And who thought Xbox would get in? Seriously? Before the mod chips?
People seem to only be able to look at the current trend and extrapolate it into the future assuming everything will be the same and nothing will change in the future and current trends can survive forever. Well guess what? ...
Atleast it's nice to see that totally new concepts and player can actually become a major player on the market and that everything isn't stuck in same old. As it more or less is and has ever been on the PC market.
Moron!
By that logic _ANY_ attempt whatsoever at any time won't do.
See you in person? What about a look a like?
Test your DNA? Not 100% secure ATM. And what if it's a clone?
"uh, this isn't secure, it can be broken!", no shit. So never worth doing?
Do you lock your door? Have your wallet in your pants? Save money in the bank?
Why? People can easily brute force their way into your apartment / house anyway, rob you or pick your wallet, ..
Also back in reality it's a _HUGE_ difference in "can be done" and "could be done if you had a gazillion years and unlimited amounts of energy available."
Break a 40 bit key? Sure.
Break a 1 073 741 824 bit key? Obviously also possible. Though it will take some time, so does it matter that it "could" be done? And if you think that is too easy to make sense just raise it by an exponent of thousand or so ..
But since people rely on much less secure shit than this would be it kinda mean something, to them.
I don't give a rats ass about people knowing by personal id number. But sure you could write that, my name, address and such down on a piece of paper / order whatever and do something in my name.
But the personal id doesn't change that. Knowing that doesn't prove you're me. With or without it the order would most likely had been accepted because someone THOUGHT you where me anyway.
So yeah, it can be used in bad ways. But so could any information used to claim to be me.
But since it doesn't prove anything who gives a shit? Order something in my name and I say "I've not made this order", then what? Yeah. Exactly =P, nothing :)
At least Visa had tried to start having people type a Visa password when doing online purchases. Good for Visa and less fraud I assume. Not necessary a good thing to me since it somewhat more proves that it was really me who ordered =P, throw in a certificate and it would be even more so.
But since I'm not after to fraud Visa I don't give a shit and rather keep my card "more safe" in case I would never notice the fraud or whatever.
So if the smartcard was spoofed, we'd be right fucked, huh.
If someone can sign your name on a paper and send it by mail you'd be fucked to. ...
Also if we speak things online and this isn't used as the only security measure how does things improve without using it? Say pin vs pin + certificate?