Absolutely they have a right to, but it sorta defeats the process of the whole voting process if they're going to override what the public wants. They should have said "choose which charities we give our money to" they should say "recommend which charities we give our money to and we'll consider it".
"It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). "
Religion isn't agianst the law.
But if it was, you're saying it would be ok? If it were legal to deny a person a student loan because of their religion would it make it right? It would still be prejudice based on a personal choice. You simply don't see it that way because you do not personally approve.
Seems to me to be a pretty big difference, I suppose for the purpose of making your point, you chose to ignore it.
Legality is irrelevant to the point I was making. What is legal and what is not has little to do with what is right and wrong, what is ethical and what isn't.
"People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people."
They chose not to follow the eligibility guidelines.
I'm not debating that. I'm simply saying the guidelines are unjust and prejudiced. Of course when people make choices that go against the flow they have to live with the consequences, a subset of which can be unjust punishment. I agree... But it still doesn't make the punishment just.
"Because of course taking someone's education away"
What, it's impossible to go to community college, then pay the rest yourself?
It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people.
But coming back to the original point, is that a charity?
Just from reading the summary, it seems like all the groups that were removed were activist groups endorsing a specific change in laws.
Most activist groups still on the list do.
Its one thing to ask Chase to endorse the charity of your choice, its another to ask them to make a political donation to support your pet cause.
They put it up for a vote. When they didn't like the results, they excluded certain organizations and refused to give a reason. That's what people are upset about and I don't blame the organizations excluded for promoting a boycott.
The fact that so many people are imprisoned or have otherwise have their lives ruined by the great war against drugs (self ownership) sickens me. Chase chose to put up a vote to determine what people believe sickens them most. Who are you or Chase to interfere?
Ding ding. You just answered your question. By putting it in a mov container you trick quicktime into using it's own optimized h264 decoder. I have a MBP Santa Rosa 2.6 and it plays back 1080p mkv/h264 just fine without, though. Unless you're concerned about CPU usage or battery life, you should have more than enough ability to play back your videos.
Most of the hardware acceleration you speak of in the early windows days is just simple deinterlacing and scaling (flash does "hardware acceleration" by that standard, and they call it such, even though there is no hardware decoding). Actually decoding all or part of the video on the card is something newer (though there have always been exceptions such as creative's dxr series mpeg2 cards). I'm also fairly sure, but not positive, that VLC uses software deinterlacing. I'm not surprised you're getting playback issues interlacing video of that size.
Not sure I agree either that windows 1080 playback is superior. I have both windows 7 and OSX 10.5 on my macbook pro core 2 duo 2.6 with GeForce 8600m. In both Mac OS and windows, playing a h264 BDrip in a mkv format uses about 40% cpu usage with no frame drop. (Quicktime using Perian codecs in Mac OS and Media Player Classic Home Cinema using ffdshow in windows.) I wouldn't be surprised if windows native h264 decoder was more efficient, but then again, the same applies to Mac OS where their native h264 decoder is pretty optimized as well.
Whenever I do that iTunes spits out something like "We're gonna go ahead and index everything in folders the way we want anyway, since we run this bitch and you better recognize."
Sarcasm aside, when you're transferring >100GB of music iTunes sucks balls. Also the overhead of iTunes makes it pretty annoying when you just want to pop a file to preview real quick,
Step one: select file in finder
Step two: press space bar to play file in the built in preview. This works with any media quicktime can play, images, pdf files, etc... Over a network or locally. You can also use finder's cover flow view to preview audio/video files by simply clicking the big play button. If you really want to you can still open the file for preview in quicktime but what's the point?
or watch a DVD without all the fucking waiting and protection bullshit.
iTunes does not play DVDs. It'll play rips just dandy, though, provided you rip to something quicktime can use, which with Perian is pretty much everything.
I also have never had issues with playback in VLC where QT+Perian did any better.
I've had some instances of that. On the other hand i've had instances where VLC won't play something properly that Perian will. Good points about the volume, though, and I think it's great that VLC is around. When it's needed, it is nice to have around and I hope they find at least one developer.
i need to correct myself. You don't have to read the entire file before playing. You do, however, have to wait for the part of the file you want to play to load sequentially before you attempt to play it. Playing from the beginning has always worked fine for me.
The reading before playing thing? Yeah. That is still there, but I've never tried playing mkv off low speed storage... I suppose it's something the Perian developers should look into.
But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.
The feature you speak of can be turned off. Your music can be in one place or as many places as you like (even on removable storage). Most people, however, like the convenience of having all their music in one place which is managed automatically. "Most people" makes for a reasonable default. I also find it odd you categorize apple's naming scheme as "cryptic" given the scheme is artist/album/track, the filenames of which are not renamed as you claim. While my files are in different folders now, all of them retain the same filenames. Also, iTunes store's music no longer has DRM.
