Doesn't that just burn you up that there are Linux users out there watching RealNazi(TM) media on their Linux boxes without having to suffer your RealSpyware(tm), RealAdverts(tm), and RealSpam(tm)?;-)
I'd like to see something akin to Marvel Comics' original Secret Wars series but with a more Dr. Strangelove-esque ending.
Have Q bring together the crews of all the Enterprises, DS9, Voyager, and the entire Federation; plus the Klingon Empire, Romulan Empire, the Borg, and Species 8472 -- then let them all obliterate each other (including Q) in one epic, cataclysmic final act for the Trek franchise.
Yeah, XviD is much more difficult to wrangle with than DivX or other MPEG codecs, especially when it comes to meeting your target filesize. It takes lots of practice, and I admit that I still don't have it fully mastered myself yet. But those I know who have mastered it produce encodings much smaller in filesize than mine and with higher quality -- and definitely comparable to anything you can do using RealVideo (though RealVideo is now MPEG-4 based I believe). I guess what XviD really needs is better encoding applications specifically geared towards making XviD encoding easier. To date, nobody I'm aware of has even come close to offering such tools.
That's very commendable. But over 1 GB of video... have you considered using a more modern codec than MPEG-1, such as, oh, I don't know... MPEG-4?;-)
XviD is an open source MPEG-4 codec you know, and should be able to squeeze that puppy down to the size of the original RA stream (or smaller) with no discernable loss in quality.;-)
I hope they go under soon, and that it will leave enough of a void in the science fiction market to attract one or more new ventures which will genuinely attempt to cater to this market. Well, that's how capitalists claim it's supposed to work anyhow.
Upon reflection, I retract that statement as foolish daydreaming. I realize that a network like SciFi Channel is not beholden solely to the demands of its viewers (what we think of as their primary market), but that their actions derive from a helter-skelter balancing act between 4 main concerns:
The profit demands of the stockholders
The whims of the advertisers
The salary demands of the network executives
The demands of the viewers
Perhaps even in that order of importance. In short, commercial networks have greater concerns than viewer's wishes. Viewers are often only placated just enough to keep their loyalty. Of course this is nothing new in the television industry, but SciFi Channel makes this stark truth all the more obscene by their use of the term "SciFi" in their moniker, trying to obscure the fact of business-as-usual by posing as a network that exists to cater to a specific community of viewers.
The Sci-Fi channel didn't cancel Babylon 5. The show had already came to it's natural conclusion before Sci-Fi got it. They didn't even end Crusade, that was TNT.
I believe the poster meant Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers. This was the pilot film SciFi produced which was meant to test the waters for a new B5 series. In one of the most bone-headed (sorry Delenn) scheduling maneuvers in television history, SciFi inexplicably premiered this pilot in the same time slot as the NFL Playoffs, which of course stole the majority of the pilot's target demographic. Disappointed by the resulting ratings (which they themselves had sabotaged from the start) and having already been considering moving away from producing actual science fiction content, SciFi decided to drop plans for producing the series.
This was yet another example of how pathetic SciFi Channel is. I hope they go under soon, and that it will leave enough of a void in the science fiction market to attract one or more new ventures which will genuinely attempt to cater to this market. Well, that's how capitalists claim it's supposed to work anyhow.
No need to reinvent the wheel. Since the use of physical cards, paper, or books is obviously an obsolete method of cataloging in the electronic era, the following are likely what future cataloging systems will look like (based on XML, of course):
This is typical of professional prejudice these days: (see above reply)
It's unfortunate that in capitalist societies people blindly accept that everything should cost money, even things such as information which can be replicated ad infinitum at no cost and without disturbing the original.
If this group, ostensibly chartered to set standards for the common good, finds it must charge money to those whom it purports to benefit, it is a bureaucracy and hence inimical to its stated purpose. Drafting standards is an activity which necessitates no production of physical materials and does not even require a physical meeting venue thanks to the ubiquitous Internet (which some of the IEEE's members helped architect for the very purpose of free information exchange). All this activity requires is volunteers and time. Why should any costs be incurred? If these engineers can't exploit tools such as the Internet to eliminate any financial overhead for the organization as a whole, I personally wouldn't trust them to draft standards for base OS security.
