What about the fucking PARENTS, Michelle? I'd point at the parents as the single biggest reason for childhood obesity. It's supposed to be their job to make sure their kids remain healthy and active. Instead, a lot of them are just fine grabbing McDonald's and letting the kids stare at the TV for hours on end. It all boils down to people. Politicians just love pointing the finger at everything but people, because people vote. Playstations don't.
And...how many people know how to build a computer, much less troubleshoot their own hardware? I'm running a Hackintosh because I wanted OS X with the building and configuration options of a PC, but I'm not even going to pretend that a Hackintosh is a viable option for the vast majority of consumers. They just want to grab something that works out of the box with minimal fuss. One thing that Apple has going for them is the current lack of malware. People have virus/spyware issues all the damned time. Yes, much of that is due to user incompetence, but it's a problem nevertheless. It helps drive them to the Mac platform where they think they're safe, although OS X isn't going to be that way forever.
What geeks want in a product and what consumers want in a product are rarely the same.
You said Macs, not iPhones or iPads. In addition, I really don't miss Flash on my iPhone, and if the crappiness of Flash on Android is any indication, I don't want it.
It's more that you're being a lugubrious asshat who lumps people into one group if they give the slightest indication of liking or using Apple products. Cry some more.
No Flash at all? Do you realize that Macs have Flash? You didn't say iOS devices, you said Macs. They do have Flash. In addition, while iTunes and Quicktime are installed, there's nothing that says you must use them. I barely ever crack Quicktime open (although I have to admit that Quicktime X is a big improvement over Quicktime 7) and fire up MPlayer most of the time instead. I use iTunes simply because I own an iPod and an iPhone, but I really don't use it beyond organizing and synching music, so I don't really give a crap about all the kludge that Apple is adding because I never get that far. Not to say that iTunes isn't getting clunky (much more so on Windows, though), but it's not a problem for me.
In addition, you do realize that the average consumer doesn't know and/or doesn't give a crap about what you've listed, right?
Except that Flash as a video wrapper has become far more prevalent than little games (which are also written Java, Javascript, etc). Flash is a whore for video. A Flash-wrapped H.264 eats a surprising amount of CPU time when compared to the same H.264 playing in a good media player.
There are far, FAR greater atrocities going on in the world, but RMS chooses to whine about software. Yeah, because copyright and closed-source are certainly the worst things going on right now! People are being brutalized and subjugated all over the world, but dammit, he wants people to stop making a living writing code with licenses he doesn't like!
It's not like the FSF doesn't have its share of nutballs. Remember the whole, "Let's DDoS the Apple genius bars and ask all these questions" idiocy? Yeah, because low-level tech support guys have total control over company policy, and grandma certainly isn't going to get a negative view of the FOSS community when the fat, smelly neckbeard is taking up time at the genius bar. I couldn't believe that ANYONE, even FOSS zealots, would find that to be a good idea. I guess some are completely lacking in any social graces and don't do things to help the community, just fulfilling their own warped sense of self-righteousness.
Misinterpreted because the MPEG-LA came out and fucking said so. Unenforceable because it's so grotesquely overreaching that even the most chunkheaded judge would rule against them if they were ever fool enough to try a case with it.
I already can't view my DVDs on a Linux box or transfer iTunes movies I have purchased to other devices.
If you can't figure out how to watch a DVD on Linux then you're either a mini Stallman or just fucking incompetent. There are a ton of ways to do it. iTunes is iTunes. It is a single implementation. You can still rip a DVD to whatever format you want and slap it onto another device.
Amazon and Apple both have deleted content they don't like from people's devices.
Flagrant fucking lie, douchebag. Apple has never used their killswitch, nor have they remotely deleted ANYTHING from an Apple device. Amazon nuked Kindle content only because of some very ugly actions on the part of a seller, and then went back because of the outcry. They're not going to do it again. They might choose to go after the seller instead, like they should.
YouTube, Google, Yahoo, and others delete controversial content frequently, often completely ignoring fair use provisions.
Do you honestly think that they have the means to go through EVERY SINGLE TAKEDOWN and determine if it's fair use or not? Guess what? YOU can fight it if you think it's fair use. It's not their damned job to take a bullet for you.
In a few years, all books, videos, photos, almost our entire history and intellectual life will be on the Internet. Patents and cryptography will ensure that you can view it only on devices controlled by a few companies. That's what we're heading for.
Yes, and I'm sure all of it will be completely restricted! Oh, wait, there's still a TON of stuff out there that is completely free and far from DRM-happy. You can go ahead and publish whatever the hell you want online. Make something and put it out there free of charge, free of copy protection. That's your right. It's your stuff. By the same token, companies who want copy protection are free to use it. Don't like it? Don't buy from them. You want a book? Buy the hardcopy. They can't restrict that. History? Sorry, you can't copyright history. A history book, sure, but not history itself.
