Well, if you want to talk about pot and kettle, you're claiming triumph at having got me to waste a few seconds correcting something that was obviously wrong,
Nope.
If I'm not, why is there any point replying to me?
You say name one, that's your choice of battleground, and I beat you at it.
What you don't get is that my choice of battleground was not to google something. It was to see if I could pull your strings enough to make you go google an inane little fact. I pulled, you danced.
Yeah, that's good. Throw insults when you lose
What you don't get is that I have been insulting you since my first post to you. Your view is so obsviously wrong that there was never a chance to ever convince you otherwise. So I decided to see just how easy it was to pull your strings.
Get used to it, when you are an idiot people treat you that way.
As if ONE user would prove anything except how much you've painted yourself into a silly little corner. Oh yeah, some dork on slashdot can show one user of Oracle on linux (not even redhat, just linux) and that proves redhat is all about the proprietary. haha silly little slashdork, jump through some more irrelevant hoops why dontchya?
The question is not whether most applications run on it are proprietary, but whether most users are running proprietary applications.
Which, unlike YOUR example of Oracle, for which you provided exactly ONE case, you haven't shown a single case of this new claim. You have argued yourself out into the booneys. Or rather you were always out there, but you've run out of bullshit to baffle with.
Bullshit. So far you've got an example of one proprietary app from a 3rd party versus every single product that Redhat markets.
No. However, if the majority of chrysler mini-van owners happen to be bank robbers, then I do.
First, that's fucked up - such a claim without basis in any actual cause would be pure bullshit just as saying that every single child molester drinks water, thus water causes people to molest children.
Second, your claims don't even fit your own criteria because the majority of applications that run on redhat are far and away Free, not proprietary.
Uh, that website confirms my statement. Your statement is only true when referring to digital TV.
Dude? How false can you get? That website, and hundreds of others like it, talk about analog TV when talking about TV lines of resolution.
He even makes it explicit when he says:
"Lines of resolution" is not the same as the number of pixels (either horizontal or vertical) found on a camera's CCD, or on a digital monitor or other display like a video projector, and so forth. And it is also not the same as the number of scanning lines used in an analog camera or television system such as PAL or NTSC or SECAM etc.
The Secret Service had been inserting identification codes into color printers for years too, before the EFF finnally spotted it.
It was common knowledge long before the EFF made noise about it. All they did was put together a very public decoding campaign. Knowledge of serialization of color printers and copiers has been floating around, even on slashdot, for many years prior to the EFF's work.
which I presume was because redhat want more propriety apps on linux so people get used to paying for stuff, so they want gtk to be the dominant toolkit)
Of course! That's why Redhat has absolutely ZERO proprietary apps in their catalog.
Have you read what I wrote ?... Is it a secret for the postal service, yes or no ? If it's not a secret, why should e-mail be any different ?
Clearly he did read exactly what you wrote, that's why he said:
Just because one method of getting a message from A-to-B is naturally insecure, it doesn't give license for anyone to artificially introduce insecurity into a different system.
Hi-Power material is wave resistant due to being retro-reflective. In that even if it does get waves, they are very hard to see because of the way the light is reflected back to the viewer. The stuff is almost magic.
I dropped a tad over a grand a year ago for a 6 foot wall screen - it'd be bigger, but my viewing wall has an inconveniently-placed door...
Dude - that's what pull-down screens are for. Get yourself a 92" wide Da-Lite Hi-Power pulldown for ~$300 and you will be rockin with an image that looks almost like a plasma.
For those of us who have spent the money and who own the equipment capable of displaying HDTV from either a BLU-RAY or HD-DVD disc, the HD factor is worth it. For the rest of you, keep buying DVDs. It's not hard.
That's what the audiophiles said about DVD-A and SACD. Those formats haven't worked out so well with that kind of attitude. No reason to think over-priced, under-featured HD discs will either.
I know you are probably like me and paid good money for your upconverting DVD player and really want to beleive it is as good as the sales man made it out to be, but trust me, it's not.
