IPv4 has MTU discovery as well. RFC1191. Many overly-security-conscious networks block all traffic not officially sanctioned, though, which also hampers correct ICMP replies.
Yep, I am very pro-ICMP. But IPv6 actually requires MTU discovery, wherein for present state of affairs it is optional, meaning almost never available.:>
Whew! I'm not too accustomed to a truce after I've let loose quite so much snark, it's refreshing.;3
It's a really bad idea for the general populace to run a server, because they won't have the experience in configuring it to prevent the kind of situations you see with compromised servers out there.
Keep in mind, that the entire approach of servers being difficult to configure is mostly an anachronism from the web's days past. Running apache or FTP servers may be a challenge, but modern services are tending towards zero configuration and being much easier to secure and maintain.
Take Diaspora for example. The intent here is to decentralize social networking, which is a Good Thing if you don't want Mark Zuckerburg to randomly make public every love letter you've ever posted on your sweety's wall during one of their "changing what stuff is public" purges.
90-99% of the people I see complaining on slashdot about slow upload speeds aren't doing photo uploads, though, they're doing P2P, you have to give me that;)
Perhaps, but I also don't see any problem with P2P. RIAA hates it because they want all content to flow from them, and don't want people sharing content (they could care less if you share their content, they just want to make money every time you hear music). Many major ISP's hate it only because they don't want you to use your data connection to do things you could be paying for a bundled service to do (IPtv, voip, etc).
But I don't see who else is inconvenienced. *shrug*
I never claimed to use BGP to transfer data, Mr. Network Architect. BGP is used to advertise routes. So why don't you tell me, if decentralization is such a terrible thing, why anyone would need 100MB of routing table?
If the internet had a "center", all everyone would need is a default route leading to the center.
But before you get ahead of yourself building a reply, I have noticed the bottom of your post disclaiming that you think the internet only needs to point in one direction for residential users. So even your "decentralization is the devil" statement wouldn't apply to backbone providers.
So let me ask why you feel that way? What's the drive for you to define and enforce a Proletarian class of network users?
Is it, as you insinuate in parent post, that you're concerned about setting a one size fits all DSL downlink percentage for your home customers? Do you really think they can tell 20/1 from 16/5? Are you having trouble with oversubscribed upstream at the backend?
Or, you know I think I understand why you're getting your panties in a bunch. It's because of G*P's comment about asymmetric lines getting a fraction of upstream, isn't it?
I'm going to go out on a limb and venture to guess that our argument might be based on reading that term two different ways. Perhaps you read that as "rawr, every connection should be symmetrical, and anything less is hogwash!" but many of us read it as "most Americans do not realize how bad their upstream is compared to their downstream (our local cable monopoly is selling 60/1 hDSL, for example)
I don't think most of us railing against you are demanding perfectly symmetrical connections. We're just miffed by your hyperbole that "residential customers don't deserve to contribute anything" and "anyone who disagrees with me is a filthy commie^Wterrorist^Wpirate"
So if this is true, then allow me to apologize for letting a misunderstanding get the better of me. But if you really are sticking to the "internet should be identical to television, and feel privileged for having a 6 button remote worth of upload" trope then no apology applies. >:V
are clutching at straws, when all you're really after is faster BitTorrent.
The simple answer is: Download is for clients, Upload is for servers.
... and there's the other shoe. You must be a media shill, right? You don't give a damn about what a user is capable of doing, you only care about there being a gatekeeper somewhere where all bits have to pass in order for people to communicate.
And how could you possibly argue that position unless you work for the only people that network topology could possibly benefit?
Unless you've got a good reason you want residential properties to suddenly be servers, making things a *lot* more difficult on the security and management front...
And what would you know about "security and management"? Speaking as Senior sysadmin of a residential ISP, I am in charge security and management. And do you know what straws I see to grasp at from this position? 70% of our user base, bless their hearts, can't tell their computer from their monitor and think their web browser is named "Foxfire". Yet an overlapping 30% I have personally assisted in configuring realtime video conferencing, running security cameras and IP-based security systems at their homes, running VPN tunnels and remote desktop from their office to their home connections, and diagnosing trouble playing online games including hosting their own servers.
What you don't seem to get, Dot, is that the backbone of the internet itself is decentralized. We run a tier 1 network and follow transit prices like the goddamned stock market. Today we might be routing most of our outbound traffic through Level 3, tomorrow we slurp all the inbound requests to our colo through 360 Networks because they've bumped up their link budget.
