Uhm, the firefox javascript engine supports multithreading just fine, and gecko 1.9 supports multithreaded javascript out of the box, the previous branch required some extra effort to do so what it most certainly would allow multiple javascript threads.
Not really sure what the hell you're talking about but I have a couple Firefox extensions that depend on the fact that they can use multiple threads.
This is all documented on mozdev, both the new methods for gecko 1.9 and the workarounds to do it in the 1.8.x branch.
I've been using multiple javascript threads in gecko/xulrunner for at least 2 years.
Considering the popularity of things like flashblock, I'd have to say that if your argument is based on the idea that flash can lock up your browser, than its a safe bet that its not really a pressing need.
So yes, flash can lock up a thread, and since a large amount of firefox users intentionally block flash, its not actually that pressing of a need.
Its good that you think it should have been in the very first version, thats why you are in charge of a major cross platform multithreaded application which supports all sorts of random plugins and extensions.
Wait, what? You aren't in charge of such a project? Oh, my bad, well, I guess at least you can always talk out your ass now that everyone else is doing it and pretend you knew this all along. Obviously it was your idea.
Uhm, I've written plenty of single threaded apps that can give the appearance of being multithreaded.
All it has to do is use non-blocking calls and make regular UI updates to make sure the user isn't aware of the single-threaded nature.
It takes effort, but its far from a requirement, and in many cases is far easier than writing proper thread safe multithreaded applications considering in almost every toolkit out there there is only one thread that handles ALL UI in an application.
You know that Google Chrome window you see, with all those tabs in it, and all the processes controlling them. Guess what, the GUI you see runs in a single thread, fed by a bunch of backend processes with some re-parented windows.
It amazes me how people post on slashdot as if they know everything about programming when they really don't have a clue.
Let me say this as clearly and nicely as I possibly can.
Go fuck yourself. Don't break the law if you don't want a ticket.
I'm so sick of douchebags like yourself trying to come up with excuses to break the law and get by with it.
If you don't like the law, get it changed. If you can't get it changed, then play by the fucking rules cause the majority of us agree with the law. If you don't want to play be the rules, expect to get spanked. If you want to continue this sort of bullshit, expect to get spanked harder next time, you deserve it.
Hahahah, yea, thats great logic, thats why drug dealers always get off when they bust a drug house.
They take the house to jail, but leave the people that live there in the now empty lot.
Most of the time, an IP will narrow the list of possible people to the point that with very little extra outside information it becomes clear who was using the IP at that time.
What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP isn't useful for figuring out who is doing something.
Admins have been using them for this for years, the only people I see whining about it are people who are afraid of getting caught doing something they don't want others to know about. Stop doing shit you don't want people to know about in public, I.E. on the internet and you'll not have to be so retarded about IPs any more.
The warrent argument is so tired and fucking retarded. 'You can't tie these two things together without a warrent!?$!@$?!@%!@#^%!@%' Get the fuck over yourself. My mind is going to tie them together without a judge telling me its okay, then I'm going to go to a judge and explain why, using clear logic, the IP used is coming from someone in your house so we can make a pretty safe assumption that we'll get more evidence inside, and he's going to say 'you know what, you are right, here you go'.
You people and your retarded logic don't get that regardless of how hard you try to come up with some legal way to get around the fact that you're breaking the law, the rest of us who created the laws aren't going to let you get by with it.
Civilization is more important to me than your bullshit rants about your privacy. I don't give a flying fuck about your privacy, I care about mine. My privacy doesn't require my IP to be hidden or not accepted as evidence. My privacy is real privacy because I'm not doing shit in public/on a public network and then trying to make sure no one can figure it out.
Your ignorance and subconscious need for voyeurism and attention is why you won't ever have privacy, there is nothing else to blame.
WINS was not an attempt to do something silly against DNS, it was a non-IP centric service to find windows machines. Yes it worked over IP, and it also worked over IPX and BV. DNS is rather IP centric, I suppose they could have just extended it like they did with ActiveDirectory, not like it would have mattered, you'd still bitch at them for extending something that was made to be extensible. NetBEUI was perfectly acceptable in a non-subnetted environment when properly used, we have new protocols now that work on top of IP for local subnets is pretty much the exact same way as NetBEUI. Office is a pisser because no one else has made a Office clone that doesn't suck for years. Yes they dropped support for other formats, but they probably actually carried support longer than any one else would have.