I don't own a DVD player. I use PCs with HD tuners & firewire on which I play both HD and DVD. I have recorded a couple of terabytes of "true 1080i" - a lot of which can be reverse telecined to "true 1080p." I won't argue that full-bit rate, well mastered HD looks exceptional in comparison to even the highest quality DVD upscaled with high-quality algorithms. But such content is rare, and titles like "Hitch" aren't going to cut it. For the majority of movies, the level of improvement is not enough to justify all the downsides to the format.
But seriously, why wouldn't they be more expensive? You get a much, much nicer end product.
Do you?
For 90% of the population in the USA, you don't get a nicer product. These are the people with standard definition TVs. They've got no reason at all to spend the extra dollars on HD-BLU-DVD-RAY.
For the other 10%
The crucial "early adopters" who pay the big bucks and have esoteric systems are going to have problems, many of them still have non-HDCP displays. These guys are likely to be pissed about being left out in the cold despite the promises of the tv manufacturers at the time of purchase. They won't benefit from HD-BLU-DVD-RAY either because their HDTV sets won't be permitted to display the HD video from the discs.
Some of these "early adopters" like to fiddle with their stuff, they build video jukeboxes, they have fancy home-grown av distribution systems, etc. So the people who said fuck it and bought ANOTHER HDTV set with HDCP are still neutered. All the copy-prevention built into HD-BLU-DVD-RAY does for them is make life harder, not much nicer. They can play the movies alright, but only in the way that hollywood wants them to, no tinkering allowed.
The most recent purchasers of HDTV sets, the ones that do have HDCP, are also likely to own upscaling dvd players. Take a good quality DVD to begin with, run it through a good upscaler and you've got an image that's roughly 70-80% of the quality of an average HD transfer. That extra 30% of image quality is subjective, but isn't likely to be considered all that much nicer than what they are getting now with their current equipment.
So, as I see it, the only chance HD-BLU-RAY-DVD has of gaining marketshare is if they significantly under-price DVDs. As a guy with 3 HDTVs in my house, 2 of them HDCP capable, I won't touch those discs otherwise. Unless their marketing strategy changes, I think there is a significant chance that these discs will go the way of DVD-SACD-AUDIO.
Why pay my $1 when I can hope that a bunch of "suckers" will pay and I get it free?
Because if too few pay the $1, the freeloaders get nothing. Plus, putting your $1 in is low-risk, it is an escrow account so you get your money back if nothing happens. That ought to be enough to convince the freeloaders who
1) Have expendable cash, it is only a buck or two 2) Like the show
to pony up.
But if it isn't enough, consider SWAG - a mechanism like the public radio/tv fundraisers use - instead of a buck or two, you pay $10 and you get a doodad worth $8 immediately. The other $2 goes into the escrow account just as like normal. Swag has been exceptionally effective in boosting charitable donations, often credited with increasing the net (after the cost of the swag) by 2x-3x.
Why would you ever use that? Surely a standalone client offers more flexiblity? Its just more bloat in a browser.
I don't know if Opera goes all the way yet, but native support for bittorrent plus support for "trackerless" torrents via distributed hash tables (DHT) could make for a much more robust web, the kind of thing that might seriously threaten the business model of companies like Akamai.
Perhaps we will see the day when most URLs start with bittorrent:// instead of http://
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you want to talk about pot and kettle, you're claiming triumph at having got me to waste a few seconds correcting something that was obviously wrong,
Nope.
If I'm not, why is there any point replying to me?
You == verbal LSD.
Right back at you.
What is right back at me?
And now we go back to the insults again
Doh! never stopped.
If it's that obviously wrong, how could I have come to it?
You make the false assumption that you are rational.
I could get you to use the word "dork", and I trashed you there.
Or, you really are as much of an idiot as you appeared, and now you're pathetically trying to justify yourself, because you can't face having lost.
Pot, kettle, bang!
By the way, making you write out all your tortured, self-exculpatory reasonings is another string I've enjoyed pulling. Keep on dancing.