And morons like you are cheering it along.
And morons like you keep screaming that the sky is falling. Congratulations on marginalizing yourself as a nutwad that people ignore. If you had three braincells to rub together, you might realize that a better plan of attack is to go after several specific things and explain rationally why they're bad instead of screaming that people who don't see that the world is ending are idiots. Go stand on a street corner next to the lunatic armageddon preacher where you belong, asshat.
THIS. Also, when you put someone in a cage, they're very unlikely to break out. How long before people learn to muck with the GPS devices and make it look like they're in the area when they're not? Also, this is DEFINITELY not an option for violent offenders.
If this bozo wants to get prisons cleared out then we should legalize pot at the very least.
Only for commercial purposes. If it's not paid content, it's 100% free of charge by the MPEG-LA as far as streaming is concerned.
and the decoding is absolutely not free.
So all those open source projects like VLC, MPlayer, etc are paying through the nose to the MPEG-LA? That's news to me. And I may be wrong, but the reason Firefox would have to pay through the nose is because they like building everything into the browser (video decoding included) instead of just passing it to the OS, which means it would cost nothing if they were to do it like every other browser out there. I'm not entirely sure about that, but it's the impression I'm getting.
Are you so stupid as to thing a misinterpreted and unenforceable clause in a license equates to all media being entirely controlled by MPEG-LA? REALLY? Are you such a fucking paranoid lunatic that you think that paying a small license for commercial distribution in a digital format (not just H.264) means it's now "entirely controlled" by that company? And that means that they'll now control everything that's published? Are you fucking KIDDING me?
Congratulations on being part of the reason that FOSS advocates are seen as ranting, paranoid zealots.
Point out where I said it was an exaggeration, you idiot. Go ahead, point it out. By the way, saying that something not being open source does not make it Orwellian does not mean I called the H.264 license a "wild exaggeration". Reading comprehension. Look into it.
And you struggle to find software that does what you want without an archaic interface or simply do without many, many things that others are able to enjoy. It's more like joining a cult that heavily restricts your actions.
Um, no. I think very few people here have a beef against the idea of open source. I use some open source software when it suits my needs and works well enough. If it does what you want it to do, why not?
I think the anger is lashing out at the FOSS community. While some are level-headed, some are not and come off like raving zealots. I've never seen tech zealotry on the level of a FOSS fanatic. Even the most obnoxious Apple yuppie fanboy can't hold a candle to the lunatic ravings of the FOSS nuts. It's sad, really, because we get some good stuff out of the FOSS community, but there are just too many asperger's-riddled neckbeards who refuse to budge on the smallest, stupidest things and will sure as hell let you know it.
It's not open source we mock. It's the hardline element of the open source community.
There is no possible way that provision is enforceable. Have you noticed how it has doubtlessly been violated all over the place? Not one lawsuit from the MPEG-LA. It's not going to fly and they know it.
Richard Stallman and those like him. It doesn't matter how godawful the product is. If it's open-source, they'll use it and extoll its virtues despite other products being superior in every other way.
Unfortunately, while the camera will have some interesting features and can do some things well, it will be hampered by an interface that only a CS grad student could decipher. Further development on future models will come to a standstill as the developers engage in fierce, unyielding debates about minutia. Eventually the camera will be forked into four different projects, with only one making it to market and carrying the same flaws as the first.
I think you're missing the point. The point is that the "native resolution" is not one physical pixel = one pixel as seen by the viewer. It's the idea that one physical pixel = a large number of tiny subpixels, which would be small enough that the blur effect would be mitigated. Instead of trying to scale to a lower resolution by current methods, each resolution would be assigned a certain number of subpixels per perceived pixel, and since each one is just a tiny part of a pixel at ANY resolution (we're talking about far smaller pixels than the eye can even perceive), the picture winds up being much crisper, thus making it much more pleasant to look at.
I'm no expert on this, but what if they could be used to make LCDs that don't look like ass at non-native resolutions? If one pixel at 1920x1080 is actually a bunch of these tiny pixels acting as one (at least as far as the OS is concerned), then it would be far easier to "enlarge" that collection of pixels to act as a single pixel at 1280x720 by simply enlarging it by the proper number of subpixels. Seems feasible to me, but maybe someone with more experience in that area can chime in.
Slashdot Mirror
What about the fucking PARENTS, Michelle? I'd point at the parents as the single biggest reason for childhood obesity. It's supposed to be their job to make sure their kids remain healthy and active. Instead, a lot of them are just fine grabbing McDonald's and letting the kids stare at the TV for hours on end. It all boils down to people. Politicians just love pointing the finger at everything but people, because people vote. Playstations don't.