In case you didn't notice, the Win32 API is rather incompatible with Win16 apps as well, but let me give you a neat hint, that OS/2 compatibility... still there! NT kernels had it up until Win7, which I believe it has been removed in. They haven't updated it in forever, so its only for the earliest versions of OS/2 but was there, just like POSIX support.
Dude, you had an easy argument to make and you pulled out of bunch of incorrect information and short sighted/uninformed comments to do it with. Weak. You're fanboy card is suspended until further notice.
Yea, cause MS is really scared of the market share its losing to Linux.
Yes, Stallman's political posturing probably had some influence. Its more likely the main reason this was done to avoid being considered discriminitory/monopolistic to governments of the world, not to appease the extremely small percentage of people who warship loud mouth blow hards Stallman. Sorry.
Its just as likely they did this to make Scientology happy.
Let see, go public and tell the world you won't sue them for using your stuff, then turn around and sue them for your using your stuff.
Yea, the judge is going to be all in MS's favor on that one, thats very logical.
I'm sure MS will 'release' all their patents the same day IBM, Redhat, Novell, and Conical do. If you don't think they have patents then you're rather ignorant. Having a patent on something now days is a form of protection against the bastards who manage to get bullshit patents accepted then run to west Texas and start suing everyone.
I understand you hate MS, but your argument is rather irrational and lacking in the logic department.
Yea, its not like any OSS apps evolve quickly and make an next to impossible target to hit.
Thats why you never see commercial developers talking about how Linux easy is such a stable target to hit...
Sorry, but this is just a silly argument.
C#/.NET is going to take a few years to mature, naturally. Guess you've never been around when something new comes out that really hasn't been ironed out yet.
VisualStudio and Winforms are proprietary and simply aren't a choice for Linux desktop applications (even if they didn't suck).
Okay, for just a second, turn off your inner fanboy.
Now, rationally and factually, without your own personal bias and agenda, please explain to us why they aren't a choice for Linux apps and why they suck.
If you have an out right oversion to proprietary apps then you're just a dipshit. Every argument you can come up with translates almost directly to opensource equally for anyone who isn't a programmer.
Yes, you can patch and fix OSS yourself if you know how, unfortunately 99.9% of the population doesn't have a clue how to do it, which makes the whole argument nil from a practical standpoint unless the app you want patched is popular enough to have someone else patch it.
As a general rule, any proprietary app of the same level of popularity isn't going to vanish either regardless of what happens to the company. It'll get sold or continued until its not of enough interest to matter.
So again, please explain rationally and factually why they suck and why they aren't a choice. And just like the GPP, I use Monodevelop and VS on a daily basis, some times side by side, and think you've probably not used VisualStudio if you're going to make such statements. I can see how you may prefer Monodevelop over VS for several reasons, but saying VS sucks? Not really seeing that.
It'll be rather hard for MS to sue anyone for implementing these standards after they've come out and said 'its okay, you can use them, we won't sue'.
Yes, the hold patents, and thats good, that means Company X can pull out a bullshit patent on it now and start sueing the hell out of everyone because Company X never promised not to sue anyone. This really isn't any different than IBM or Redhat patenting something that you would consider open source. Why is it okay for Redhat, but not MS, just because you're afraid?
At what point do they satisfy you that they are going to let you use it? Do they have to pay you or something?
Cause then we'd just have a tag like OBJECT but specific to video.
So... you're right, lets make ActiveX standard for all browsers, thats a great idea! Thats essentially what you're saying. The only difference is it would be 'for video', and of course by 'for video' I mean 'just as dangerous and capable of doing whatever it wants as ActiveX.
You specify a codec and in order for a browser to be HTML5 compliant it has to support a specific video codec, which means that a web developer can produce a specific format of video and know it will work on an HTML5 renderer without a bunch of bullshit. The instant you make it 'open' you might as well just take it out since no one will have any idea what to expect.
I never understood this kind of stupidity. By the time you've made all the images to make it look good in IE, why the hell do you use a whole different set of images for other browsers.
I realize making HTML IE friendly is a pain in the ass, but if you go through all that effort and don't just use it for the other browsers its your own fault.
There, you now have the list of every rendering engine of any importance what so ever.
How the hell does this stupid comment get modded as insightful? Do you not realize pretty much every other browser is based off one of the rendering engines used in those listed?
We (developers) are the ones that determine who wins the browser battles. We make the sites and we tell people what browser to use.