Who gives a damn about Bittorrent when the ultimate decentralized protocol is BGP? Do you really think the internet would have scaled to the sizes we see today if all transactions had to route through some centralized point of failure controlled by a media monopoly?
Didn't you learn anything when Darpa's rag-tag network of networks dwarfed both AOL and Compuserv's walled gardens over the span of a couple of years in the early nineties? That was only possible because every hobbiest bulletin board could simply link to the cloud (yeah, that is the correct use of the term) and lend access to everyone who was already dialing into them.
But the hub-star configuration simply isn't the way to go. It doesn't scale, and like you it discourages participation and expects everyone to be neither seen nor heard. If that were the future, then America Online wouldn't be Offline already and we'd all still be watching television instead of trading up to hulu, slingbox, and youtube.
But we all know you're really just trolling, don't pretend otherwise. If you really believed what you were saying, you would stop pushing ascii characters the wrong way up your cable to say things on slashdot. That, obviously, takes greater upload capability than a simple TCP ACK.
For instance, with faster download, you can do video streaming, you can support more users, you can play more bandwidth intensive games.
So...... with faster upload, you can emit video streaming (conference call? skype? remote desktop from your office? Security cameras?) allow more people to connect to you (video conference call? Many people watching an event on your property via cam? uploading files and not having to hang around three years for them to finish?) and host bandwidth intensive games.
What kind of crack are you on to think that upload speeds are useless? Fast download and slow upload is like living at the bottom of a steep hill. It's great to bike home but then it's murder to bike back out again. It's only useful if tons of crap heads to your home and you never give anything back, just dumping garbage off the cliff behind you.
If that's what you want then GTFO of the internet and go back to television, where you simply beerbong whatever content gets broadcast. The rest of us would rather participate than veg out.
You're god-damned right I'm an entitlement bitch. I'm entitled to write my own code and not have to release the source of the code that I write.
But if code I write cooperates with code that is GPL, then it is illegal for me to distribute my code along with the GPL code, even if I follow the GPL licencing requests to re-distribute the source of the GPL code.
If I create an image viewer, and don't care to share it's source, that should be my business. I mean, I am the author and all, right? And lets say to enable support for a certain archane image format, it links to a GPL library for that codec.
It then becomes illegal for me to distribute my image viewer closed source, even if I distribute the unaltered source of the tiny codec. I also can't choose the licence for my viewer if I open source it, I *have* to choose GPL. Not because I've made it part of the prior author's GPL code; I never did. I just made my work inter-operable and distributed a copy of the codec with my work.
You're not forced to use GPL'ed code.
Alright, but it's either that or I am forced to write the codec from scratch and hire a lawyer to confirm it is dissimilar enough from the reference code to keep the trolls from suing me. Then I take on the responsibility of supporting a piece of software I have little interest in that has no road testing and provides no real value beyond the original except that I've CLEANED ALL THE GPL off of it.
Explain to me how this is different from dealing with an infectious contagion?
For most libertarians, harm is only something that happens to them or those they care about. If it happens to someone else, why, that person is just a whiner who wants a free ride from society, and their idea of 'harm' should not be respected.
Meh, Libertarians have been getting a lot of flack along this line recently, and I think it's unwarranted. For example, Show me where's the heterosexual libertarian who won't argue in favor of Gay Marriage? If they are heterosexual, then they will never utilize this freedom themselves.
At the core of it, Libertarian's specific concerns can be recodified in spun-speak as "this social agreement causes harm to our society and produces no measurable benefit; why are so many citizens resisting it being repealed?"
If you're concern about Libertarian viewpoints is that they too frequently dismiss externalities then, speaking as a registered member of the party for 15 years I will agree that this is a problem worth chatting about. But I must also counter that most opponents we face in conversation defend virtually any incumbent policy without re-evaluating or even being able to enumerate the externalities which prompted them.
In short, just about any law on the books was probably a good idea at the time. But times change and people are great at forgetting why things were set up a certain way. Every now and then we do have to come by and audit the legislative hacks. Libertarians accomplish this by arguing for policy which foundationally presumes personal liberty (which, while selfish, is readily quantified), and counting each compromise from this simplistic ideal as an expense which must be countered by an equal or greater benefit. Alright, I can't swing my arms in every direction but at least I won't be struck. Alright, I can't build on this strip of land but it's a communally owned "road" that will bring me more benefit than anything else I would have built there myself. Etc.
