Totally off-topic... but MPlayer is hardly "a random multi-media player". It is *The Linux Multimedia Player*.
Having said that, it does not display the DVD's visual menus so for this purpose a dedicated program does make sense.
Your childish name-calling aside, I think a Firefox developer publically putting down KHTML developers for not bending to Apple's every whim is a fair bit different than me commenting on said put down on a website designed to elicit public commentary on posted stories.
I myself use mplayer & mencoder with x264 (for H.264), faac (for AAC encoding), and mkvtoolnix (for muxing both into the Matroska.mkv container [which can also accept additional video/audio tracks, and even subtitles in a myriad formats]).
I imagine all these tools should be available in some form for Mac OS X (though it sounds like the video part you have no troubles with).
I'd be happy to exchange some tips, tricks, and good-to-knows with you on the H.264 topic. If you are game, please drop me a note at my username at gmail.com.
Cheers!;-)
Ben Goodger has hit on one of the major ways that "free" software can fail and that is that the people working on the project are doing so out of the goodness of their hearts and for their own reasons. Some developers, like Goodger probably, are writing free software for the kick of having as many people use it as possible. This will make them somewhat use oriented. Others, and the KHTML guys appear to be this, are writing code for the sheer joy of writing code. And it's not fun to write stuff that cuts corners just so you can get it out the door. Of course, you may not be meeting the users' needs. But then, there's no requirement to meet users' needs. It's free - if you don't like it, fix it yourself or don't use it. In this case, Apple chose to fix it themselves. The fact that they diverged from KHTML simply shows that they have different priorities and isn't any different than FreeBSD and NetBSD spliiting.
You're right. I will go back amidst tears to my failure of a system with Linux, X.org, KDE, Firefox, OpenOffice, MPlayer, Evolution, et al.
In fact, I'd like to argue (since you never did) that Apple's uptake of the KHTML codebase is proof-positive of what a huge failure that project specifically is. I mean if it had been any better, obviously Apple would have opted for a more sensible alternative like the likewise failure Firefox or even something written from scratch.
One does not have to 100% agree with the KDE guys to wonder why Ben Goodger is sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.
And I also cannot help but feel bemused by a person who thinks ending a rant with "Case closed." will result in anything other than lessened credibility in his argument.
The argument that Konqueror should do whatever the customer wants even if it means taking "dirty" and/or cryptic modifications from Safari is a double-edged sword. Will we in a few months down the road see Firefox adding ActiveX functionality because "only software enginers care" about the problems raised by it? Or better yet, why not abandon Gecko in favour of MSIE's rendering engine--that would make Firefox 100% MSIE compatible overnight (something assuredly a lot of Firefox users want)!
I actually have been successful at reencoding 260 MB 22 minute cartoon episodes down to 56.8 MB. The quality is *beautiful*, and not noticably worse than the 260 MB DivX one, unless you're sitting right up close (I am not--I watch it on TV afterwards).
Though I should mention about 10-15 MB of savings is moving the audio from MP3 to AAC.
Being able to get better quality with 56.8 MB than 120 MB DivX shows out there is pretty sweet in my books.
It merits the label "wacko" because all Christians, Muslims and Jews (and a hell of a lot of Buddhists, if not all - not to mention a few hundred other cults) are "wacko" at least to the degree in which they believe in and practice their religion.
Whereas transhumanists are humanity's endless font of logic, wisdom, and sensibility?
There is rarely an "OK dad" that comes easily from my three year-old.
Perhaps that's because he's your step-son, and therefore you're not his 'dad'? Why would he call you that? Ever considered that might have something to do with his behaviour?
You are aware that calling the older male that lives in your house (and treats you like other children's fathers treat them) "dad" does not need forcing with a 3 year old?
You are aware that f***ing somebody does not give you ownership over the resulting child or lifelong fealty therefrom?
What part of the post gave you the impression that the guy is a mean SOB that mistreats his stepsons and forces false showings of effection on them?
Could you work out your own psychological issues with your own stepfather elsewhere?
Argus is a *giant*, not a God, in greek mythology.
He did have 100 eyes though. "He was thus a very effective watchman, as only a few of the eyes would sleep at a time; there were always eyes still awake.", as the Wikipedia notes
Copyright violation is copyright violation. Apparently you are too stupid to realize that, and unable to come up with any rational arguments, so you resort to name-calling. Who is being juvenille here?
How is violating the GPL (e.g. as SCO has done) not honorable?
You do understand that the real world is not a huge playground, where "if you stick out your tongue at me, I will bend your plastic shovel" principles rule supreme.
Grow up.
Whoever called this a balanced view wasn't too careful in reading the article. Later on, it just reads like MS FUD.