Not a web developer eh? Or at least, not one with an actual job.
Contrary to popular fanboy belief, a statistically irrelevent portion of grandmothers using Firefox instead of IE doesn't mean the world uses Firefox.
I can't imagine you can hold a job long when you think you define what your customers want. Thats simply not the way it works, sorry there bud. Come back when you get out of high school/collage.
So is there currently better support for Flash or HTML5?
I'm sorry, what was your point?
They idea of codec="blah" is just basically like saying 'hey, lets add another special tag thats essentially OBJECT, but limited to video! It'll be open, but only useful for one type of media! Its a brilliant idea...'
Why do you assume their will be some massively superior codec that we'll jump to? There will probably be something better, sure, just like there are better alternatives to MP3s, yet all my music is still stored as mp3s, even the stuff I buy from iTunes gets converted to mp3 immediately. I don't see why video will be any different once there is actually an accepted standard for it.
So other than the 'bleeding edge geeks' who have to follow whatever the trend of the day for Linux, the rest of the world will continue using what you would consider an old inferior codec.
I've got no concerns over h.264 patents. The only people are those who have an agenda to push. Your worries about patents are only because you're afraid that you might actually have to pay someone for their work, or your afraid that the 'OMFG ITS NOT ROYALTY/PATENT/COPYLEFT SO WE CAN'T USE IT IN LINUX' twits won't want to use so you'll once again be stuck with some shitty codec that no one outside of Linux cares about.
And for reference, browsers still support the original HTML spec in almost all cases, thats what happens when you design something to backwards and forwards compatible.
Choosing an inferior standard always makes you stupid. You always choose the superior standard. That could be Theora or 264, just depends on what your definition of inferior is.
As a developer myself, I don't really have an issue with licensing someones elses code/libraries/algorithms for use in my code. Other than 'I can't just use their code without paying for it', I've yet to see any other reason not to use h264, please enlighten me, without resorting to FUD (i.e. copyright/patent bullshit).
We already have that, and it fucking sucks, the point is to implement a common standard that EVERYONE supports as the lowest common denominator, not just add a new version of the object or applet tag specific to video.
Myself, I'll go with closed over inferior, the only people who won't are zealots/fanboys. Unfortunately the real problem here is that Theora might not be inferior if you throw some resources at it.
Remember, Linux didn't become awesome overnight, I've yet to see an OSS project that does. Without financial motivation most OSS projects will take years of people donating spare time to make them compete with a company that can put lots of cash into development. Of course, Google could easily accomplish this without noticing the money spent even being gone.
Weight is irrelevant. Mass is as well as far as top speed, but it does effects acceleration.
If you don't change the aerodynamics of the car (i.e. put all the mass inside) it will do the same top speed in a straight line as it will without (with an extremely tiny difference due to additional bearing drag, but thats probably not detectable on any radar gun or speedometer that you're going to measure it with.) Its just going to take a lot longer to get there with 2 tonnes of additional weight
The difference between a Peugeot 306 carrying 2 tonnes of mass and one that is only carrying fuel and a passenger is going to be how long it takes them to get to 96mph, not if it is capable of doing so.
Max air speed for an good unladen police helicopter (no extra equipment, seats, and minimal fuel) is 150mph. If they're carrying their normal equipment and enough fuel to follow with, that drops. He was doing over 150mph, and the helicopter kept up pretty nicely.
Fuel and overall weight makes very little difference in the speed of an aircraft, just pretty much effects the burn rate of the fuel itself and extra load effects other performance factors such as speed during a high G manuver.
Helicopter speed is limited due to the problem of the speed of the leading edge of the rotor as it moves through the air. The tip travels far faster than the root of the blade. That in and of itself is no problem.
What is a problem however is that the tip is moving at say 400 mph or so, and the base is moving at next to nothing. Again, by itself this is fine.
When you add 150 to 200 mph of forward airspeed to it however, you have a tip speed in forward motion that is rapidly approaching the speed of sound. Now you have a problem. You have the problem of part of the rotor operating in supersonic conditions and part of the rotor operating in subsonic conditions. That in and of itself is extremely stressful, couple with it the fact that each rotor blade is transitioning into and out of supersonic mode every rotation and you rapidly run into the problem of having a airfoil that is extremely weak overall transitioning in and out of supersonic conditions hundreds or thousands of times a second. The end result is generally that the helicopter tears itself apart due to vibration and stress in an extremely short period of time.