And sure, this theme varies all the way down to the hard line anarcho-capitalists, but the intent is the same. Libertarians believe that we should start from personal liberty and then abridge that only to explore greater social benefits.
Yep, in today's narcissistic vengeful judgemental selfish money-worshiping greedhead society I can see where that's problematic. It could really screw a kid up.
What screws a kid up is that they are told this by the narcissistic vengeful judgemental selfish money-worshiping greedheads.
That, and you're really cherry picking the scriptures there. It's not any harder for me to pull peaceful-sounding nuggets of wisdom out of Mein Kampf.
Well, that's far superior to a world where someone else gets to decide what's available and what's not, and then it turns out that they don't like pool tables either.
The first thing pro-censors need to work out is that the internet is content. It's just media. It's not "the world". There is nothing you can find on the internet that can compare with being raised by an abusive guardian or crossing a busy intersection. You get text, video, sound. You can change it or turn it off in an instant. Everyone knows where the "power" button is, right? It can't reach out and slap you. Maybe it can trick you into doing dumb shit, but that's pretty much limited to giving out personal info or running malware.
Perhaps it takes 0-18 to be mature enough to handle a world of speeding cars, bullets, knives, and working 40 hours a week to put food on the table. It should only take 0-8 or so to realize the pretty patterns of lights on the screen aren't real.
Who cares about the openness of them? That wasn't the argument being made.
Then what argument was being made? That Facebook doesn't provide any features more sophisticated that Phone/Email/IM? That there is no benefit to the platform?
My reading is that G+P doesn't have any problem with the platform or the features, it's not too complex for G'pa. It's actually less complex than email. I think he instead doesn't appreciate being locked into relying on this one organization for reliability or privacy.
Skype calls through Fring on Android, for instance, sound far worse than with, say, Nimbuzz.
Yay, thanks for the shout out! When I searched Android Market for "skype" a few weeks ago all I could find was "iSkoot", rickety but at least I got that working. Now I'mma try out Nimbuzz instead.:3
There is a proper way for an element to fail over to alternate content when the src fails for any reason. That is to display the content of the tag instead.
Wrong. You only need to fail over into nested content when the browser doesn't know how to parse the tag.
Video tag does that. Browsers that don't know how to parse Video tag ignore it and display the contents instead.
Browsers that DO know how to parse the HTML of a video tag might not understand this or that mime type, so they just go through the source tags until they get the one that they like. How does that not work for you? Why on God's green earth would they have to nest?
As for the poster frame, meh. While deciding if you want to play the video, you can look at an image or failing that look at a black rectangle. I'm not sure I'd want to look at text instead, and I can't see the helpfulness to text browsers to have alt text for a video. Unlike <img>'s, video's are never used as navigational icons.
The one part of the standard I DO take offense to, however it the "whanh we don't want a fullscreen mode". That has to be the dumbest thing I've heard of. Everyone's been using flash video for years, which supports fullscreen. Who does the specification think it is to truncate wildly popular technological possibilities over corner-condition security concerns? It should be up to the browsers to determine if they want to support fullscreen, how to support it and how to help make it secure.
I'm not sure we have any sort of consensus yet. If we do, it certainly isn't what you wrote there.
Ah crap, I guess you're right. Therearen'tenoughpeoplereferingto my quote to outnumber the references to Lady Gaga in this thread. I forgot to take her into account when determining if there was a "consensus" or not. Damn you, Gaga.:|
You can't just dismiss the idea that some works don't get made as "unfounded fears" without any evidence.
Wait, you're putting the burden of proof on me to "found" the alleged fears of hypothetical investors for them?
Let me repeat TFS again: "Does anyone know of any creative works that were provably a financial failure due to piracy? The emphasis on 'provably' is important, as some form of evidence is necessary." If some project folded due to fear of piracy, then that is immaterial to this discussion unless the investors had some solid evidence that piracy would have forced the project to fold anyway, and if they did then that is the evidence very being requested. Stop begging the question.
The whole point of systems like copyright is to provide an incentive, so that someone is still creating works for us to enjoy the day after tomorrow. You are just dismissing this effect as if it is an incidental detail, but it is the whole point of the system.