Why use VLC as a player when Perian installs codecs that allow quicktime player (or any quicktime based app) to play back anything VLC will. It's basically ffdshow for mac. I rarely use VLC anymore for that reason. Quicktime player just feels more lightweight as it starts up faster.
I hear will-power and the notion of a life plagued by health problems followed by an early death completed clinical trials sixty years ago. What's more, there are no side effects, and when taken properly, there is a 100% chance of success.
Oh, yes, willpower. Just like everyone getting to be an astronaut if they just want it bad enough
A person cannot fully control events outside of one's body, that is true, however a person can control their direct actions, and should be held responsible for them as well. The whole "disease" bullshit is a copout from people who would rather see their own mistakes and past actions as somehow not their fault. Yes there is dependence, there is no question about that, but the fact that people can quit through willpower alone shows that that "dependence" does not overcome free will.
Believe what you "need" to live with yourself and excuse yourself from your own bad choices but it won't make it the truth. Addiction is not a disease. It's a behavior. Cancer is a disease. People cannot use willpower to _quit_ cancer. I hope you run your shit to somebody with an actual disease someday and he punches you the fuck out.
I gave my dad my old aluminum powerbook. No tech support request from him anymore. My mom, on the other hand, who still uses a PC... it's almost a daily issue.
Yes but they're also blind enough to believe Allah will protect them from the bomb detectors. Blind faith works in all directions. In a sense, the fact that they're able to pass these checkpoints undetected may serve to "prove" to them that their cause is righteous and just. How else could all the bomb detection fail?
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't mind that, actually. I'd actually prefer it to being crammed into coach. At least I wouldn't feel the discomfort.
He did say "knowingly".
Absolutely they have a right to, but it sorta defeats the process of the whole voting process if they're going to override what the public wants. They should have said "choose which charities we give our money to" they should say "recommend which charities we give our money to and we'll consider it".
"It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). "
Religion isn't agianst the law.
But if it was, you're saying it would be ok? If it were legal to deny a person a student loan because of their religion would it make it right? It would still be prejudice based on a personal choice. You simply don't see it that way because you do not personally approve.
Seems to me to be a pretty big difference, I suppose for the purpose of making your point, you chose to ignore it.
Legality is irrelevant to the point I was making. What is legal and what is not has little to do with what is right and wrong, what is ethical and what isn't.
"People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people."
They chose not to follow the eligibility guidelines.
I'm not debating that. I'm simply saying the guidelines are unjust and prejudiced. Of course when people make choices that go against the flow they have to live with the consequences, a subset of which can be unjust punishment. I agree... But it still doesn't make the punishment just.
"Because of course taking someone's education away"
What, it's impossible to go to community college, then pay the rest yourself?
It's still denying a person the same opportunity based on their personal choices, which in my mind is in the same league as denying a person a student loan on the basis of religion (another personal choice). People should not be judged by what they choose to do with their own bodies, only actions as they relate to other people.
But coming back to the original point, is that a charity? Just from reading the summary, it seems like all the groups that were removed were activist groups endorsing a specific change in laws.
Most activist groups still on the list do.
Its one thing to ask Chase to endorse the charity of your choice, its another to ask them to make a political donation to support your pet cause.
They put it up for a vote. When they didn't like the results, they excluded certain organizations and refused to give a reason. That's what people are upset about and I don't blame the organizations excluded for promoting a boycott.
The fact that so many people are imprisoned or have otherwise have their lives ruined by the great war against drugs (self ownership) sickens me. Chase chose to put up a vote to determine what people believe sickens them most. Who are you or Chase to interfere?
Ding ding. You just answered your question. By putting it in a mov container you trick quicktime into using it's own optimized h264 decoder. I have a MBP Santa Rosa 2.6 and it plays back 1080p mkv/h264 just fine without, though. Unless you're concerned about CPU usage or battery life, you should have more than enough ability to play back your videos.
Most of the hardware acceleration you speak of in the early windows days is just simple deinterlacing and scaling (flash does "hardware acceleration" by that standard, and they call it such, even though there is no hardware decoding). Actually decoding all or part of the video on the card is something newer (though there have always been exceptions such as creative's dxr series mpeg2 cards). I'm also fairly sure, but not positive, that VLC uses software deinterlacing. I'm not surprised you're getting playback issues interlacing video of that size.
