So? Ever seen Metroid Prime 2 in 480p? It's the best my television can display anyway, so screw the Xbox 360 and the PS3 with their "better graphics", because I want more details in my pixels, not more pixels with last-gen details for twice the price.
I know the Wii is basically a "Gamecube 1.5", but so what? We got better controllers, DVD capacity, backward compatibility and (finally) internet connectivity (can't wait for games to use it though). But I also only paid 280$CAD for the thing, not 500-600$CAD.
My point was that perhaps Apple only paid the chip license fee for 802.11b and 802.11g, and enabling the 802.11n on the chip required an additional license fee.
Except that this software update enables a new piece of hardware that deals with wireless frequencies. So who knows, maybe it also has to do with wireless licenses and all. Or even a 802.11n license fee, or both.
Because, of course, it's better to send 5000 users to Wikipedia for a two-letter acronym search than for the author who already know the meaning to include it between parenthesis.
Well of course. What I meant was that since the article is about the "pirates", it sounded like they were the one who "encoded" the file, so that would've meant a re-encoding into VC-1, hence my original comment about choosing a format backed by Microsoft instead of something more standard like H.264.
From the Slashdot article: "The file was encoded in MPEG-4 VC-1 and the resulting file size was a hefty 19.6 GB."
The way that sentence is written, it sounds like the movie was "encoded". I guess the author can't make the difference between "encoding" and "decrypting".
BTW, your assertion that "VC-1 is still MPEG-4" is totally wrong.
From the Slashdot article: "The file was encoded in MPEG-4 VC-1 and the resulting file size was a hefty 19.6 GB."
The author made it sound like it was "encoded" in "MPEG-4 VC-1" instead of "the VC-1 data was decrypted'. Huge difference.
As for VC-1 being more efficient than H.264, that's your opinion. All I know is that the industry (recording studios, broadcasters, etc) is already set on using H.264, not VC-1.
Why are the pirates giving ammunition to Microsoft and going with VC-1 instead of H.264? (H.264 may be known to Apple users, however, H.264 is a regular industry standard just like MPEG-1 or MPEG-2).
I know VC-1 is still MPEG-4, but that's like pirates going with WMA instead of MP3/AAC (non-DRM'ed AAC, for those who think that AAC = DRM).
Just as people are buying the Mac mini even though there's cheaper computers out there. It's all about the software and functionality.
As an example, I got a "free phone" with my 3-years plan with Bell Canada, and it has a 0.3MP camera. I don't use it though, because I don't have any clue as to how to take those pictures and put them on my Mac. I think it may require a special 50$CAD USB cable that probably won't even work with my Mac (unless the phone mounts as a USB drive). So yes, my phone has a built-in camera. But it's useless to me. Same goes with all the other features it has. Heck it took 9 months before I discovered it had a calculator, because the menus are too crap to navigate around.
What I mean is, the Linux community should try to do the best of all worlds. If something works fine on one OS (File Explorer on Windows), take it. If something else works fine on another OS (Exposé on OS X), take it too.
The goal here is not to copy Windows nor OS X, however when I look at most Linux desktops I have the feeling of looking at Windows 98 with another skin applied.
The fact that there's so many desktops to choose from, and that apps may require/work better under a particular desktop doesn't help the "Linux cause" one bit.
You don't seem to realize the huge difference between a touch-screen interface and a keyboard. Just because you used the word "keyboard" in both cases doesn't mean anything.
My original comment was that people were complaining that touch-screen interfaces were not as good as real keyboards, and that it was the same argument of command-line+keyboard vs mouse+GUI from 1984 all over again.
I'm done wasting time with you. If you can't understand that and feel obligated to twist my words so you can win, too bad for you.
They should focus on what apple has done and how the MacOSX desktop works and try and copy and/or improve on that.
Indeed. I've switched from Windows to Mac about two years ago, and now every time someone shows me their Linux box, I have the impression to see something from 5-10 years ago.
If Microsoft is trying to copy OS X, and the Linux community is trying to copy Windows, they'll never be ahead and stay in 3rd place. I'm talking desktop users, not servers.
Why copy the copier when you could copy the original? OS X is your target, if only for the inspiration on how to interact with and present information to its users. Make it easy to use, allow programs to talk to each other (OS X drag'n drop or copy/paste style, not "Windows-that-allows-worms-to-spread" style). I don't care if it's "hard to code", if you want more users then you need to fill the needs and wants of those users.
And yes, I know some people will reply with the usual "those fancy users just have to code their own stuff" and "we don't want to fill the needs of dumb users". Don't bother, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to those who want to spread Linux adoption.
but that doesn't change the fact that I can control a $20 phone--including navigate thru menus as long as I know the 3 or 4 most commonly used sequences--without having to look at it.
But that doesn't change the fact that I can control a command-line--including navigate thru menus as long as I know the 3 or 4 most commonly used sequences--without having to look at it.
I knew this sounded familiar. This is the old "keyboard vs mouse" debate of 1984 all over again. Guess who won in the end?
And if you still don't "get it", go watch the keynote, Steve explains it all quite clearly (the lack of keyboard and stylus, that is).
Any plans/schematics/links? What parts did he use? Did he start with an existing electric bike and simply removed the batteries and installed a supercapacitor instead?
Slashdot Mirror
Never mind.
So? Ever seen Metroid Prime 2 in 480p? It's the best my television can display anyway, so screw the Xbox 360 and the PS3 with their "better graphics", because I want more details in my pixels, not more pixels with last-gen details for twice the price.