While you are overinflating the importance of this "effect" and leaning back on your tired horse of "without copyright, in two days all creation will cease".
Of course the (original) point of market distorting systems like copyright (ie, subsidies and protectionist regulation) is to provide "an incentive". You are also mistaken if you believe that human beings will stop being creative as soon as the illicit carrot is removed from their field of view. Will demand to create go away? Will demand to see creative things go away? Will it suddenly become impossible to shove money at people I like the creative works of, in order to get them to make more?
I ANSWERED your question about business models, you even toyed with the implementational details yourself. But now you claim creativity is impossible unless ideas are first propertized.
Unless you know a lot of math, you might want to be careful throwing around terms like "statistically significant" in this company.
My apologies to the laypersons in the crowd, Here is a quick primer for the oft misused term.:|
Getting more specific, no-one has really addressed even the examples I mentioned in my original post
I felt skreeech hit the nail on the head with:
Previous to recent years one successful video game would pay for a lot of experimentation. It is only a recent development where an explosion in development cost had led to single games sinking studios. Even then some like GRIN had multiple catastrophic failures before going out of business.
In short, games got more expensive to produce and platforms have become less homogenious and reliable. I see what you mean about availability though, people sure aren't making many games now that so many get pirated, and you can even easily pirate console games. I pine for the early days of variety before the pirates ruined it for everybody./scarass
Slashdot Mirror
IPv4 has MTU discovery as well. RFC1191. Many overly-security-conscious networks block all traffic not officially sanctioned, though, which also hampers correct ICMP replies.
Yep, I am very pro-ICMP. But IPv6 actually requires MTU discovery, wherein for present state of affairs it is optional, meaning almost never available. :>
I think we both misunderstand each other.
Whew! I'm not too accustomed to a truce after I've let loose quite so much snark, it's refreshing. ;3
It's a really bad idea for the general populace to run a server, because they won't have the experience in configuring it to prevent the kind of situations you see with compromised servers out there.
Keep in mind, that the entire approach of servers being difficult to configure is mostly an anachronism from the web's days past. Running apache or FTP servers may be a challenge, but modern services are tending towards zero configuration and being much easier to secure and maintain.
Take Diaspora for example. The intent here is to decentralize social networking, which is a Good Thing if you don't want Mark Zuckerburg to randomly make public every love letter you've ever posted on your sweety's wall during one of their "changing what stuff is public" purges.
90-99% of the people I see complaining on slashdot about slow upload speeds aren't doing photo uploads, though, they're doing P2P, you have to give me that ;)
Perhaps, but I also don't see any problem with P2P. RIAA hates it because they want all content to flow from them, and don't want people sharing content (they could care less if you share their content, they just want to make money every time you hear music). Many major ISP's hate it only because they don't want you to use your data connection to do things you could be paying for a bundled service to do (IPtv, voip, etc).
But I don't see who else is inconvenienced. *shrug*
using BGP to *signal*, not to transfer data.
Decentralisation is *not* a good thing
I never claimed to use BGP to transfer data, Mr. Network Architect. BGP is used to advertise routes. So why don't you tell me, if decentralization is such a terrible thing, why anyone would need 100MB of routing table?
If the internet had a "center", all everyone would need is a default route leading to the center.
But before you get ahead of yourself building a reply, I have noticed the bottom of your post disclaiming that you think the internet only needs to point in one direction for residential users. So even your "decentralization is the devil" statement wouldn't apply to backbone providers.
So let me ask why you feel that way? What's the drive for you to define and enforce a Proletarian class of network users?
Is it, as you insinuate in parent post, that you're concerned about setting a one size fits all DSL downlink percentage for your home customers? Do you really think they can tell 20/1 from 16/5? Are you having trouble with oversubscribed upstream at the backend?
Or, you know I think I understand why you're getting your panties in a bunch. It's because of G*P's comment about asymmetric lines getting a fraction of upstream, isn't it?