This is gonna be a double-whammy for /. users...
I'm assuming that these are based on the GF104 and not the "Burn your house to the ground" GF100 series. The article doesn't say.
And...how many people know how to build a computer, much less troubleshoot their own hardware? I'm running a Hackintosh because I wanted OS X with the building and configuration options of a PC, but I'm not even going to pretend that a Hackintosh is a viable option for the vast majority of consumers. They just want to grab something that works out of the box with minimal fuss. One thing that Apple has going for them is the current lack of malware. People have virus/spyware issues all the damned time. Yes, much of that is due to user incompetence, but it's a problem nevertheless. It helps drive them to the Mac platform where they think they're safe, although OS X isn't going to be that way forever.
What geeks want in a product and what consumers want in a product are rarely the same.
You said Macs, not iPhones or iPads. In addition, I really don't miss Flash on my iPhone, and if the crappiness of Flash on Android is any indication, I don't want it.
Come on, there are two mobile video sites you really need: Youtube, and ifap.to.
It's more that you're being a lugubrious asshat who lumps people into one group if they give the slightest indication of liking or using Apple products. Cry some more.
No Flash at all? Do you realize that Macs have Flash? You didn't say iOS devices, you said Macs. They do have Flash. In addition, while iTunes and Quicktime are installed, there's nothing that says you must use them. I barely ever crack Quicktime open (although I have to admit that Quicktime X is a big improvement over Quicktime 7) and fire up MPlayer most of the time instead. I use iTunes simply because I own an iPod and an iPhone, but I really don't use it beyond organizing and synching music, so I don't really give a crap about all the kludge that Apple is adding because I never get that far. Not to say that iTunes isn't getting clunky (much more so on Windows, though), but it's not a problem for me.
In addition, you do realize that the average consumer doesn't know and/or doesn't give a crap about what you've listed, right?
Except that Flash as a video wrapper has become far more prevalent than little games (which are also written Java, Javascript, etc). Flash is a whore for video. A Flash-wrapped H.264 eats a surprising amount of CPU time when compared to the same H.264 playing in a good media player.
There are far, FAR greater atrocities going on in the world, but RMS chooses to whine about software. Yeah, because copyright and closed-source are certainly the worst things going on right now! People are being brutalized and subjugated all over the world, but dammit, he wants people to stop making a living writing code with licenses he doesn't like!
It's not like the FSF doesn't have its share of nutballs. Remember the whole, "Let's DDoS the Apple genius bars and ask all these questions" idiocy? Yeah, because low-level tech support guys have total control over company policy, and grandma certainly isn't going to get a negative view of the FOSS community when the fat, smelly neckbeard is taking up time at the genius bar. I couldn't believe that ANYONE, even FOSS zealots, would find that to be a good idea. I guess some are completely lacking in any social graces and don't do things to help the community, just fulfilling their own warped sense of self-righteousness.
Really? And you know this how?
Misinterpreted because the MPEG-LA came out and fucking said so. Unenforceable because it's so grotesquely overreaching that even the most chunkheaded judge would rule against them if they were ever fool enough to try a case with it.
I already can't view my DVDs on a Linux box or transfer iTunes movies I have purchased to other devices.
If you can't figure out how to watch a DVD on Linux then you're either a mini Stallman or just fucking incompetent. There are a ton of ways to do it. iTunes is iTunes. It is a single implementation. You can still rip a DVD to whatever format you want and slap it onto another device.
Amazon and Apple both have deleted content they don't like from people's devices.
Flagrant fucking lie, douchebag. Apple has never used their killswitch, nor have they remotely deleted ANYTHING from an Apple device. Amazon nuked Kindle content only because of some very ugly actions on the part of a seller, and then went back because of the outcry. They're not going to do it again. They might choose to go after the seller instead, like they should.
YouTube, Google, Yahoo, and others delete controversial content frequently, often completely ignoring fair use provisions.
Do you honestly think that they have the means to go through EVERY SINGLE TAKEDOWN and determine if it's fair use or not? Guess what? YOU can fight it if you think it's fair use. It's not their damned job to take a bullet for you.
In a few years, all books, videos, photos, almost our entire history and intellectual life will be on the Internet. Patents and cryptography will ensure that you can view it only on devices controlled by a few companies. That's what we're heading for.
Yes, and I'm sure all of it will be completely restricted! Oh, wait, there's still a TON of stuff out there that is completely free and far from DRM-happy. You can go ahead and publish whatever the hell you want online. Make something and put it out there free of charge, free of copy protection. That's your right. It's your stuff. By the same token, companies who want copy protection are free to use it. Don't like it? Don't buy from them. You want a book? Buy the hardcopy. They can't restrict that. History? Sorry, you can't copyright history. A history book, sure, but not history itself.
