Eh? Without DRM Steam wouldn't exist. Without Steam many folks wouldn't be playing PC games at all. Some DRM is bad, some is great. It is rarely a choice between "content with DRM / content without DRM" but usually "content with DRM / no content at all". People prefer the latter, as they want content, so they put up with DRM. I love Steam's DRM - it lets me have games installed on multiple computers, all without media (simply download the files, and you're good to go). Their shop is easy as hell to use, with instant access to games. They have butt-loads of demos. I don't know what the last part of your post is about - it seems to be filled completely with bullshit. Weird.
If DRM didn't exist, Steam wouldn't exist either. There are a lot of anti-DRM folks who seem to think if DRM didn't exist, the DRM'd content we get now would still exist, but without DRM. Unfortunately they don't realise that without DRM, that content wouldn't be available quite so readily. We'd have to order a physical disk, and then only have the software on one computer at a time. With Steam I can play at home, or at work, just not at the same time (and as I respect the laws of physics, I don't tend to do that too often).
I'm unaware of Iran's leadership ever having threatened to nuke anyone. There was that whole "wipe off the pages of history" misquote that the right-wingers trot out repeatedly, but as anyone who cared to find out what was actually said, they were talking about the government of Israel existing in its current form, and were not talking militarily (sentiments shared by most of the western world).
You are most certainly wrong. They never said that. The Iranian regime has simply said that the government of Israel should not exist in its current form, a sentiment quite popular around the world (read: in countries not the US and Israel). If they hate the Jewish folks so much, why do 25,000 of them live in Iran? Please, stop disseminating your nonsense. It's not helping anyone. Take issue with Iran, please - it deserves it - but don't do it by lying.
The skin colour of the person allegedly committing the offense isn't an issue, so why mention it? The very fact that he did seems to indicate he thinks, subconsciously or otherwise, that it is important, which is a pretty good indicator of some level of bigotry. Most people would have seen "person", he saw "black person". The fact he used an outdated, offensive term doesn't exactly help his case. It's not about the story, but the information he thought was pertinent, and then the language he used to convey that information, that outed him.
You've not thought out your argument too well. So you want all this mandatory stuff for gun owners, but no mandatory registration. Just think for a second - how will the government ensure that gun owners have been through this mandatory training? Oh wait - your idea is that gun owners will just do that. There has to be mandatory registration, otherwise the rest of your cunning plan is useless posturing. Also, gun owners should undergo regular (6-month maximum) psychological tests, as a gun owner, no matter how responsible they usually are, just takes a single rejection (from their job, wife, hooker, whatever), and they can (and do) take their shiny toys to the nearest clock-tower and start killing the fuck out of people, something no society needs to go through on a regular basis. I think the current system is fine - demonstrate to the police why you need a gun, get one, and then undergo checks to make sure you know how to store it correctly (locked in a cabinet). Where's the problem with that?
Hardly. I just seem able to separate different arguments from one big assumption, something you seem to be having difficulty with. If people can't protect their movies online with DRM, the default position (and the most-used, as we can see by the studio's uptake), they simply won't make their content available for rental/streaming. It has nothing to do with other websites, it has nothing to do with their bricks-and-mortar agents. It is simply a very obvious fact.
There were civilians in the airliner that hit the pentagon. That is enough for most rational minds to label it terrorism. What's so hard to understand? If the target of an act of violence isn't the actual people the attackers have a problem with, but merely others that control those who the attackers have a problem with (ie the voting general public), then it's terrorism. This isn't difficult. There is a very concise definition of terrorism. The problem you seem to be having is this definition, since 9/11, has been perverted by the US media and government to include seemingly anything, leading you to ignore the actual definition and try to apply it to anything that might cause even simple unease in government, to full-blown nuclear war on Ohio. It is easy. Terrorism is the use of, or the threat of, force against a population in order to coerce them into acquiescence with the terrorists' political goals. There. Simple. Concise. Accurate. Only in the US does it mean anything else, and even then only among the government, various media outlets, and those who blindly listen to either.
No, crashing 911 lines would not be terrorism. It'd freak people out, but terrorism isn't just being in a panic, but being scared of being hurt. You can use the word "terrorism" to describe whatever you want - 911 phones being jammed, a kitten precariously perched in a high branch, tasty pancakes - whatever. The problem is that words usually have an agreed-upon meaning, and unfortunately your idea of terrorism doesn't gel with the accepted definition of the word. The goal of terrorism isn't to cause terror in the population, but to get people to listen to their grievances by terrorising the population. Terrorists are never mindless. They have a cause, and it's always one that is not listened to by the people who could affect it.
If you care to read about RTMP, you'll see that FMS will very quickly encode a keyframe if you attempt to seek to a non-keyframe, and substitute that for the non-keyframe. So no, it doesn't re-encode the video for each client, just a single keyframe when the client seeks to a non-keyframe.
