Re:Recommend your alternatives here
on
DivX 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The flipside of that is that if it doesn't support something (IIRC it can only do one of mms and rtsp streams) there's no way to get it to. I prefer media player classic, then just get the k-lite codec pack. Probably comes to less download over all.
Make the whole thing peer-to-peer with the base stations in range of each other. Then it doesn't matter if packets go to the wrong base station, they can just get passed along, and over time the routing tables will be updated. It might mean we need to replace BGP with something more dynamic though.
I'm pretty sure you don't even need an emulator. The NeXTStep specs are all public, and linux support does exist at least in basic form with GNUStep. Gnustep apps work on OSX, so there's no reason OSX apps couldn't work on Gnustep. It might even not require reimplementing too many libraries (if the interfaces are the same). At the moment Gnustep looks butt-ugly though.
Proper CD recording support because the makers understand the need for backwards compatibility, and don't go around breaking APIs just because they feel like it.
as slashdot comes out in support of what it has previously seen as Satan itself, DRM. Watch the fanboys try to justify themselves. If Taco himself said that he was supporting DRM he would be shouted down. But no, it's Apple, so slashdot will support them. They'd walk to their deaths if Apple told them to. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
One ticket, straight down to -1 troll, thanks.
Re:Does it have Java and Flash?
on
Zeta Goes Gold
·
· Score: 1
IIRC there's a working port of Java but only 1.3. Shouldn't matter since most sites even support "MS Java", which is behind Java 1.1 in important places.
Re:What's the compelling reason to switch?
on
Zeta Goes Gold
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's the scheduler. BeOS was entirely written as a desktop multimedia OS. No concerns for versatility, fitting into embedded or server space, or backwards compatibility. That's why it's so responsive, and that's why it's still the best multimedia OS around, even though it hasn't been updated much since about 1993. It's like the ck patchset for linux on steroids, and with the whole OS written to support it.
I can believe that. BeOS always was *awesome* for multimedia. I saw it playing 4 videos simultaneously in clips from '92 or so. It was designed from the ground up to be a desktop OS (it's useless on a sever) with an emphasis on multimedia. The whole scheduler was oriented around providing good multimedia experience. And of course they got rid of any cruft, because there was no need for any backwards compatibility like windows and linux have.
They don't necessarily want to kill Linux. Rather, they want to do whatever will make them the most money. If they can make more money by getting out of the OS game and becoming an applications company, they will do that.
People did donate code and documentation. It wasn't enough. The project had a big community involvement, but it wasn't entirely community-ran. Having him try and do things as a hybrid didn't work, what he's doing now is turning it over entirely to the community like Debian is. The people you should blame are not those who didn't donate code or documentation, it's those who didn't donate hard cash. There's more than enough people donating code and documentation, otherwise the distribution would die without him.
This shows one of the most important problems with democracy: minority rights. When there is a majority of any form it is very easy for the minority to be trampled, e.g. if 90% of a state is white the state as a whole might support racist laws. To prevent things like this, democracies have fundamental rights, that laws are not allowed to take away. Free speech is one of them. The principle at work here is that that hypothetical 90% white state could not take away the black people's rights of free speech, free religion etc. Without having basic rights which are protected even against a majority, democracy degenerates into nothing but mob rule.
It's also about my right to run any information-moving service I want. If you want to block porn, you can/choose/ an ISP that offers that. That's what the free market's for, if there is a demand for a service like that people will sell it. However, why should I not be allowed to sell an unfiltered connection? If people don't want it, free market will ensure my company dies.
The law isn't allowing you to implement it. It's *requiring* you to implement it when it's impossible to implement. It's like a law saying you must drive faster than the speed of light.
I'm wondering about getting it on a tshirt (with a program encoded in using dataglyphs), thinking it would be an instantly recognisable geek thing. Is it not so well known?
There's an X program that can transmit an MP3 to your radio by displaying pictures in certain ways. Quality's not too good, but it works. I guess it was just a matter of time before people did it with television.
It also goes to show TEMPEST attacks are real. Your screen is transmitting what's on it in a way that's detectable over quite a distance. Shielding is worth looking at if you're doing something sensitive.
The only thing the internet connects you to is other people. It's not some great big thing out there, it is at its heart a network of ends. The only things you see are things some other person shows you. By it's very nature it can't be dehumanising, because everything you see is made by another human. We haven't seen a big spurt of problems since the internet was introduced, nor will we. The internet may make it a bit more open what people are really like, but that's only a good thing, this victorian denial of our natural urges that still persists does not help matters any.
How are you going to decide what's "adult"? There are ISPs that block adult content if you really want to. But trying to deny the existence and attractiveness of sex is stupid. Really stupid.
I find the opposite. My mother, who is a complete technophobe, was perfectly able to set her old video recorder. It took her a few tries to learn, but she learnt it. You used the buttons on the recorder to do it, and the interface *made sense*. It was purpose built, dedicated solely to the problem of using a video. I found it easier to use too. She has a new one with onscreen menu things and can't use it, even though it has videoplus and the old one didn't. She relies on my dad, or if she's in just presses record on the remote when the program's starting and stop at the end of it. It's far harder to use, because the interface makes less sense. Learning another interface is a lot easier than learning to use something with an interface that doesn't fit.