I'm going to go out on a limb and venture to guess that our argument might be based on reading that term two different ways. Perhaps you read that as "rawr, every connection should be symmetrical, and anything less is hogwash!" but many of us read it as "most Americans do not realize how bad their upstream is compared to their downstream (our local cable monopoly is selling 60/1 hDSL, for example)
I don't think most of us railing against you are demanding perfectly symmetrical connections. We're just miffed by your hyperbole that "residential customers don't deserve to contribute anything" and "anyone who disagrees with me is a filthy commie^Wterrorist^Wpirate"
So if this is true, then allow me to apologize for letting a misunderstanding get the better of me. But if you really are sticking to the "internet should be identical to television, and feel privileged for having a 6 button remote worth of upload" trope then no apology applies. >:V
are clutching at straws, when all you're really after is faster BitTorrent.
The simple answer is: Download is for clients, Upload is for servers.
... and there's the other shoe. You must be a media shill, right? You don't give a damn about what a user is capable of doing, you only care about there being a gatekeeper somewhere where all bits have to pass in order for people to communicate.
And how could you possibly argue that position unless you work for the only people that network topology could possibly benefit?
Unless you've got a good reason you want residential properties to suddenly be servers, making things a *lot* more difficult on the security and management front...
And what would you know about "security and management"? Speaking as Senior sysadmin of a residential ISP, I am in charge security and management. And do you know what straws I see to grasp at from this position? 70% of our user base, bless their hearts, can't tell their computer from their monitor and think their web browser is named "Foxfire". Yet an overlapping 30% I have personally assisted in configuring realtime video conferencing, running security cameras and IP-based security systems at their homes, running VPN tunnels and remote desktop from their office to their home connections, and diagnosing trouble playing online games including hosting their own servers.
What you don't seem to get, Dot, is that the backbone of the internet itself is decentralized. We run a tier 1 network and follow transit prices like the goddamned stock market. Today we might be routing most of our outbound traffic through Level 3, tomorrow we slurp all the inbound requests to our colo through 360 Networks because they've bumped up their link budget.
Who gives a damn about Bittorrent when the ultimate decentralized protocol is BGP? Do you really think the internet would have scaled to the sizes we see today if all transactions had to route through some centralized point of failure controlled by a media monopoly?
Didn't you learn anything when Darpa's rag-tag network of networks dwarfed both AOL and Compuserv's walled gardens over the span of a couple of years in the early nineties? That was only possible because every hobbiest bulletin board could simply link to the cloud (yeah, that is the correct use of the term) and lend access to everyone who was already dialing into them.
But the hub-star configuration simply isn't the way to go. It doesn't scale, and like you it discourages participation and expects everyone to be neither seen nor heard. If that were the future, then America Online wouldn't be Offline already and we'd all still be watching television instead of trading up to hulu, slingbox, and youtube.
But we all know you're really just trolling, don't pretend otherwise. If you really believed what you were saying, you would stop pushing ascii characters the wrong way up your cable to say things on slashdot. That, obviously, takes greater upload capability than a simple TCP ACK.
For instance, with faster download, you can do video streaming, you can support more users, you can play more bandwidth intensive games.
So...... with faster upload, you can emit video streaming (conference call? skype? remote desktop from your office? Security cameras?) allow more people to connect to you (video conference call? Many people watching an event on your property via cam? uploading files and not having to hang around three years for them to finish?) and host bandwidth intensive games.
What kind of crack are you on to think that upload speeds are useless? Fast download and slow upload is like living at the bottom of a steep hill. It's great to bike home but then it's murder to bike back out again. It's only useful if tons of crap heads to your home and you never give anything back, just dumping garbage off the cliff behind you.
If that's what you want then GTFO of the internet and go back to television, where you simply beerbong whatever content gets broadcast. The rest of us would rather participate than veg out.
You're not an entitlement bitch, are you?
You're god-damned right I'm an entitlement bitch. I'm entitled to write my own code and not have to release the source of the code that I write.
But if code I write cooperates with code that is GPL, then it is illegal for me to distribute my code along with the GPL code, even if I follow the GPL licencing requests to re-distribute the source of the GPL code.
If I create an image viewer, and don't care to share it's source, that should be my business. I mean, I am the author and all, right? And lets say to enable support for a certain archane image format, it links to a GPL library for that codec.
It then becomes illegal for me to distribute my image viewer closed source, even if I distribute the unaltered source of the tiny codec. I also can't choose the licence for my viewer if I open source it, I *have* to choose GPL. Not because I've made it part of the prior author's GPL code; I never did. I just made my work inter-operable and distributed a copy of the codec with my work.
You're not forced to use GPL'ed code.