You say name one, that's your choice of battleground, and I beat you at it.
What you don't get is that my choice of battleground was not to google something. It was to see if I could pull your strings enough to make you go google an inane little fact. I pulled, you danced.
Yeah, that's good. Throw insults when you lose
What you don't get is that I have been insulting you since my first post to you. Your view is so obsviously wrong that there was never a chance to ever convince you otherwise. So I decided to see just how easy it was to pull your strings.
Get used to it, when you are an idiot people treat you that way.
Sankhya technologies (http://www.sankhya.com/). Thanks for playinh
Silly little slashdork, made you look.
As if ONE user would prove anything except how much you've painted yourself into a silly little corner. Oh yeah, some dork on slashdot can show one user of Oracle on linux (not even redhat, just linux) and that proves redhat is all about the proprietary. haha silly little slashdork, jump through some more irrelevant hoops why dontchya?
is that what we are calling script kiddies these days?
Don't you think that masterboter would be more appropriate?
Ok, what was it that hit the Pentagon, if not a plane? A missile launched by the U.S. government?
Who knows? We certainly don't and there is no plausible reason to keep it a secret.
Certainly enough to contradict your "haven't shown a single instance" claim.
Oh yeah? Name ONE.
Well, every one of Oracle's contracts is an example.
And how many is that? Keep on reaching boy.
The question is not whether most applications run on it are proprietary, but whether most users are running proprietary applications.
Which, unlike YOUR example of Oracle, for which you provided exactly ONE case, you haven't shown a single case of this new claim. You have argued yourself out into the booneys. Or rather you were always out there, but you've run out of bullshit to baffle with.
No, it's their business strategy.
Bullshit. So far you've got an example of one proprietary app from a 3rd party versus every single product that Redhat markets.
No. However, if the majority of chrysler mini-van owners happen to be bank robbers, then I do.
First, that's fucked up - such a claim without basis in any actual cause would be pure bullshit just as saying that every single child molester drinks water, thus water causes people to molest children.
Second, your claims don't even fit your own criteria because the majority of applications that run on redhat are far and away Free, not proprietary.
Dude? How false can you get? That website, and hundreds of others like it, talk about analog TV when talking about TV lines of resolution.
He even makes it explicit when he says:
PAL, SECAM and NTSC are all ANALOG ONLY.
No, that's why Redhat was for a while the only Linux you could officially run e.g. Oracle on (don't know if it still is).
And that is somehow Redhat's problem? Do you blame Chrysler if a bunch of bank-robbers use a chrysler mini-van as their get-away vehicle? Get real.
The Secret Service had been inserting identification codes into color printers for years too, before the EFF finnally spotted it.
It was common knowledge long before the EFF made noise about it. All they did was put together a very public decoding campaign. Knowledge of serialization of color printers and copiers has been floating around, even on slashdot, for many years prior to the EFF's work.
(it is also why analog TV is described in terms of lines of resolution and not columns - only the lines are discrete).
False.
Lines of resolution, without a horizontal or vertical modifier refers to columns, not scan lines.
which I presume was because redhat want more propriety apps on linux so people get used to paying for stuff, so they want gtk to be the dominant toolkit)
Of course! That's why Redhat has absolutely ZERO proprietary apps in their catalog.
And you talk about FUD? What a troll...
Is it a secret for the postal service, yes or no ?
If it's not a secret, why should e-mail be any different ?
Clearly he did read exactly what you wrote, that's why he said:
All combatants must realise they are being spied on.
That's evildoers you unpatriotic clod!
Hi-Power material is wave resistant due to being retro-reflective. In that even if it does get waves, they are very hard to see because of the way the light is reflected back to the viewer. The stuff is almost magic.
I dropped a tad over a grand a year ago for a 6 foot wall screen - it'd be bigger, but my viewing wall has an inconveniently-placed door...
