No, they have a third option - rent them traditionally, or via methods that offer the protection they want for their content. Not everything is black or white, and not everything is YouTube. This isn't rocket surgery.
Yes, by renting them in the traditional manner, or via services that offer the protection they think they need. It's really not that difficult to understand.
What the fuck are you on about? Did I touch a nerve? You just proved you don't know what "feudalism", "serf", "tyranny", and "plantation" mean. Wow. So scary. Also, you sound fat.
I don't know what OS you are using, but Flash has built-in hardware accelerated decoding and scaling on the most popular OS it's on. RTMPE does indeed use security through obscurity - it is a lot harder for a user to download material streamed via RTMPE, which is all it takes to get the content providers to provide their content via YouTube - fair enough. Without RTMPE, YouTube would have no rentals.
No, without DRM, the "This rental is currently unavailable in your country" videos wouldn't be available anywhere. Why don't people understand this? Without protection, content owners will not distribute their content in ways that they think need protection. It's not that hard to understand. They won't say "oh well, we can't do anything to protect our content - lets just upload it all to usenet and go home for the weekend". Your logic is insulting.
Flash supports mouse scrolling perfectly. Yes, some users don't implement it correctly in their swfs, but loads do - that's hardly a fair criticism of the technology itself. Flash has explained why you can't have fullscreen flash without the focus - it's all due to the fact that it could be used by people to pester the shit out of you, or to somehow try to get you to enter in your passwords by imitating your OS/browser/bank/etc. They (sensibly) want fullscreen Flash to be only started by direct user action in the SWF, and ended the moment the player wants, or when the player loses focus.
Fullscreen can't be initiated by JavaScript, so users will have to manually switch to fullscreen to watch fullscreen video in HTML5 - which isn't exactly a better user experience than clicking the "fullscreen" icon in the video player.
That's not really streaming, as it requires the video to find the first keyframe, and then play from there. Using ranges to approximate actual streaming is called "pseudostreaming", and it is rather popular, but clearly a second-best to actual, real streaming (which offers really useful functionality like dynamically switching streams to more suitable bitrates/dimensions). Using ranges to try to stream is a massive, massive hack.
No, flash implemented poorly kills battery life and stability, just as anything else implemented poorly. Until HTML5's video tag can implement things like RTMP, it's going to be playing second-fiddle to Flash, and that's just in terms of video playback. Flash's animations are already fantastically faster than anything HTML5's canvas can kick out.
The Human brain is rather spiffy, but it's far from perfect. It has fantastic performance, but it can frequently screw up massively. I don't think mankind would be too pleased if their most powerful computers got depressed (like Marvin) - we'd probably expect to be able to use them, and to trust their output. If they work like the human brain, we can't always do both.
Definitely. IP must be protected - including engaging in seemingly-overkill legal actions against small parties - otherwise the courts may deem that the company doesn't care enough about said IP to retain it. Various trade marks have entered the public domain this way.
If I remember correctly, there are absolutely no guarantees an SMS will ever arrive (maybe something like within 6 months, but that is practically the same). Seriously. It's traffic secondary to the voice/data traffic. If there is too much SMS traffic, it will saturate the control channel, and the carrier will simply discard it. In developing countries this could potentially bring down cellular networks entirely, if the hardware can't cope with the sudden increase in traffic, rendering people not just data-less, but phone-less too. Ouch.
Google hosts jQuery on their CDN, available for use in a script tag (or inclusion via Google's own JS library) which is not incredibly dangerous. Lots of sites use it, which means all the sites that do don't require the library being re-downloaded.
No, it depends on the site's advertising model. Lots of sites get paid for simply showing an advert. In fact, you can't tell the difference from just visiting the site. You clearly have no idea. There's a surprise.
Why would you assume that they don't care about ads being served? Why would they have them if they didn't serve a purpose (pardon the pun)? Yes, sites rarely (if ever) have text saying you must have adverts served, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out they are there for a reason.
Then don't visit the fucking site. They *want* you to use their ad server's bandwidth, as that gets them money. What is so hard to understand about this? Oh yeah, it makes you look like a selfish bastard. Your "guess" isn't worth shit - it's a bullshit argument without any basis in reality.
It's people using AdBlock that cause sites to have annoying adverts in the first place. Site owners are simply trying to recoup the cost of bandwidth by serving ads. If you turn off the adverts, then they don't get any money. If a site's adverts annoy you, just don't go to the site. It's not just your bandwidth, it's the site's bandwidth. It's very selfish to ignore that. But I'm sure you'll post back with some pithy response about how it's up to you, and blah-blah-blah flash CPU blah blah.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post needs one great [citation needed].
No, they have a third option - rent them traditionally, or via methods that offer the protection they want for their content. Not everything is black or white, and not everything is YouTube. This isn't rocket surgery.
Yes, by renting them in the traditional manner, or via services that offer the protection they think they need. It's really not that difficult to understand.