I know the Wii is basically a "Gamecube 1.5", but so what? We got better controllers, DVD capacity, backward compatibility and (finally) internet connectivity (can't wait for games to use it though). But I also only paid 280$CAD for the thing, not 500-600$CAD.
Anyone know how to convert the Flash animation into a real-world video format via QuickTime Pro?
My point was that perhaps Apple only paid the chip license fee for 802.11b and 802.11g, and enabling the 802.11n on the chip required an additional license fee.
I meant a 802.11n chip license fee, as well as a 802.11n wireless license frequency.
Except that this software update enables a new piece of hardware that deals with wireless frequencies. So who knows, maybe it also has to do with wireless licenses and all. Or even a 802.11n license fee, or both.
Because, of course, it's better to send 5000 users to Wikipedia for a two-letter acronym search than for the author who already know the meaning to include it between parenthesis.
Well of course. What I meant was that since the article is about the "pirates", it sounded like they were the one who "encoded" the file, so that would've meant a re-encoding into VC-1, hence my original comment about choosing a format backed by Microsoft instead of something more standard like H.264.
From the Slashdot article: "The file was encoded in MPEG-4 VC-1 and the resulting file size was a hefty 19.6 GB."
The way that sentence is written, it sounds like the movie was "encoded". I guess the author can't make the difference between "encoding" and "decrypting".
From the Slashdot article: "The file was encoded in MPEG-4 VC-1 and the resulting file size was a hefty 19.6 GB."
The author made it sound like it was "encoded" in "MPEG-4 VC-1" instead of "the VC-1 data was decrypted'. Huge difference.
As for VC-1 being more efficient than H.264, that's your opinion. All I know is that the industry (recording studios, broadcasters, etc) is already set on using H.264, not VC-1.
Why are the pirates giving ammunition to Microsoft and going with VC-1 instead of H.264? (H.264 may be known to Apple users, however, H.264 is a regular industry standard just like MPEG-1 or MPEG-2).
I know VC-1 is still MPEG-4, but that's like pirates going with WMA instead of MP3/AAC (non-DRM'ed AAC, for those who think that AAC = DRM).
Actually I do have the number right here: the packaging box. It's an LG 6200. Without the box, I would never have known.
All I can say is that's it's an LG phone. There's no model number written on it, and I can't find anything in the menus/settings about it.
If I can't even find out which model it is, imagine taking the pictures out of it or even syncing the address book with my Mac.
Just as people are buying the Mac mini even though there's cheaper computers out there. It's all about the software and functionality.
As an example, I got a "free phone" with my 3-years plan with Bell Canada, and it has a 0.3MP camera. I don't use it though, because I don't have any clue as to how to take those pictures and put them on my Mac. I think it may require a special 50$CAD USB cable that probably won't even work with my Mac (unless the phone mounts as a USB drive). So yes, my phone has a built-in camera. But it's useless to me. Same goes with all the other features it has. Heck it took 9 months before I discovered it had a calculator, because the menus are too crap to navigate around.
What I mean is, the Linux community should try to do the best of all worlds. If something works fine on one OS (File Explorer on Windows), take it. If something else works fine on another OS (Exposé on OS X), take it too.
The goal here is not to copy Windows nor OS X, however when I look at most Linux desktops I have the feeling of looking at Windows 98 with another skin applied.
The fact that there's so many desktops to choose from, and that apps may require/work better under a particular desktop doesn't help the "Linux cause" one bit.
You don't seem to realize the huge difference between a touch-screen interface and a keyboard. Just because you used the word "keyboard" in both cases doesn't mean anything.
My original comment was that people were complaining that touch-screen interfaces were not as good as real keyboards, and that it was the same argument of command-line+keyboard vs mouse+GUI from 1984 all over again.
I'm done wasting time with you. If you can't understand that and feel obligated to twist my words so you can win, too bad for you.
It's not a bad analogy at all. Both are about how we interact with devices.
If Microsoft is trying to copy OS X, and the Linux community is trying to copy Windows, they'll never be ahead and stay in 3rd place. I'm talking desktop users, not servers.
Why copy the copier when you could copy the original? OS X is your target, if only for the inspiration on how to interact with and present information to its users. Make it easy to use, allow programs to talk to each other (OS X drag'n drop or copy/paste style, not "Windows-that-allows-worms-to-spread" style). I don't care if it's "hard to code", if you want more users then you need to fill the needs and wants of those users.
And yes, I know some people will reply with the usual "those fancy users just have to code their own stuff" and "we don't want to fill the needs of dumb users". Don't bother, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to those who want to spread Linux adoption.
You really didn't get my point.
The old debate was keyboard+command-line vs mouse+GUI.
The new debate is over small keyboards+GUI vs touch-screen GUI.
I knew this sounded familiar. This is the old "keyboard vs mouse" debate of 1984 all over again. Guess who won in the end?
And if you still don't "get it", go watch the keynote, Steve explains it all quite clearly (the lack of keyboard and stylus, that is).
As usual release dates for the USA, Europe, Japan, etc... but nothing about Canada. We're right north of you, Apple! Same land mass!
Why is it that we almost never see photos or pictures in articles anymore?
Any plans/schematics/links? What parts did he use? Did he start with an existing electric bike and simply removed the batteries and installed a supercapacitor instead?
Details please!
There, fixed that for you.