Some IT organizations haven't figured out that HTTP/HTTPS isn't a simply protocol for browsing the web. It is also used for API calls. So they break applications. For example, you go to a hotel, open Microsoft Outlook, and Outlook makes an HTTPS call to download your inbox results. Instead of valid XML response, they get a certificate error and a page saying "Please enter your room number and click the I Agree button below." My employer did this too for a while, so you couldn't install certain applications because they tried to contact a license server, and the corporate proxy was returning a page prompting me to authorize access to the web site.
Stop trying to disprove the article, and don't open it up with insults. It makes you sound like a blowhard with nothing to contribute. Your reply with the link might have some really good information. But now it's buried 15 posts down surrounded by flamebait. So instead of posting this:
They fail to recognize the fact that...
Which is trolling because it insults the authors and adds no new information, instead post this:
There was a recent discovery of...link... which means the estimates in the article might be overstated.
Also, when you say "Probably didn't consider..." that tells us that in your excitement to insult and disprove them, you still didn't read the article. You could be contributing instead of sniping.
Why are you asking me that? The article is posted in the summary! Read it, then judge -- not the other way around. And if the article doesn't mention alternatives, that might make a good insightful post.
These knee-jerk replies of "I bet they didn't think about X, therefore I will post with a title of FUD and add an ad-hominem attack on the entire journal" need to stop. They are fed by moderators who instantly mod-up any sarcastic criticism, within 10 seconds of the articles posting.
RTFA before trying to debunk it. The article and linked research explains what rare earth elements are, their respective rarities, which things use them, how much is used, and what they cost. Your comment adds nothing meaningful.
1) Speed & latency, especially over broadband. Even the connection time for RDP is often slow. 2) Security maybe? Everybody knows the security capabilities of OpenSSH. RDP is closed source so who knows?
Came here excited by the headline, then read the comments and saw the real story. So let's play the headline game! That's where you make up an impressive headline, then try to find a mundane way that the headline could be true without anything special happening.
Headline: "Scientist creates smallest bacteria ever" Reality: Someone CG rendered a bacteria that is smaller than any known bacteria.
Headline: "Russia creates most powerful atomic bomb ever." Reality: Strapped 2 atomic bombs together with duct tape.
Headline: "Farmer discovered with IQ higher than Einstein" Reality: Historical documents reveal a guy born in the year 1427 who performed amazing mental feats, possibly smarter than anyone alive today.
Headline: "NASA confirms bacterial life on the moon" Reality: It's the bag of poop Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left behind.
Headline: "New spacecraft is so fast it could carry a human to interstellar space in only a few months." Reality: It's a cubesat with a solar sail attached, but no room for any payload.
It doesn't matter what people want, it matters how they vote. And since most voters have no clue what the issues are or what their candidates are actually voting for, it really doesn't matter. There's a total disconnect.
"Applications" meant a specific subset of programs. WordPerfect was an "application," Norton Utilities was a "utility," DesqView was a "shell," and Zork was a "game." Applications were an applied use of a computer, such as a word processor, a spreadsheet, or a calculator.
I totally see that, and I get the theory -vs- practice on this one. But understand that this isn't just about a single product being king, it is about a single product that one company controls exclusively. It would be different if the W3C made a reference web browser. Instead, we have a commercial company making it.
For one thing, Google could add features and completely ignore the W3C entirely. Maybe they want a feature that is cherry picked to make Google maps faster, with an added bonus that it breaks a 3rd-party. Or maybe the want more surveillance features in it. Sure, we could fork it, but what is the likelihood that the fork will get enough adoption to make Google back-off? Or maybe they want to kill-off a competing platform so they start making changes that makes it hard for the maintainers of that platform to support and build Chromium.
You also have the problem that if someone wants to make a new browser, they have to reverse-engineering the way Chrome functions since the W3C standard is now meaningless.