We've just relatively recently come up with the technologies and materials to allow us to deal with the stresses of that sort of flight, but I'm pretty sure about the only people with that information are bound by DOD contracts, and as such you're not likely to find a non-military helo that would be able to withstand those speeds.
The extra weight and aerodynamic drag arent' a problem for helos and haven't been for a while, transitioning between subsonic and supersonic modes of flight a thousand times a second on the other hand, doesn't go over so well.
You can police a water fountain by putting a police office next to it to deter or prevent crime occurring on/near the water fountain.
Its far harder to effectively police roaming wifi. They have to have some way to tie the usage to a person otherwise it will just turn into a free for all much like EFNet 10 years ago.
Requiring identification gives them SOMETHING to trace. So yes, it is that the goverment is trying to track you and what you are doing, thats kind of how it works when you have to provide some level of protection against crime.
The solution: Don't use it, no tracking, no problem, its not like its a requirement, there are alternatives, all of those will also require you to register though, but since you don't seem to be bitching about registration in general, just when the government does it, then it shouldn't make your tin foil hat glow too much.
Of course, the government has plenty of ways they can get get all the data from any 3rd party operating in your country as well already, this really just translates into someone (you) freaking out over something they've put very little (none) thought into.
Public water fountains are monitored, even if you don't realize it. They are monitored by the the citizens in the general area at the time.
Really, what you are concerned with is that someone might see you doing something you wouldn't want anyone else to know. Heres the neat part though, theres are REALLY REALLY good chance, no one gives a flying fuck that you go look at videos of people eating shit while they fuck horses.
Your linksys router with a usb port and a westerndigital MyBook drive is not a NAS device, sorry.
I can not possibly think of an NAS device other than something you would by at Best Buy that would perform slower than any form of wireless in use.
Your final statement doesn't even make sense. You like wireless because its lack of security makes it ideal for allowing others to access your network? You do realize you can segment both wired and wireless networks, yes?
I'm pretty sure from your post that you don't really have any idea what you're talking about, sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
Just for reference, there is no technical reason that a crashed thread has to bring the whole application down.
Exception handling exists for a reason, unfortunately too many zealots are afraid to actually use it.
Uhm, the firefox javascript engine supports multithreading just fine, and gecko 1.9 supports multithreaded javascript out of the box, the previous branch required some extra effort to do so what it most certainly would allow multiple javascript threads.
Not really sure what the hell you're talking about but I have a couple Firefox extensions that depend on the fact that they can use multiple threads.
This is all documented on mozdev, both the new methods for gecko 1.9 and the workarounds to do it in the 1.8.x branch.
I've been using multiple javascript threads in gecko/xulrunner for at least 2 years.
Considering the popularity of things like flashblock, I'd have to say that if your argument is based on the idea that flash can lock up your browser, than its a safe bet that its not really a pressing need.
So yes, flash can lock up a thread, and since a large amount of firefox users intentionally block flash, its not actually that pressing of a need.
Its good that you think it should have been in the very first version, thats why you are in charge of a major cross platform multithreaded application which supports all sorts of random plugins and extensions.
Wait, what? You aren't in charge of such a project? Oh, my bad, well, I guess at least you can always talk out your ass now that everyone else is doing it and pretend you knew this all along. Obviously it was your idea.
Uhm, I've written plenty of single threaded apps that can give the appearance of being multithreaded.
All it has to do is use non-blocking calls and make regular UI updates to make sure the user isn't aware of the single-threaded nature.
It takes effort, but its far from a requirement, and in many cases is far easier than writing proper thread safe multithreaded applications considering in almost every toolkit out there there is only one thread that handles ALL UI in an application.
You know that Google Chrome window you see, with all those tabs in it, and all the processes controlling them. Guess what, the GUI you see runs in a single thread, fed by a bunch of backend processes with some re-parented windows.
It amazes me how people post on slashdot as if they know everything about programming when they really don't have a clue.
Let me say this as clearly and nicely as I possibly can.
Go fuck yourself. Don't break the law if you don't want a ticket.
I'm so sick of douchebags like yourself trying to come up with excuses to break the law and get by with it.
If you don't like the law, get it changed. If you can't get it changed, then play by the fucking rules cause the majority of us agree with the law. If you don't want to play be the rules, expect to get spanked. If you want to continue this sort of bullshit, expect to get spanked harder next time, you deserve it.