When you seek to a non-keyframe, FMS will indeed re-encode a keyframe for the current non-keyframe frame. That means it does seek to non-keyframe frame position by substituting the non-keyframe for a real keyframe. And yes, you can't start playback from a non-keyframe, but FMS gets round that, meaning you can start playback from any frame location, essentially seeking to any frame you want.
As I already said, the definition of the word terrorism is rather straight-forward: the use of force, or the threat of force, against a people in order to coerce them. It's not difficult to understand. Whether certain acts are classified as terrorism has nothing to do with the definition.
Fighting a government has nothing to do with terrorism - it's fighting the actual people themselves. Your Norwegian example is rather specious. By your definition any act of war is terrorism, which is clearly bullshit.
You are confusing being a terrorist and being called a terrorist. Terrorism has a very strict definition. Your "freedom fighter" and "treasonous rebels" analogy is completely not comparable as the two terms have nothing to do with terrorism. What's so hard to understand about a word that is completely defined and without ambiguity?
That's not what terrorism is. Nearly, but not quite. Terrorism is the use of, or the threat of the use of, force against a population in order to coerce them. Fear is not the end goal, but a means to that end - namely that people listen to the terrorists. That's why talking to terrorists, instead of fighting them, is the only way to end their violence. Terrorists couldn't care less about the freedoms of their target population - they just want said population to listen to their (often just) grievances.
An 'impression' is when an advert is served, not clicked on ('click through'), or turned into a purchase ('conversion' not 'impression', as you incorrectly stated). You are so sure you know everything, are being smart, and not hurting anyone, but you are quite the opposite - clearly ignorant, certain you are correct, and hurting sites whose content you want to see.
I'm not a content producer, just a person with a modicum of understanding of how the web works, and how selfish, ignorant attitudes like yours are hurting the web.
Or you can use RTMP with Flash Media Server, and have no delay at all. It supports seeking directly to non-keyframes. Which is kind of my point - Flash offers actual real streaming, complete with dynamic instant stream switching, not reliant on keyframes. HTML5's video tag offers none of that, instead relying on the crappy pseudostreaming method.
Slashdot Mirror
A grandma with terrible taste in music? OOOOHH!!!
So that excuses racism, somehow? Fantastic. The inside of the racist's mind is a very complicated place indeed. Endlessly full of bullshit.
Eh? Without DRM Steam wouldn't exist. Without Steam many folks wouldn't be playing PC games at all. Some DRM is bad, some is great. It is rarely a choice between "content with DRM / content without DRM" but usually "content with DRM / no content at all". People prefer the latter, as they want content, so they put up with DRM. I love Steam's DRM - it lets me have games installed on multiple computers, all without media (simply download the files, and you're good to go). Their shop is easy as hell to use, with instant access to games. They have butt-loads of demos. I don't know what the last part of your post is about - it seems to be filled completely with bullshit. Weird.
If DRM didn't exist, Steam wouldn't exist either. There are a lot of anti-DRM folks who seem to think if DRM didn't exist, the DRM'd content we get now would still exist, but without DRM. Unfortunately they don't realise that without DRM, that content wouldn't be available quite so readily. We'd have to order a physical disk, and then only have the software on one computer at a time. With Steam I can play at home, or at work, just not at the same time (and as I respect the laws of physics, I don't tend to do that too often).
I'm unaware of Iran's leadership ever having threatened to nuke anyone. There was that whole "wipe off the pages of history" misquote that the right-wingers trot out repeatedly, but as anyone who cared to find out what was actually said, they were talking about the government of Israel existing in its current form, and were not talking militarily (sentiments shared by most of the western world).
You are most certainly wrong. They never said that. The Iranian regime has simply said that the government of Israel should not exist in its current form, a sentiment quite popular around the world (read: in countries not the US and Israel). If they hate the Jewish folks so much, why do 25,000 of them live in Iran? Please, stop disseminating your nonsense. It's not helping anyone. Take issue with Iran, please - it deserves it - but don't do it by lying.
It's best to just call in the Apaches and let them clear up the RPG/camera confusion from above. It works in Iraq!
The skin colour of the person allegedly committing the offense isn't an issue, so why mention it? The very fact that he did seems to indicate he thinks, subconsciously or otherwise, that it is important, which is a pretty good indicator of some level of bigotry. Most people would have seen "person", he saw "black person". The fact he used an outdated, offensive term doesn't exactly help his case. It's not about the story, but the information he thought was pertinent, and then the language he used to convey that information, that outed him.
And if you're a Firefox fan, there are quite a few moz- CSS properties, too. But I guess that's OK, as neither WebKit or Firefox are from MS... :-P
You've not thought out your argument too well. So you want all this mandatory stuff for gun owners, but no mandatory registration. Just think for a second - how will the government ensure that gun owners have been through this mandatory training? Oh wait - your idea is that gun owners will just do that. There has to be mandatory registration, otherwise the rest of your cunning plan is useless posturing. Also, gun owners should undergo regular (6-month maximum) psychological tests, as a gun owner, no matter how responsible they usually are, just takes a single rejection (from their job, wife, hooker, whatever), and they can (and do) take their shiny toys to the nearest clock-tower and start killing the fuck out of people, something no society needs to go through on a regular basis. I think the current system is fine - demonstrate to the police why you need a gun, get one, and then undergo checks to make sure you know how to store it correctly (locked in a cabinet). Where's the problem with that?