Microsoft had plenty of reasons to abandon their useless garbage web browser. They didn't even ship the thing with their own operating systems! (Windows Server, Windows IoT) They knew it was fundamentally flawed. Nobody wanted to use it, so there is no reason for them to waste development time on it. It's a bit of a blow to the community, because it means we are down to 2 real browsers, so the Chrome/Google monoculture will expand. That's bad for the development community.
Electron is yet another framework on a long history of frameworks that use JavaScript+Node as the basis of desktop development. Microsoft has no reason to fear Electron any more than any other such tool.
I do agree with Gruber though, in that people just don't care about native look-and-feel any longer. It kinda pisses me off. Back in the 1990s, there was this utopian idea that all apps would use native controls and native look-and-feel. That era died, and now every app has a different look-and-feel and different behaviors. Instead, we are now in the world we feared where sometimes check boxes act like radio buttons, and sometimes you click OK instead of Cancel because it isn't consistent if they are on the left or the right.
*whooosh* Lemme teach you some math: +1 snarky x -2 clueless = +1 funny.;-)
Seriously, if you've never seen it, look up some pictures of Indian guys loading like entire sofas and stuff onto a bicycle and peddling it. I've been there: it's real, and it's crazy. And when people joke about cows being on the road and cars swerving into oncoming traffic to get around them -- that's real too.
My kids use IE11 for that as well. Just make sure you "End Task" on iexplore.exe and on the Flash player EXEs because they don't exit cleanly. And make sure that you don't visit any place sketchy because Flash has so many security holes.
Companies are made of people. Companies lie if people lie. I work for a company that doesn't lie. That's because people like me don't lie, and we don't allow people around us to lie.
The telcos lied. So lets find the people who lied and hold them personally accountable for their lies. None of this "fine the corporation" stuff. And not all the liars are executives.
The extra power comes in handy because...40 packages, or about 350 pounds worth of stuff.
350 lbs requires power assistance huh? I guess UPS has never seen a guy on a bike in India deliver a package the size of a school bus on his own power.
There are 2 use cases where I still need to use IE11: 1) Windows IoT and Windows Server. For reasons I don't understand, Microsoft does not ship Edge onto those OS editions. 2) Office integration. If you put a Microsoft Office document onto a Sharepoint or OneDrive site, using IE11 gives you the integration. On other browsers, it just downloads the.docx file and edits it locally. I'm sure Slashdot will poo-poo this but it is super useful. If they push Chromium, they ought to make an extension so that these office features work seamlessly.
In theory, you could do decent interpolation at the player since it has access to the MPEG motion vectors, and it can keep the audio and video in sync. Doing it on the video device is foolish because it has to essentially do the same work that the original compressor did, but in real-time, on a lower-quality version of the video (since it was compressed then decompressed).
Watching *compressed* video is very difficult. I prefer to run it through a decompression tool first. One slight miscalculation on my Fourier Transforms and everything goes to hell.:-P
Motion interpolation isn't great. But when they say "soap opera effect" that tells me that they aren't against motion interpolation, they are against high frame rates in general. This is analogous analogous to saying that 640x480 is the *best* resolution, and going higher makes things worse. I notice the article doesn't even mention the term frame rate. So this isn't a technical discussion, this is an aesthetic one.
Decades of watching movies has trained us to accept 24fps as "cinematic" motion, but in reality it just looks bad. 24fps is just barely on the cusp of fluid motion, and it gives some of us headaches. That's part of why video games consider 24fps unacceptable, as well as VR, and IMAX. Some people will say that it "takes getting used to" but it really takes getting "un-used" to the bad quality they shoot in today.
Motion interpolation should die. But the fact that people love it is signaling these directors that shooting in 24fps sucks and they need to move on.