What would you propose the document said instead? "There is nothing notably wrong with OSS. You should all use OSS, because it is obvious that OSS is better than propietary solutions. You don't need facts."?
I call zealot - open source is generally a good thing and I support it, but ignoring the facts is as bad as (if not worst, as you would be a hypocrite) a mindless closed-source advocate.
Open source has its merits, but it also has its pitfalls. You simply cannot attack this document based on one paragraph (within 62 pages) which simply states the truth - that open source authors, as much as they're willing to contribute to the community, have no legal obligation to provide anyone (including governments) with free support.
Great job totally missing the point and crying "zealout", ZEALOT!
The quote "... however, liability in open source is still a glaring issue in comparison to proprietary counterparts, with most licenses including the popular GPL explicitly disclaiming any warranty and liability on behalf of the authors." implies that this is somehow special or different. It is not. All software is entirely without warranty.
Unless you wish to count MS's willingness to back their products with a pay-out up to $5.
If the OSS package screws up and loses your data, then you can't do anything.
If the MS package screws up and loses your data, then you _might_ be able to get some recompense, although in practice you'd better be a big company willing to spend a lot on landsharks.
No, no... don't simplify it. Take off your "I'm oh so smart" hat and give a sensible example of how your theoretical ramblings apply to the actual world in which we live.
The one example you gave--which you are now retroactively claiming to be a joke--was clearly wrong.
Most things that are possible will in fact never happen, unless you narrow down "things that are possible" by quite a bit (which I gave you a chance to do, only to be insulted in return).
What is the source of your immense conviction in this?
My source of immense conviction is that it's mathematically, and hence logically, true!
Hmmmm... I was quite right in assuming that you are drifting far from reality. Your response is big on defensiveness and offensiveness (in the non-rudeness sense); but quite short on arguments and answers.
It is a pleasing and satisfying theory...
Really? I wish I was at all pleased or satisfied by it. Thinking about infinity frankly scares the hell out of me, as it would most people who did it honestly.
Ah! So I am intellectually dishonest (or just too simple-minded to get what you understand). Thanks for letting me know.;) Can you focus on *your* argument a little also?
Can you elaborate on what "all possible things" actually means?
Do not say such things to a gag writer! Let's just say that, over an infinite time, all possible things happen... including President Bush admitting that he was wrong to invade Iraq!
If that doesn't shock you speechless you're either obtuse or profound.
Assuredly a more precise definition exists... unless you're pedalling to keep your theory unfalsifiable.
If President Bush dies, whenever he dies, without having admitted that he was wrong to invade Iraq, then "resident Bush admitting that he was wrong to invade Iraq" will never happen, regardless of all the infinity babbling you do.
Looked at from a certain way, everything is a random number generator (admittedly, some are better than others), but that's beside the point. Over an infinite period of time, *ALL* possible things happen. Random number generators are just one of the easier ways to explain this, but it applies to all things with a non-zero probability, and practically nothing that isn't forbidden by an actual law of physics has zero probability. Any non-zero number times infinity is infinity, so, anything that can happen will, granted an infinite time-frame.
What is the source of your immense conviction in this?
It is a pleasing and satisfying theory... but is it based on anything other than pleasing and satisfying armchair ruminations? Can you elaborate on what "all possible things" actually means?
By the broadest definition (where time is considered a factor), one can quite conclusively say that you are wrong. (Though under "many worlds" theory, in a somewhat different way, you would be right.)
Immortal means: infinite length of life. There could have been thousands of millions of billions of years between the command and the act. But it *would* have happened eventually, because in infinity, all possible things happen. It was *inevitable* that they eat the fruit, it was only a matter of time.
Errr... I think that's with random number generators, not necessarily with people or other real world entities.
Ah ! You are not a Francophone. N'est-ce pas ?
(It's "n'est-ce," not "n'est," and in French you put spaces before certain punctuation marks, including the exclamation point and question mark.)
Indeed I am not.;) Nor can I speak, read, or (obviously) write french... nor can I even fake it, one might safely ascertain.
Responding to idiotic American gibberish with something french in it though seemed irresistable at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Totally off-topic... but MPlayer is hardly "a random multi-media player". It is *The Linux Multimedia Player*. Having said that, it does not display the DVD's visual menus so for this purpose a dedicated program does make sense.
So use MPlayer under linux. I am yet to experience what the big DVD-not-working-under-linux hoopla is about.
Your childish name-calling aside, I think a Firefox developer publically putting down KHTML developers for not bending to Apple's every whim is a fair bit different than me commenting on said put down on a website designed to elicit public commentary on posted stories.