Not sure I agree either that windows 1080 playback is superior. I have both windows 7 and OSX 10.5 on my macbook pro core 2 duo 2.6 with GeForce 8600m. In both Mac OS and windows, playing a h264 BDrip in a mkv format uses about 40% cpu usage with no frame drop. (Quicktime using Perian codecs in Mac OS and Media Player Classic Home Cinema using ffdshow in windows.) I wouldn't be surprised if windows native h264 decoder was more efficient, but then again, the same applies to Mac OS where their native h264 decoder is pretty optimized as well.
Whenever I do that iTunes spits out something like "We're gonna go ahead and index everything in folders the way we want anyway, since we run this bitch and you better recognize."
Sarcasm aside, when you're transferring >100GB of music iTunes sucks balls. Also the overhead of iTunes makes it pretty annoying when you just want to pop a file to preview real quick,
Step one: select file in finder
Step two: press space bar to play file in the built in preview. This works with any media quicktime can play, images, pdf files, etc... Over a network or locally. You can also use finder's cover flow view to preview audio/video files by simply clicking the big play button. If you really want to you can still open the file for preview in quicktime but what's the point?
or watch a DVD without all the fucking waiting and protection bullshit.
iTunes does not play DVDs. It'll play rips just dandy, though, provided you rip to something quicktime can use, which with Perian is pretty much everything.
I also have never had issues with playback in VLC where QT+Perian did any better.
I've had some instances of that. On the other hand i've had instances where VLC won't play something properly that Perian will. Good points about the volume, though, and I think it's great that VLC is around. When it's needed, it is nice to have around and I hope they find at least one developer.
i need to correct myself. You don't have to read the entire file before playing. You do, however, have to wait for the part of the file you want to play to load sequentially before you attempt to play it. Playing from the beginning has always worked fine for me.
The reading before playing thing? Yeah. That is still there, but I've never tried playing mkv off low speed storage... I suppose it's something the Perian developers should look into.
I had the same issues in the past but it seems to work perfectly with the most recent update. Chapter markers even work properly.
But these wiseguys don't realise that I'd much rather deal with files that I can recognise by their filename, copy and move them with the well known 'cp' and 'mv' commands rather than having their craptastic software try to manage it all.
The feature you speak of can be turned off. Your music can be in one place or as many places as you like (even on removable storage). Most people, however, like the convenience of having all their music in one place which is managed automatically. "Most people" makes for a reasonable default. I also find it odd you categorize apple's naming scheme as "cryptic" given the scheme is artist/album/track, the filenames of which are not renamed as you claim. While my files are in different folders now, all of them retain the same filenames. Also, iTunes store's music no longer has DRM.
Why use VLC as a player when Perian installs codecs that allow quicktime player (or any quicktime based app) to play back anything VLC will. It's basically ffdshow for mac. I rarely use VLC anymore for that reason. Quicktime player just feels more lightweight as it starts up faster.
Sure he's responsible for his words, and that's all he should be judged upon, not hypothetical future crime based on other people's overreaction.
Three days later, he committed suicide in front of his wife and two children.
Yup. Blame the cigarettes. It was the cigarettes and those pesky believers in personal responsibility that made him do it.
I hear will-power and the notion of a life plagued by health problems followed by an early death completed clinical trials sixty years ago. What's more, there are no side effects, and when taken properly, there is a 100% chance of success.
Oh, yes, willpower. Just like everyone getting to be an astronaut if they just want it bad enough
A person cannot fully control events outside of one's body, that is true, however a person can control their direct actions, and should be held responsible for them as well. The whole "disease" bullshit is a copout from people who would rather see their own mistakes and past actions as somehow not their fault. Yes there is dependence, there is no question about that, but the fact that people can quit through willpower alone shows that that "dependence" does not overcome free will.
Believe what you "need" to live with yourself and excuse yourself from your own bad choices but it won't make it the truth. Addiction is not a disease. It's a behavior. Cancer is a disease. People cannot use willpower to _quit_ cancer. I hope you run your shit to somebody with an actual disease someday and he punches you the fuck out.
No. Nicotine is a stimulant and many people with ADHD use it to self medicate. It works, and it's not your body, so who the hell cares what you think.
Information doesn't exist without people. You can't pretend otherwise and you can't censor speech without censoring those who spoke it.
I gave my dad my old aluminum powerbook. No tech support request from him anymore. My mom, on the other hand, who still uses a PC... it's almost a daily issue.
Yes but they're also blind enough to believe Allah will protect them from the bomb detectors. Blind faith works in all directions. In a sense, the fact that they're able to pass these checkpoints undetected may serve to "prove" to them that their cause is righteous and just. How else could all the bomb detection fail?
True, but guns make the task a whole lot easier.