Slashdot Mirror
Some IT organizations haven't figured out that HTTP/HTTPS isn't a simply protocol for browsing the web. It is also used for API calls. So they break applications. For example, you go to a hotel, open Microsoft Outlook, and Outlook makes an HTTPS call to download your inbox results. Instead of valid XML response, they get a certificate error and a page saying "Please enter your room number and click the I Agree button below." My employer did this too for a while, so you couldn't install certain applications because they tried to contact a license server, and the corporate proxy was returning a page prompting me to authorize access to the web site.
Please mod up. (This is sad, BTW)
Stop trying to disprove the article, and don't open it up with insults. It makes you sound like a blowhard with nothing to contribute. Your reply with the link might have some really good information. But now it's buried 15 posts down surrounded by flamebait. So instead of posting this:
They fail to recognize the fact that...
Which is trolling because it insults the authors and adds no new information, instead post this:
There was a recent discovery of ...link... which means the estimates in the article might be overstated.
Also, when you say "Probably didn't consider..." that tells us that in your excitement to insult and disprove them, you still didn't read the article. You could be contributing instead of sniping.
Does it talk about alternaives though?
Why are you asking me that? The article is posted in the summary! Read it, then judge -- not the other way around. And if the article doesn't mention alternatives, that might make a good insightful post.
These knee-jerk replies of "I bet they didn't think about X, therefore I will post with a title of FUD and add an ad-hominem attack on the entire journal" need to stop. They are fed by moderators who instantly mod-up any sarcastic criticism, within 10 seconds of the articles posting.
RTFA before trying to debunk it. The article and linked research explains what rare earth elements are, their respective rarities, which things use them, how much is used, and what they cost. Your comment adds nothing meaningful.
1) Speed & latency, especially over broadband. Even the connection time for RDP is often slow.
2) Security maybe? Everybody knows the security capabilities of OpenSSH. RDP is closed source so who knows?
Came here excited by the headline, then read the comments and saw the real story. So let's play the headline game! That's where you make up an impressive headline, then try to find a mundane way that the headline could be true without anything special happening.
Headline: "Scientist creates smallest bacteria ever"
Reality: Someone CG rendered a bacteria that is smaller than any known bacteria.
Headline: "Russia creates most powerful atomic bomb ever."
Reality: Strapped 2 atomic bombs together with duct tape.
Headline: "Farmer discovered with IQ higher than Einstein"
Reality: Historical documents reveal a guy born in the year 1427 who performed amazing mental feats, possibly smarter than anyone alive today.
Headline: "NASA confirms bacterial life on the moon"
Reality: It's the bag of poop Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left behind.
Headline: "New spacecraft is so fast it could carry a human to interstellar space in only a few months."
Reality: It's a cubesat with a solar sail attached, but no room for any payload.
It doesn't matter what people want, it matters how they vote. And since most voters have no clue what the issues are or what their candidates are actually voting for, it really doesn't matter. There's a total disconnect.
You can get the best of both worlds by setting up a RAID of both an SSD and a platter drive! :-P
"Applications" meant a specific subset of programs. WordPerfect was an "application," Norton Utilities was a "utility," DesqView was a "shell," and Zork was a "game." Applications were an applied use of a computer, such as a word processor, a spreadsheet, or a calculator.
I totally see that, and I get the theory -vs- practice on this one. But understand that this isn't just about a single product being king, it is about a single product that one company controls exclusively. It would be different if the W3C made a reference web browser. Instead, we have a commercial company making it.
For one thing, Google could add features and completely ignore the W3C entirely. Maybe they want a feature that is cherry picked to make Google maps faster, with an added bonus that it breaks a 3rd-party. Or maybe the want more surveillance features in it. Sure, we could fork it, but what is the likelihood that the fork will get enough adoption to make Google back-off? Or maybe they want to kill-off a competing platform so they start making changes that makes it hard for the maintainers of that platform to support and build Chromium.
You also have the problem that if someone wants to make a new browser, they have to reverse-engineering the way Chrome functions since the W3C standard is now meaningless.
Unfortunately this is one of those cases where Apple decided to be different from everyone else, so there's no winning here.