Alright, but it's either that or I am forced to write the codec from scratch and hire a lawyer to confirm it is dissimilar enough from the reference code to keep the trolls from suing me. Then I take on the responsibility of supporting a piece of software I have little interest in that has no road testing and provides no real value beyond the original except that I've CLEANED ALL THE GPL off of it.
Explain to me how this is different from dealing with an infectious contagion?
Here's a picture of a pony: http://babybird.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/pony.jpg [wordpress.com]
Gah, whyfor are things (badly) photoshopped out of the left and right sides of that image?
Stalin, is that you?
Excuse me, a bank loan to cross the atlantic???
Hey, it worked for Chris Columbus.
I'unno, I just look forward to IPv6's builtin MTU discovery. 8I
For most libertarians, harm is only something that happens to them or those they care about. If it happens to someone else, why, that person is just a whiner who wants a free ride from society, and their idea of 'harm' should not be respected.
Meh, Libertarians have been getting a lot of flack along this line recently, and I think it's unwarranted. For example, Show me where's the heterosexual libertarian who won't argue in favor of Gay Marriage? If they are heterosexual, then they will never utilize this freedom themselves.
At the core of it, Libertarian's specific concerns can be recodified in spun-speak as "this social agreement causes harm to our society and produces no measurable benefit; why are so many citizens resisting it being repealed?"
If you're concern about Libertarian viewpoints is that they too frequently dismiss externalities then, speaking as a registered member of the party for 15 years I will agree that this is a problem worth chatting about. But I must also counter that most opponents we face in conversation defend virtually any incumbent policy without re-evaluating or even being able to enumerate the externalities which prompted them.
In short, just about any law on the books was probably a good idea at the time. But times change and people are great at forgetting why things were set up a certain way. Every now and then we do have to come by and audit the legislative hacks. Libertarians accomplish this by arguing for policy which foundationally presumes personal liberty (which, while selfish, is readily quantified), and counting each compromise from this simplistic ideal as an expense which must be countered by an equal or greater benefit. Alright, I can't swing my arms in every direction but at least I won't be struck. Alright, I can't build on this strip of land but it's a communally owned "road" that will bring me more benefit than anything else I would have built there myself. Etc.
And sure, this theme varies all the way down to the hard line anarcho-capitalists, but the intent is the same. Libertarians believe that we should start from personal liberty and then abridge that only to explore greater social benefits.
Touch screen with tongue support \o/
Weicco, get off chatroullete THIS INSTANT, and go do your homework! ;P
OMG! Fucking ZOMBIE VAMPIRE ARCTIC mosquitoes!.
Mephy, put Scribblenauts down THIS INSTANT and go do your homeworks! >:C
And sed is not the only place were REs are used.
Yar, Inorite? They used one up there, too! (points up there)
Yep, in today's narcissistic vengeful judgemental selfish money-worshiping greedhead society I can see where that's problematic. It could really screw a kid up.
What screws a kid up is that they are told this by the narcissistic vengeful judgemental selfish money-worshiping greedheads.
That, and you're really cherry picking the scriptures there. It's not any harder for me to pull peaceful-sounding nuggets of wisdom out of Mein Kampf.
Well, that's far superior to a world where someone else gets to decide what's available and what's not, and then it turns out that they don't like pool tables either.
*facepaw*
The first thing pro-censors need to work out is that the internet is content. It's just media. It's not "the world". There is nothing you can find on the internet that can compare with being raised by an abusive guardian or crossing a busy intersection. You get text, video, sound. You can change it or turn it off in an instant. Everyone knows where the "power" button is, right? It can't reach out and slap you. Maybe it can trick you into doing dumb shit, but that's pretty much limited to giving out personal info or running malware.
Perhaps it takes 0-18 to be mature enough to handle a world of speeding cars, bullets, knives, and working 40 hours a week to put food on the table. It should only take 0-8 or so to realize the pretty patterns of lights on the screen aren't real.
Expecting you to be coddled and have wads of cash thrown at you so you can screw off, I mean "create art" is utter bullshit.
But that's what *AA expects from the gubmint. Ain'tchu never heard of teh golden rool? :P
Thanks for clearing that up. Someone should teach Intron about incomplete sentences :D
Gah, you think you're bad off? In this case:
* It is a complete sentence
* "man" is the verb
* "sed" is the noun
Who cares about the openness of them? That wasn't the argument being made.