And morons like you are cheering it along.
And morons like you keep screaming that the sky is falling. Congratulations on marginalizing yourself as a nutwad that people ignore. If you had three braincells to rub together, you might realize that a better plan of attack is to go after several specific things and explain rationally why they're bad instead of screaming that people who don't see that the world is ending are idiots. Go stand on a street corner next to the lunatic armageddon preacher where you belong, asshat.
THIS. Also, when you put someone in a cage, they're very unlikely to break out. How long before people learn to muck with the GPS devices and make it look like they're in the area when they're not? Also, this is DEFINITELY not an option for violent offenders.
If this bozo wants to get prisons cleared out then we should legalize pot at the very least.
the encoding is not free
Unless you use x.264.
the streaming is not free
Only for commercial purposes. If it's not paid content, it's 100% free of charge by the MPEG-LA as far as streaming is concerned.
and the decoding is absolutely not free.
So all those open source projects like VLC, MPlayer, etc are paying through the nose to the MPEG-LA? That's news to me. And I may be wrong, but the reason Firefox would have to pay through the nose is because they like building everything into the browser (video decoding included) instead of just passing it to the OS, which means it would cost nothing if they were to do it like every other browser out there. I'm not entirely sure about that, but it's the impression I'm getting.
Are you so stupid as to thing a misinterpreted and unenforceable clause in a license equates to all media being entirely controlled by MPEG-LA? REALLY? Are you such a fucking paranoid lunatic that you think that paying a small license for commercial distribution in a digital format (not just H.264) means it's now "entirely controlled" by that company? And that means that they'll now control everything that's published? Are you fucking KIDDING me?
Congratulations on being part of the reason that FOSS advocates are seen as ranting, paranoid zealots.
Point out where I said it was an exaggeration, you idiot. Go ahead, point it out. By the way, saying that something not being open source does not make it Orwellian does not mean I called the H.264 license a "wild exaggeration". Reading comprehension. Look into it.
And you struggle to find software that does what you want without an archaic interface or simply do without many, many things that others are able to enjoy. It's more like joining a cult that heavily restricts your actions.
Um, no. I think very few people here have a beef against the idea of open source. I use some open source software when it suits my needs and works well enough. If it does what you want it to do, why not?
I think the anger is lashing out at the FOSS community. While some are level-headed, some are not and come off like raving zealots. I've never seen tech zealotry on the level of a FOSS fanatic. Even the most obnoxious Apple yuppie fanboy can't hold a candle to the lunatic ravings of the FOSS nuts. It's sad, really, because we get some good stuff out of the FOSS community, but there are just too many asperger's-riddled neckbeards who refuse to budge on the smallest, stupidest things and will sure as hell let you know it.
It's not open source we mock. It's the hardline element of the open source community.
There is no possible way that provision is enforceable. Have you noticed how it has doubtlessly been violated all over the place? Not one lawsuit from the MPEG-LA. It's not going to fly and they know it.
So not open source = George Orwell? Are you really that much of a blind zealot?
What is the market for this device?
Richard Stallman and those like him. It doesn't matter how godawful the product is. If it's open-source, they'll use it and extoll its virtues despite other products being superior in every other way.
Unfortunately, while the camera will have some interesting features and can do some things well, it will be hampered by an interface that only a CS grad student could decipher. Further development on future models will come to a standstill as the developers engage in fierce, unyielding debates about minutia. Eventually the camera will be forked into four different projects, with only one making it to market and carrying the same flaws as the first.
I think you're missing the point. The point is that the "native resolution" is not one physical pixel = one pixel as seen by the viewer. It's the idea that one physical pixel = a large number of tiny subpixels, which would be small enough that the blur effect would be mitigated. Instead of trying to scale to a lower resolution by current methods, each resolution would be assigned a certain number of subpixels per perceived pixel, and since each one is just a tiny part of a pixel at ANY resolution (we're talking about far smaller pixels than the eye can even perceive), the picture winds up being much crisper, thus making it much more pleasant to look at.
I don't know why, but that has me giggling endlessly, maybe because BASIC on the Apple IIgs was my first programming language...
I'm no expert on this, but what if they could be used to make LCDs that don't look like ass at non-native resolutions? If one pixel at 1920x1080 is actually a bunch of these tiny pixels acting as one (at least as far as the OS is concerned), then it would be far easier to "enlarge" that collection of pixels to act as a single pixel at 1280x720 by simply enlarging it by the proper number of subpixels. Seems feasible to me, but maybe someone with more experience in that area can chime in.