Microsoft had plenty of reasons to abandon their useless garbage web browser. They didn't even ship the thing with their own operating systems! (Windows Server, Windows IoT) They knew it was fundamentally flawed. Nobody wanted to use it, so there is no reason for them to waste development time on it. It's a bit of a blow to the community, because it means we are down to 2 real browsers, so the Chrome/Google monoculture will expand. That's bad for the development community.
Electron is yet another framework on a long history of frameworks that use JavaScript+Node as the basis of desktop development. Microsoft has no reason to fear Electron any more than any other such tool.
I do agree with Gruber though, in that people just don't care about native look-and-feel any longer. It kinda pisses me off. Back in the 1990s, there was this utopian idea that all apps would use native controls and native look-and-feel. That era died, and now every app has a different look-and-feel and different behaviors. Instead, we are now in the world we feared where sometimes check boxes act like radio buttons, and sometimes you click OK instead of Cancel because it isn't consistent if they are on the left or the right.
So your comment is +1 snarky but -2 clueless.
*whooosh* Lemme teach you some math: +1 snarky x -2 clueless = +1 funny. ;-)
Seriously, if you've never seen it, look up some pictures of Indian guys loading like entire sofas and stuff onto a bicycle and peddling it. I've been there: it's real, and it's crazy. And when people joke about cows being on the road and cars swerving into oncoming traffic to get around them -- that's real too.
Both of them.
My kids use IE11 for that as well. Just make sure you "End Task" on iexplore.exe and on the Flash player EXEs because they don't exit cleanly. And make sure that you don't visit any place sketchy because Flash has so many security holes.
Companies are made of people. Companies lie if people lie. I work for a company that doesn't lie. That's because people like me don't lie, and we don't allow people around us to lie.
The telcos lied. So lets find the people who lied and hold them personally accountable for their lies. None of this "fine the corporation" stuff. And not all the liars are executives.
The extra power comes in handy because...40 packages, or about 350 pounds worth of stuff.
350 lbs requires power assistance huh? I guess UPS has never seen a guy on a bike in India deliver a package the size of a school bus on his own power.
(That is exactly the line I was thinking of when I posted it)
There are 2 use cases where I still need to use IE11: .docx file and edits it locally. I'm sure Slashdot will poo-poo this but it is super useful. If they push Chromium, they ought to make an extension so that these office features work seamlessly.
1) Windows IoT and Windows Server. For reasons I don't understand, Microsoft does not ship Edge onto those OS editions.
2) Office integration. If you put a Microsoft Office document onto a Sharepoint or OneDrive site, using IE11 gives you the integration. On other browsers, it just downloads the
In theory, you could do decent interpolation at the player since it has access to the MPEG motion vectors, and it can keep the audio and video in sync. Doing it on the video device is foolish because it has to essentially do the same work that the original compressor did, but in real-time, on a lower-quality version of the video (since it was compressed then decompressed).
Watching *compressed* video is very difficult. I prefer to run it through a decompression tool first. One slight miscalculation on my Fourier Transforms and everything goes to hell. :-P
How could motion interpolation ruin the lighting?
It also adds a frame of lag.
Motion interpolation isn't great. But when they say "soap opera effect" that tells me that they aren't against motion interpolation, they are against high frame rates in general. This is analogous analogous to saying that 640x480 is the *best* resolution, and going higher makes things worse. I notice the article doesn't even mention the term frame rate. So this isn't a technical discussion, this is an aesthetic one.
Decades of watching movies has trained us to accept 24fps as "cinematic" motion, but in reality it just looks bad. 24fps is just barely on the cusp of fluid motion, and it gives some of us headaches. That's part of why video games consider 24fps unacceptable, as well as VR, and IMAX. Some people will say that it "takes getting used to" but it really takes getting "un-used" to the bad quality they shoot in today.
Motion interpolation should die. But the fact that people love it is signaling these directors that shooting in 24fps sucks and they need to move on.