Slashdot Mirror
The flipside of that is that if it doesn't support something (IIRC it can only do one of mms and rtsp streams) there's no way to get it to. I prefer media player classic, then just get the k-lite codec pack. Probably comes to less download over all.
They're already burning dozens of CDs of warez :)
We know it's true, what's news is that The Economist has said so. Normal people and perhaps lawmakers are more likely to listen.
Make the whole thing peer-to-peer with the base stations in range of each other. Then it doesn't matter if packets go to the wrong base station, they can just get passed along, and over time the routing tables will be updated. It might mean we need to replace BGP with something more dynamic though.
I'm pretty sure you don't even need an emulator. The NeXTStep specs are all public, and linux support does exist at least in basic form with GNUStep. Gnustep apps work on OSX, so there's no reason OSX apps couldn't work on Gnustep. It might even not require reimplementing too many libraries (if the interfaces are the same). At the moment Gnustep looks butt-ugly though.
With all due respect, that's crap. People barely notice the difference. The average user can't remember how they set their printer up anyway.
Too popular, getting too much attention around here, and I need my upstream bandwidth for other things (I'm on ADSL which doesn't help).
Proper CD recording support because the makers understand the need for backwards compatibility, and don't go around breaking APIs just because they feel like it.
Using it now and it's awesome! Responsive system, good set of included programs, and rock-solid stabiR~4%*&&& NO CARRIER
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/get.jsp. Requires registration though.
One ticket, straight down to -1 troll, thanks.
IIRC there's a working port of Java but only 1.3. Shouldn't matter since most sites even support "MS Java", which is behind Java 1.1 in important places.
It's the scheduler. BeOS was entirely written as a desktop multimedia OS. No concerns for versatility, fitting into embedded or server space, or backwards compatibility. That's why it's so responsive, and that's why it's still the best multimedia OS around, even though it hasn't been updated much since about 1993. It's like the ck patchset for linux on steroids, and with the whole OS written to support it.
I can believe that. BeOS always was *awesome* for multimedia. I saw it playing 4 videos simultaneously in clips from '92 or so. It was designed from the ground up to be a desktop OS (it's useless on a sever) with an emphasis on multimedia. The whole scheduler was oriented around providing good multimedia experience. And of course they got rid of any cruft, because there was no need for any backwards compatibility like windows and linux have.
They don't necessarily want to kill Linux. Rather, they want to do whatever will make them the most money. If they can make more money by getting out of the OS game and becoming an applications company, they will do that.
People did donate code and documentation. It wasn't enough. The project had a big community involvement, but it wasn't entirely community-ran. Having him try and do things as a hybrid didn't work, what he's doing now is turning it over entirely to the community like Debian is. The people you should blame are not those who didn't donate code or documentation, it's those who didn't donate hard cash. There's more than enough people donating code and documentation, otherwise the distribution would die without him.
So he could get double the kharma compared to putting it all in one post, duh
This shows one of the most important problems with democracy: minority rights. When there is a majority of any form it is very easy for the minority to be trampled, e.g. if 90% of a state is white the state as a whole might support racist laws. To prevent things like this, democracies have fundamental rights, that laws are not allowed to take away. Free speech is one of them. The principle at work here is that that hypothetical 90% white state could not take away the black people's rights of free speech, free religion etc. Without having basic rights which are protected even against a majority, democracy degenerates into nothing but mob rule.
It's also about my right to run any information-moving service I want. If you want to block porn, you can /choose/ an ISP that offers that. That's what the free market's for, if there is a demand for a service like that people will sell it. However, why should I not be allowed to sell an unfiltered connection? If people don't want it, free market will ensure my company dies.
The law isn't allowing you to implement it. It's *requiring* you to implement it when it's impossible to implement. It's like a law saying you must drive faster than the speed of light.
I'm wondering about getting it on a tshirt (with a program encoded in using dataglyphs), thinking it would be an instantly recognisable geek thing. Is it not so well known?
It also goes to show TEMPEST attacks are real. Your screen is transmitting what's on it in a way that's detectable over quite a distance. Shielding is worth looking at if you're doing something sensitive.
No, Mormons have claimed they don't practice polygamy since the 1800s.
How are you going to decide what's "adult"? There are ISPs that block adult content if you really want to. But trying to deny the existence and attractiveness of sex is stupid. Really stupid.
I find the opposite. My mother, who is a complete technophobe, was perfectly able to set her old video recorder. It took her a few tries to learn, but she learnt it. You used the buttons on the recorder to do it, and the interface *made sense*. It was purpose built, dedicated solely to the problem of using a video. I found it easier to use too. She has a new one with onscreen menu things and can't use it, even though it has videoplus and the old one didn't. She relies on my dad, or if she's in just presses record on the remote when the program's starting and stop at the end of it. It's far harder to use, because the interface makes less sense. Learning another interface is a lot easier than learning to use something with an interface that doesn't fit.