Hahahah, yea, thats great logic, thats why drug dealers always get off when they bust a drug house.
They take the house to jail, but leave the people that live there in the now empty lot.
Most of the time, an IP will narrow the list of possible people to the point that with very little extra outside information it becomes clear who was using the IP at that time.
What I want to know is why everyone is in such a big hurry to pretend an IP isn't useful for figuring out who is doing something.
Admins have been using them for this for years, the only people I see whining about it are people who are afraid of getting caught doing something they don't want others to know about. Stop doing shit you don't want people to know about in public, I.E. on the internet and you'll not have to be so retarded about IPs any more.
The warrent argument is so tired and fucking retarded. 'You can't tie these two things together without a warrent!?$!@$?!@%!@#^%!@%' Get the fuck over yourself. My mind is going to tie them together without a judge telling me its okay, then I'm going to go to a judge and explain why, using clear logic, the IP used is coming from someone in your house so we can make a pretty safe assumption that we'll get more evidence inside, and he's going to say 'you know what, you are right, here you go'.
You people and your retarded logic don't get that regardless of how hard you try to come up with some legal way to get around the fact that you're breaking the law, the rest of us who created the laws aren't going to let you get by with it.
Civilization is more important to me than your bullshit rants about your privacy. I don't give a flying fuck about your privacy, I care about mine. My privacy doesn't require my IP to be hidden or not accepted as evidence. My privacy is real privacy because I'm not doing shit in public/on a public network and then trying to make sure no one can figure it out.
Your ignorance and subconscious need for voyeurism and attention is why you won't ever have privacy, there is nothing else to blame.
WINS was not an attempt to do something silly against DNS, it was a non-IP centric service to find windows machines. Yes it worked over IP, and it also worked over IPX and BV. DNS is rather IP centric, I suppose they could have just extended it like they did with ActiveDirectory, not like it would have mattered, you'd still bitch at them for extending something that was made to be extensible. NetBEUI was perfectly acceptable in a non-subnetted environment when properly used, we have new protocols now that work on top of IP for local subnets is pretty much the exact same way as NetBEUI. Office is a pisser because no one else has made a Office clone that doesn't suck for years. Yes they dropped support for other formats, but they probably actually carried support longer than any one else would have.
In case you didn't notice, the Win32 API is rather incompatible with Win16 apps as well, but let me give you a neat hint, that OS/2 compatibility ... still there! NT kernels had it up until Win7, which I believe it has been removed in. They haven't updated it in forever, so its only for the earliest versions of OS/2 but was there, just like POSIX support.
Dude, you had an easy argument to make and you pulled out of bunch of incorrect information and short sighted/uninformed comments to do it with. Weak. You're fanboy card is suspended until further notice.
Yea, cause MS is really scared of the market share its losing to Linux.
Yes, Stallman's political posturing probably had some influence. Its more likely the main reason this was done to avoid being considered discriminitory/monopolistic to governments of the world, not to appease the extremely small percentage of people who warship loud mouth blow hards Stallman. Sorry.
Its just as likely they did this to make Scientology happy.
Let see, go public and tell the world you won't sue them for using your stuff, then turn around and sue them for your using your stuff.
Yea, the judge is going to be all in MS's favor on that one, thats very logical.
I'm sure MS will 'release' all their patents the same day IBM, Redhat, Novell, and Conical do. If you don't think they have patents then you're rather ignorant. Having a patent on something now days is a form of protection against the bastards who manage to get bullshit patents accepted then run to west Texas and start suing everyone.
I understand you hate MS, but your argument is rather irrational and lacking in the logic department.
I'm sorry, GPL isn't oldschool, even if it has been around longer than you've been alive. That just makes you young.
Lets see:
GPL created: 1986 http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
Microsoft founded: 1975 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft
You must be old school, you've gotten so old you forgot what actually happened.
Yea, its not like any OSS apps evolve quickly and make an next to impossible target to hit.
Thats why you never see commercial developers talking about how Linux easy is such a stable target to hit ...
Sorry, but this is just a silly argument.
C#/.NET is going to take a few years to mature, naturally. Guess you've never been around when something new comes out that really hasn't been ironed out yet.
Okay, for just a second, turn off your inner fanboy.
Now, rationally and factually, without your own personal bias and agenda, please explain to us why they aren't a choice for Linux apps and why they suck.