I myself use mplayer & mencoder with x264 (for H.264), faac (for AAC encoding), and mkvtoolnix (for muxing both into the Matroska .mkv container [which can also accept additional video/audio tracks, and even subtitles in a myriad formats]).
I imagine all these tools should be available in some form for Mac OS X (though it sounds like the video part you have no troubles with).
I'd be happy to exchange some tips, tricks, and good-to-knows with you on the H.264 topic. If you are game, please drop me a note at my username at gmail.com.
Cheers! ;-)
In fact, I'd like to argue (since you never did) that Apple's uptake of the KHTML codebase is proof-positive of what a huge failure that project specifically is. I mean if it had been any better, obviously Apple would have opted for a more sensible alternative like the likewise failure Firefox or even something written from scratch.
Not meeting your needs != failure.
One does not have to 100% agree with the KDE guys to wonder why Ben Goodger is sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.
And I also cannot help but feel bemused by a person who thinks ending a rant with "Case closed." will result in anything other than lessened credibility in his argument.
The argument that Konqueror should do whatever the customer wants even if it means taking "dirty" and/or cryptic modifications from Safari is a double-edged sword. Will we in a few months down the road see Firefox adding ActiveX functionality because "only software enginers care" about the problems raised by it? Or better yet, why not abandon Gecko in favour of MSIE's rendering engine--that would make Firefox 100% MSIE compatible overnight (something assuredly a lot of Firefox users want)!
I actually have been successful at reencoding 260 MB 22 minute cartoon episodes down to 56.8 MB. The quality is *beautiful*, and not noticably worse than the 260 MB DivX one, unless you're sitting right up close (I am not--I watch it on TV afterwards).
Though I should mention about 10-15 MB of savings is moving the audio from MP3 to AAC.
Being able to get better quality with 56.8 MB than 120 MB DivX shows out there is pretty sweet in my books.
Whereas transhumanists are humanity's endless font of logic, wisdom, and sensibility?
You are aware that f***ing somebody does not give you ownership over the resulting child or lifelong fealty therefrom?
What part of the post gave you the impression that the guy is a mean SOB that mistreats his stepsons and forces false showings of effection on them?
Could you work out your own psychological issues with your own stepfather elsewhere?
Thanks.
How many are getting fired for this? ;)
Not even netcraft could resolve google.com for a while.
Argus is a *giant*, not a God, in greek mythology.
He did have 100 eyes though. "He was thus a very effective watchman, as only a few of the eyes would sleep at a time; there were always eyes still awake.", as the Wikipedia notes
Good questions!
Let's schedule a conference to find some answers!
The quote "... however, liability in open source is still a glaring issue in comparison to proprietary counterparts, with most licenses including the popular GPL explicitly disclaiming any warranty and liability on behalf of the authors." implies that this is somehow special or different. It is not. All software is entirely without warranty.
Unless you wish to count MS's willingness to back their products with a pay-out up to $5.
MS's recompense is capped at $5.
What's "official" support for you?
There's mldonkey as another poster pointed out, and I myself have been using aMule for two years now.
As for the two week wait... perhaps you should try:
a) actually uploading at some reasonable speed
b) download more than two files at a time
No, no... don't simplify it. Take off your "I'm oh so smart" hat and give a sensible example of how your theoretical ramblings apply to the actual world in which we live. The one example you gave--which you are now retroactively claiming to be a joke--was clearly wrong. Most things that are possible will in fact never happen, unless you narrow down "things that are possible" by quite a bit (which I gave you a chance to do, only to be insulted in return).
Hmmmm... I was quite right in assuming that you are drifting far from reality. Your response is big on defensiveness and offensiveness (in the non-rudeness sense); but quite short on arguments and answers.
Ah! So I am intellectually dishonest (or just too simple-minded to get what you understand). Thanks for letting me know.
Assuredly a more precise definition exists... unless you're pedalling to keep your theory unfalsifiable.
If President Bush dies, whenever he dies, without having admitted that he was wrong to invade Iraq, then "resident Bush admitting that he was wrong to invade Iraq" will never happen, regardless of all the infinity babbling you do.
Kindly explain how it could, if you disagree?
What is the source of your immense conviction in this?
It is a pleasing and satisfying theory... but is it based on anything other than pleasing and satisfying armchair ruminations? Can you elaborate on what "all possible things" actually means?
By the broadest definition (where time is considered a factor), one can quite conclusively say that you are wrong. (Though under "many worlds" theory, in a somewhat different way, you would be right.)
Errr... I think that's with random number generators, not necessarily with people or other real world entities.
Your point is a thought-provoking one though.
God is not demented--why would he speak American?
Isn't it the Brits that do that?