Then what argument was being made? That Facebook doesn't provide any features more sophisticated that Phone/Email/IM? That there is no benefit to the platform?
My reading is that G+P doesn't have any problem with the platform or the features, it's not too complex for G'pa. It's actually less complex than email. I think he instead doesn't appreciate being locked into relying on this one organization for reliability or privacy.
Skype calls through Fring on Android, for instance, sound far worse than with, say, Nimbuzz.
Yay, thanks for the shout out! When I searched Android Market for "skype" a few weeks ago all I could find was "iSkoot", rickety but at least I got that working. Now I'mma try out Nimbuzz instead. :3
Information should burn its bra...
Information should tits or GTFO. >:V
A WHOOSH is you! :>
There is a proper way for an element to fail over to alternate content when the src fails for any reason. That is to display the content of the tag instead.
Wrong. You only need to fail over into nested content when the browser doesn't know how to parse the tag.
Video tag does that. Browsers that don't know how to parse Video tag ignore it and display the contents instead.
Browsers that DO know how to parse the HTML of a video tag might not understand this or that mime type, so they just go through the source tags until they get the one that they like. How does that not work for you? Why on God's green earth would they have to nest?
As for the poster frame, meh. While deciding if you want to play the video, you can look at an image or failing that look at a black rectangle. I'm not sure I'd want to look at text instead, and I can't see the helpfulness to text browsers to have alt text for a video. Unlike <img>'s, video's are never used as navigational icons.
The one part of the standard I DO take offense to, however it the "whanh we don't want a fullscreen mode". That has to be the dumbest thing I've heard of. Everyone's been using flash video for years, which supports fullscreen. Who does the specification think it is to truncate wildly popular technological possibilities over corner-condition security concerns? It should be up to the browsers to determine if they want to support fullscreen, how to support it and how to help make it secure.
Don't blink. Blink and you're dead. They are fast, faster than you could believe, don't turn your back, don't look away, and don't..............
LET ME EAT PEARS 8I
I'm not sure we have any sort of consensus yet. If we do, it certainly isn't what you wrote there.
Ah crap, I guess you're right. There aren't enough people refering to my quote to outnumber the references to Lady Gaga in this thread. I forgot to take her into account when determining if there was a "consensus" or not. Damn you, Gaga. :|
You can't just dismiss the idea that some works don't get made as "unfounded fears" without any evidence.
Wait, you're putting the burden of proof on me to "found" the alleged fears of hypothetical investors for them?
Let me repeat TFS again: "Does anyone know of any creative works that were provably a financial failure due to piracy? The emphasis on 'provably' is important, as some form of evidence is necessary." If some project folded due to fear of piracy, then that is immaterial to this discussion unless the investors had some solid evidence that piracy would have forced the project to fold anyway, and if they did then that is the evidence very being requested. Stop begging the question.
The whole point of systems like copyright is to provide an incentive, so that someone is still creating works for us to enjoy the day after tomorrow. You are just dismissing this effect as if it is an incidental detail, but it is the whole point of the system.
While you are overinflating the importance of this "effect" and leaning back on your tired horse of "without copyright, in two days all creation will cease".
Of course the (original) point of market distorting systems like copyright (ie, subsidies and protectionist regulation) is to provide "an incentive". You are also mistaken if you believe that human beings will stop being creative as soon as the illicit carrot is removed from their field of view. Will demand to create go away? Will demand to see creative things go away? Will it suddenly become impossible to shove money at people I like the creative works of, in order to get them to make more?
I ANSWERED your question about business models, you even toyed with the implementational details yourself. But now you claim creativity is impossible unless ideas are first propertized.
Unless you know a lot of math, you might want to be careful throwing around terms like "statistically significant" in this company.
My apologies to the laypersons in the crowd, Here is a quick primer for the oft misused term. :|
Getting more specific, no-one has really addressed even the examples I mentioned in my original post
I felt skreeech hit the nail on the head with:
Previous to recent years one successful video game would pay for a lot of experimentation. It is only a recent development where an explosion in development cost had led to single games sinking studios. Even then some like GRIN had multiple catastrophic failures before going out of business.
In short, games got more expensive to produce and platforms have become less homogenious and reliable. I see what you mean about availability though, people sure aren't making many games now that so many get pirated, and you can even easily pirate console games. I pine for the early days of variety before the pirates ruined it for everybody. /scarass