If you have an out right oversion to proprietary apps then you're just a dipshit. Every argument you can come up with translates almost directly to opensource equally for anyone who isn't a programmer.
Yes, you can patch and fix OSS yourself if you know how, unfortunately 99.9% of the population doesn't have a clue how to do it, which makes the whole argument nil from a practical standpoint unless the app you want patched is popular enough to have someone else patch it.
As a general rule, any proprietary app of the same level of popularity isn't going to vanish either regardless of what happens to the company. It'll get sold or continued until its not of enough interest to matter.
So again, please explain rationally and factually why they suck and why they aren't a choice. And just like the GPP, I use Monodevelop and VS on a daily basis, some times side by side, and think you've probably not used VisualStudio if you're going to make such statements. I can see how you may prefer Monodevelop over VS for several reasons, but saying VS sucks? Not really seeing that.
It'll be rather hard for MS to sue anyone for implementing these standards after they've come out and said 'its okay, you can use them, we won't sue'.
Yes, the hold patents, and thats good, that means Company X can pull out a bullshit patent on it now and start sueing the hell out of everyone because Company X never promised not to sue anyone. This really isn't any different than IBM or Redhat patenting something that you would consider open source. Why is it okay for Redhat, but not MS, just because you're afraid?
At what point do they satisfy you that they are going to let you use it? Do they have to pay you or something?
Stop being so ridiculous.
Cause then we'd just have a tag like OBJECT but specific to video.
So ... you're right, lets make ActiveX standard for all browsers, thats a great idea! Thats essentially what you're saying. The only difference is it would be 'for video', and of course by 'for video' I mean 'just as dangerous and capable of doing whatever it wants as ActiveX.
You specify a codec and in order for a browser to be HTML5 compliant it has to support a specific video codec, which means that a web developer can produce a specific format of video and know it will work on an HTML5 renderer without a bunch of bullshit. The instant you make it 'open' you might as well just take it out since no one will have any idea what to expect.
I never understood this kind of stupidity. By the time you've made all the images to make it look good in IE, why the hell do you use a whole different set of images for other browsers.
I realize making HTML IE friendly is a pain in the ass, but if you go through all that effort and don't just use it for the other browsers its your own fault.
IE won't use either.
There, you now have the list of every rendering engine of any importance what so ever.
How the hell does this stupid comment get modded as insightful? Do you not realize pretty much every other browser is based off one of the rendering engines used in those listed?
Not a web developer eh? Or at least, not one with an actual job.
Contrary to popular fanboy belief, a statistically irrelevent portion of grandmothers using Firefox instead of IE doesn't mean the world uses Firefox.
I can't imagine you can hold a job long when you think you define what your customers want. Thats simply not the way it works, sorry there bud. Come back when you get out of high school/collage.
So is there currently better support for Flash or HTML5?
I'm sorry, what was your point?
They idea of codec="blah" is just basically like saying 'hey, lets add another special tag thats essentially OBJECT, but limited to video! It'll be open, but only useful for one type of media! Its a brilliant idea ...'
Why do you assume their will be some massively superior codec that we'll jump to? There will probably be something better, sure, just like there are better alternatives to MP3s, yet all my music is still stored as mp3s, even the stuff I buy from iTunes gets converted to mp3 immediately. I don't see why video will be any different once there is actually an accepted standard for it.
So other than the 'bleeding edge geeks' who have to follow whatever the trend of the day for Linux, the rest of the world will continue using what you would consider an old inferior codec.
I've got no concerns over h.264 patents. The only people are those who have an agenda to push. Your worries about patents are only because you're afraid that you might actually have to pay someone for their work, or your afraid that the 'OMFG ITS NOT ROYALTY/PATENT/COPYLEFT SO WE CAN'T USE IT IN LINUX' twits won't want to use so you'll once again be stuck with some shitty codec that no one outside of Linux cares about.
And for reference, browsers still support the original HTML spec in almost all cases, thats what happens when you design something to backwards and forwards compatible.
Choosing an inferior standard always makes you stupid. You always choose the superior standard. That could be Theora or 264, just depends on what your definition of inferior is.
As a developer myself, I don't really have an issue with licensing someones elses code/libraries/algorithms for use in my code. Other than 'I can't just use their code without paying for it', I've yet to see any other reason not to use h264, please enlighten me, without resorting to FUD (i.e. copyright/patent bullshit).