What the fuck are you on about? Did I touch a nerve? You just proved you don't know what "feudalism", "serf", "tyranny", and "plantation" mean. Wow. So scary. Also, you sound fat.
I don't know what OS you are using, but Flash has built-in hardware accelerated decoding and scaling on the most popular OS it's on. RTMPE does indeed use security through obscurity - it is a lot harder for a user to download material streamed via RTMPE, which is all it takes to get the content providers to provide their content via YouTube - fair enough. Without RTMPE, YouTube would have no rentals.
No, without DRM, the "This rental is currently unavailable in your country" videos wouldn't be available anywhere. Why don't people understand this? Without protection, content owners will not distribute their content in ways that they think need protection. It's not that hard to understand. They won't say "oh well, we can't do anything to protect our content - lets just upload it all to usenet and go home for the weekend". Your logic is insulting.
Flash supports mouse scrolling perfectly. Yes, some users don't implement it correctly in their swfs, but loads do - that's hardly a fair criticism of the technology itself. Flash has explained why you can't have fullscreen flash without the focus - it's all due to the fact that it could be used by people to pester the shit out of you, or to somehow try to get you to enter in your passwords by imitating your OS/browser/bank/etc. They (sensibly) want fullscreen Flash to be only started by direct user action in the SWF, and ended the moment the player wants, or when the player loses focus.
Fullscreen can't be initiated by JavaScript, so users will have to manually switch to fullscreen to watch fullscreen video in HTML5 - which isn't exactly a better user experience than clicking the "fullscreen" icon in the video player.
That's not really streaming, as it requires the video to find the first keyframe, and then play from there. Using ranges to approximate actual streaming is called "pseudostreaming", and it is rather popular, but clearly a second-best to actual, real streaming (which offers really useful functionality like dynamically switching streams to more suitable bitrates/dimensions). Using ranges to try to stream is a massive, massive hack.
No, flash implemented poorly kills battery life and stability, just as anything else implemented poorly. Until HTML5's video tag can implement things like RTMP, it's going to be playing second-fiddle to Flash, and that's just in terms of video playback. Flash's animations are already fantastically faster than anything HTML5's canvas can kick out.
The Human brain is rather spiffy, but it's far from perfect. It has fantastic performance, but it can frequently screw up massively. I don't think mankind would be too pleased if their most powerful computers got depressed (like Marvin) - we'd probably expect to be able to use them, and to trust their output. If they work like the human brain, we can't always do both.
Definitely. IP must be protected - including engaging in seemingly-overkill legal actions against small parties - otherwise the courts may deem that the company doesn't care enough about said IP to retain it. Various trade marks have entered the public domain this way.
It's pretty well known that the US's version of "left" is about the same as most European countries' version of "right".
No, Helium will not burn. It is simply impossible for it to oxidize.
But that Intel setup will beat the pants off the AMD setup. Well worth the extra 100.
If I remember correctly, there are absolutely no guarantees an SMS will ever arrive (maybe something like within 6 months, but that is practically the same). Seriously. It's traffic secondary to the voice/data traffic. If there is too much SMS traffic, it will saturate the control channel, and the carrier will simply discard it. In developing countries this could potentially bring down cellular networks entirely, if the hardware can't cope with the sudden increase in traffic, rendering people not just data-less, but phone-less too. Ouch.
The correct name is actually "Handegg". An image to demonstrate.
Google hosts jQuery on their CDN, available for use in a script tag (or inclusion via Google's own JS library) which is not incredibly dangerous. Lots of sites use it, which means all the sites that do don't require the library being re-downloaded.
No, it depends on the site's advertising model. Lots of sites get paid for simply showing an advert. In fact, you can't tell the difference from just visiting the site. You clearly have no idea. There's a surprise.
Why would you assume that they don't care about ads being served? Why would they have them if they didn't serve a purpose (pardon the pun)? Yes, sites rarely (if ever) have text saying you must have adverts served, but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out they are there for a reason.
Then don't visit the fucking site. They *want* you to use their ad server's bandwidth, as that gets them money. What is so hard to understand about this? Oh yeah, it makes you look like a selfish bastard. Your "guess" isn't worth shit - it's a bullshit argument without any basis in reality.
It's people using AdBlock that cause sites to have annoying adverts in the first place. Site owners are simply trying to recoup the cost of bandwidth by serving ads. If you turn off the adverts, then they don't get any money. If a site's adverts annoy you, just don't go to the site. It's not just your bandwidth, it's the site's bandwidth. It's very selfish to ignore that. But I'm sure you'll post back with some pithy response about how it's up to you, and blah-blah-blah flash CPU blah blah.
It must be amazing to be living back in 1992! Enjoy Kurt Cobain while you still can... don't plan on seeing him perform after April 1994.
It doesn't replace flash completely. Not even close.
Get a grip, sunshine. You are sounding pathetic. "Defective"? As defective as other OSs, sure.