Hardly. I just seem able to separate different arguments from one big assumption, something you seem to be having difficulty with. If people can't protect their movies online with DRM, the default position (and the most-used, as we can see by the studio's uptake), they simply won't make their content available for rental/streaming. It has nothing to do with other websites, it has nothing to do with their bricks-and-mortar agents. It is simply a very obvious fact.
That middle link shows that RDP 6 is pretty secure.
That has nothing to do with the discussion. Which you seem to be having great difficulty understanding.
There were civilians in the airliner that hit the pentagon. That is enough for most rational minds to label it terrorism. What's so hard to understand? If the target of an act of violence isn't the actual people the attackers have a problem with, but merely others that control those who the attackers have a problem with (ie the voting general public), then it's terrorism. This isn't difficult. There is a very concise definition of terrorism. The problem you seem to be having is this definition, since 9/11, has been perverted by the US media and government to include seemingly anything, leading you to ignore the actual definition and try to apply it to anything that might cause even simple unease in government, to full-blown nuclear war on Ohio. It is easy. Terrorism is the use of, or the threat of, force against a population in order to coerce them into acquiescence with the terrorists' political goals. There. Simple. Concise. Accurate. Only in the US does it mean anything else, and even then only among the government, various media outlets, and those who blindly listen to either.
No, crashing 911 lines would not be terrorism. It'd freak people out, but terrorism isn't just being in a panic, but being scared of being hurt. You can use the word "terrorism" to describe whatever you want - 911 phones being jammed, a kitten precariously perched in a high branch, tasty pancakes - whatever. The problem is that words usually have an agreed-upon meaning, and unfortunately your idea of terrorism doesn't gel with the accepted definition of the word. The goal of terrorism isn't to cause terror in the population, but to get people to listen to their grievances by terrorising the population. Terrorists are never mindless. They have a cause, and it's always one that is not listened to by the people who could affect it.
If you care to read about RTMP, you'll see that FMS will very quickly encode a keyframe if you attempt to seek to a non-keyframe, and substitute that for the non-keyframe. So no, it doesn't re-encode the video for each client, just a single keyframe when the client seeks to a non-keyframe.
Because they use pseudo-streaming, not RTMP. Thanks for playing.
When you seek to a non-keyframe, FMS will indeed re-encode a keyframe for the current non-keyframe frame. That means it does seek to non-keyframe frame position by substituting the non-keyframe for a real keyframe. And yes, you can't start playback from a non-keyframe, but FMS gets round that, meaning you can start playback from any frame location, essentially seeking to any frame you want.
As I already said, the definition of the word terrorism is rather straight-forward: the use of force, or the threat of force, against a people in order to coerce them. It's not difficult to understand. Whether certain acts are classified as terrorism has nothing to do with the definition.
Fighting a government has nothing to do with terrorism - it's fighting the actual people themselves. Your Norwegian example is rather specious. By your definition any act of war is terrorism, which is clearly bullshit.
You are confusing being a terrorist and being called a terrorist. Terrorism has a very strict definition. Your "freedom fighter" and "treasonous rebels" analogy is completely not comparable as the two terms have nothing to do with terrorism. What's so hard to understand about a word that is completely defined and without ambiguity?
Terrorism is an act. Revolution and resistance are causes. Do not confuse the two.
That's not what terrorism is. Nearly, but not quite. Terrorism is the use of, or the threat of the use of, force against a population in order to coerce them. Fear is not the end goal, but a means to that end - namely that people listen to the terrorists. That's why talking to terrorists, instead of fighting them, is the only way to end their violence. Terrorists couldn't care less about the freedoms of their target population - they just want said population to listen to their (often just) grievances.
So sterile people shouldn't be allowed to adopt? Or are you saying that homosexuality is somehow "picked up" by kids? Ignorant asshole.
Score: +5, Totally-fucking-wrong.
An 'impression' is when an advert is served, not clicked on ('click through'), or turned into a purchase ('conversion' not 'impression', as you incorrectly stated). You are so sure you know everything, are being smart, and not hurting anyone, but you are quite the opposite - clearly ignorant, certain you are correct, and hurting sites whose content you want to see.
I'm not a content producer, just a person with a modicum of understanding of how the web works, and how selfish, ignorant attitudes like yours are hurting the web.
Or you can use RTMP with Flash Media Server, and have no delay at all. It supports seeking directly to non-keyframes. Which is kind of my point - Flash offers actual real streaming, complete with dynamic instant stream switching, not reliant on keyframes. HTML5's video tag offers none of that, instead relying on the crappy pseudostreaming method.