Go ahead. I'll wait.
We already have that, and it fucking sucks, the point is to implement a common standard that EVERYONE supports as the lowest common denominator, not just add a new version of the object or applet tag specific to video.
Myself, I'll go with closed over inferior, the only people who won't are zealots/fanboys. Unfortunately the real problem here is that Theora might not be inferior if you throw some resources at it.
Remember, Linux didn't become awesome overnight, I've yet to see an OSS project that does. Without financial motivation most OSS projects will take years of people donating spare time to make them compete with a company that can put lots of cash into development. Of course, Google could easily accomplish this without noticing the money spent even being gone.
Weight is irrelevant. Mass is as well as far as top speed, but it does effects acceleration.
If you don't change the aerodynamics of the car (i.e. put all the mass inside) it will do the same top speed in a straight line as it will without (with an extremely tiny difference due to additional bearing drag, but thats probably not detectable on any radar gun or speedometer that you're going to measure it with.) Its just going to take a lot longer to get there with 2 tonnes of additional weight
The difference between a Peugeot 306 carrying 2 tonnes of mass and one that is only carrying fuel and a passenger is going to be how long it takes them to get to 96mph, not if it is capable of doing so.
Fuel and overall weight makes very little difference in the speed of an aircraft, just pretty much effects the burn rate of the fuel itself and extra load effects other performance factors such as speed during a high G manuver.
Helicopter speed is limited due to the problem of the speed of the leading edge of the rotor as it moves through the air. The tip travels far faster than the root of the blade. That in and of itself is no problem.
What is a problem however is that the tip is moving at say 400 mph or so, and the base is moving at next to nothing. Again, by itself this is fine.
When you add 150 to 200 mph of forward airspeed to it however, you have a tip speed in forward motion that is rapidly approaching the speed of sound. Now you have a problem. You have the problem of part of the rotor operating in supersonic conditions and part of the rotor operating in subsonic conditions. That in and of itself is extremely stressful, couple with it the fact that each rotor blade is transitioning into and out of supersonic mode every rotation and you rapidly run into the problem of having a airfoil that is extremely weak overall transitioning in and out of supersonic conditions hundreds or thousands of times a second. The end result is generally that the helicopter tears itself apart due to vibration and stress in an extremely short period of time.
We've just relatively recently come up with the technologies and materials to allow us to deal with the stresses of that sort of flight, but I'm pretty sure about the only people with that information are bound by DOD contracts, and as such you're not likely to find a non-military helo that would be able to withstand those speeds.
The extra weight and aerodynamic drag arent' a problem for helos and haven't been for a while, transitioning between subsonic and supersonic modes of flight a thousand times a second on the other hand, doesn't go over so well.
You can police a water fountain by putting a police office next to it to deter or prevent crime occurring on/near the water fountain.
Its far harder to effectively police roaming wifi. They have to have some way to tie the usage to a person otherwise it will just turn into a free for all much like EFNet 10 years ago.
Requiring identification gives them SOMETHING to trace. So yes, it is that the goverment is trying to track you and what you are doing, thats kind of how it works when you have to provide some level of protection against crime.
The solution:
Don't use it, no tracking, no problem, its not like its a requirement, there are alternatives, all of those will also require you to register though, but since you don't seem to be bitching about registration in general, just when the government does it, then it shouldn't make your tin foil hat glow too much.
Of course, the government has plenty of ways they can get get all the data from any 3rd party operating in your country as well already, this really just translates into someone (you) freaking out over something they've put very little (none) thought into.
Public water fountains are monitored, even if you don't realize it. They are monitored by the the citizens in the general area at the time.
Really, what you are concerned with is that someone might see you doing something you wouldn't want anyone else to know. Heres the neat part though, theres are REALLY REALLY good chance, no one gives a flying fuck that you go look at videos of people eating shit while they fuck horses.
You don't need to break AES specifically, just break the keying algorithm.
Theres a LOT more to a secure system than JUST the encryption used.
Your linksys router with a usb port and a westerndigital MyBook drive is not a NAS device, sorry.
I can not possibly think of an NAS device other than something you would by at Best Buy that would perform slower than any form of wireless in use.
Your final statement doesn't even make sense. You like wireless because its lack of security makes it ideal for allowing others to access your network? You do realize you can segment both wired and wireless networks, yes?
I'm pretty sure from your post that you don't really have any idea what you're talking about, sorry.