No, information is not free. But it should be freed, especially from bureaucracies and profiteers. For those thick of the head, here's how volunteerism should work: I'm going to call up 19 friends, ask them to donate $5 a piece, and release this document on Freenet. That's what I call for the common good.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't that just burn you up that there are Linux users out there watching RealNazi(TM) media on their Linux boxes without having to suffer your RealSpyware(tm), RealAdverts(tm), and RealSpam(tm)? ;-)
I'd like to see something akin to Marvel Comics' original Secret Wars series but with a more Dr. Strangelove-esque ending.
Have Q bring together the crews of all the Enterprises, DS9, Voyager, and the entire Federation; plus the Klingon Empire, Romulan Empire, the Borg, and Species 8472 -- then let them all obliterate each other (including Q) in one epic, cataclysmic final act for the Trek franchise.
I'd go see it.
...what next, GropeLaw?
Amen. This "spatial" feature is no different than the default Windows 3.1 navigation. What a dud.
Yeah, XviD is much more difficult to wrangle with than DivX or other MPEG codecs, especially when it comes to meeting your target filesize. It takes lots of practice, and I admit that I still don't have it fully mastered myself yet. But those I know who have mastered it produce encodings much smaller in filesize than mine and with higher quality -- and definitely comparable to anything you can do using RealVideo (though RealVideo is now MPEG-4 based I believe). I guess what XviD really needs is better encoding applications specifically geared towards making XviD encoding easier. To date, nobody I'm aware of has even come close to offering such tools.
XviD is an open source MPEG-4 codec you know, and should be able to squeeze that puppy down to the size of the original RA stream (or smaller) with no discernable loss in quality. ;-)
- The profit demands of the stockholders
- The whims of the advertisers
- The salary demands of the network executives
- The demands of the viewers
Perhaps even in that order of importance. In short, commercial networks have greater concerns than viewer's wishes. Viewers are often only placated just enough to keep their loyalty. Of course this is nothing new in the television industry, but SciFi Channel makes this stark truth all the more obscene by their use of the term "SciFi" in their moniker, trying to obscure the fact of business-as-usual by posing as a network that exists to cater to a specific community of viewers.I believe the poster meant Babylon 5: Legend of the Rangers. This was the pilot film SciFi produced which was meant to test the waters for a new B5 series. In one of the most bone-headed (sorry Delenn) scheduling maneuvers in television history, SciFi inexplicably premiered this pilot in the same time slot as the NFL Playoffs, which of course stole the majority of the pilot's target demographic. Disappointed by the resulting ratings (which they themselves had sabotaged from the start) and having already been considering moving away from producing actual science fiction content, SciFi decided to drop plans for producing the series.
This was yet another example of how pathetic SciFi Channel is. I hope they go under soon, and that it will leave enough of a void in the science fiction market to attract one or more new ventures which will genuinely attempt to cater to this market. Well, that's how capitalists claim it's supposed to work anyhow.
Ah, the spirit of phreaking is alive and well... and as practical as ever. :)
No need to reinvent the wheel. Since the use of physical cards, paper, or books is obviously an obsolete method of cataloging in the electronic era, the following are likely what future cataloging systems will look like (based on XML, of course):
W3C's RDF Specification: http://www.w3.org/RDFDublin Core: http://dublincore.org
This is typical of professional prejudice these days: (see above reply)
It's unfortunate that in capitalist societies people blindly accept that everything should cost money, even things such as information which can be replicated ad infinitum at no cost and without disturbing the original.
If this group, ostensibly chartered to set standards for the common good, finds it must charge money to those whom it purports to benefit, it is a bureaucracy and hence inimical to its stated purpose. Drafting standards is an activity which necessitates no production of physical materials and does not even require a physical meeting venue thanks to the ubiquitous Internet (which some of the IEEE's members helped architect for the very purpose of free information exchange). All this activity requires is volunteers and time. Why should any costs be incurred? If these engineers can't exploit tools such as the Internet to eliminate any financial overhead for the organization as a whole, I personally wouldn't trust them to draft standards for base OS security.
No, information is not free. But it should be freed, especially from bureaucracies and profiteers. For those thick of the head, here's how volunteerism should work: I'm going to call up 19 friends, ask them to donate $5 a piece, and release this document on Freenet. That's what I call for the common good.