Dude - that's what pull-down screens are for. Get yourself a 92" wide Da-Lite Hi-Power pulldown for ~$300 and you will be rockin with an image that looks almost like a plasma.
For those of us who have spent the money and who own the equipment capable of displaying HDTV from either a BLU-RAY or HD-DVD disc, the HD factor is worth it. For the rest of you, keep buying DVDs. It's not hard.
That's what the audiophiles said about DVD-A and SACD. Those formats haven't worked out so well with that kind of attitude. No reason to think over-priced, under-featured HD discs will either.
I know you are probably like me and paid good money for your upconverting DVD player and really want to beleive it is as good as the sales man made it out to be, but trust me, it's not.
I don't own a DVD player. I use PCs with HD tuners & firewire on which I play both HD and DVD. I have recorded a couple of terabytes of "true 1080i" - a lot of which can be reverse telecined to "true 1080p." I won't argue that full-bit rate, well mastered HD looks exceptional in comparison to even the highest quality DVD upscaled with high-quality algorithms. But such content is rare, and titles like "Hitch" aren't going to cut it. For the majority of movies, the level of improvement is not enough to justify all the downsides to the format.
But seriously, why wouldn't they be more expensive?
You get a much, much nicer end product.
Do you?
For 90% of the population in the USA, you don't get a nicer product. These are the people with standard definition TVs. They've got no reason at all to spend the extra dollars on HD-BLU-DVD-RAY.
For the other 10%
The crucial "early adopters" who pay the big bucks and have esoteric systems are going to have problems, many of them still have non-HDCP displays. These guys are likely to be pissed about being left out in the cold despite the promises of the tv manufacturers at the time of purchase. They won't benefit from HD-BLU-DVD-RAY either because their HDTV sets won't be permitted to display the HD video from the discs.
Some of these "early adopters" like to fiddle with their stuff, they build video jukeboxes, they have fancy home-grown av distribution systems, etc. So the people who said fuck it and bought ANOTHER HDTV set with HDCP are still neutered. All the copy-prevention built into HD-BLU-DVD-RAY does for them is make life harder, not much nicer. They can play the movies alright, but only in the way that hollywood wants them to, no tinkering allowed.
The most recent purchasers of HDTV sets, the ones that do have HDCP, are also likely to own upscaling dvd players. Take a good quality DVD to begin with, run it through a good upscaler and you've got an image that's roughly 70-80% of the quality of an average HD transfer.
That extra 30% of image quality is subjective, but isn't likely to be considered all that much nicer than what they are getting now with their current equipment.
So, as I see it, the only chance HD-BLU-RAY-DVD has of gaining marketshare is if they significantly under-price DVDs. As a guy with 3 HDTVs in my house, 2 of them HDCP capable, I won't touch those discs otherwise. Unless their marketing strategy changes, I think there is a significant chance that these discs will go the way of DVD-SACD-AUDIO.
Why pay my $1 when I can hope that a bunch of "suckers" will pay and I get it free?
Because if too few pay the $1, the freeloaders get nothing. Plus, putting your $1 in is low-risk, it is an escrow account so you get your money back if nothing happens. That ought to be enough to convince the freeloaders who
1) Have expendable cash, it is only a buck or two
2) Like the show
to pony up.
But if it isn't enough, consider SWAG - a mechanism like the public radio/tv fundraisers use - instead of a buck or two, you pay $10 and you get a doodad worth $8 immediately. The other $2 goes into the escrow account just as like normal. Swag has been exceptionally effective in boosting charitable donations, often credited with increasing the net (after the cost of the swag) by 2x-3x.
Why would you ever use that? Surely a standalone client offers more flexiblity? Its just more bloat in a browser.
://
I don't know if Opera goes all the way yet, but native support for bittorrent plus support for "trackerless" torrents via distributed hash tables (DHT) could make for a much more robust web, the kind of thing that might seriously threaten the business model of companies like Akamai.
Perhaps we will see the day when most URLs start with bittorrent:// instead of http
Nothing can make Slashdotters happy...
A couple of naked supermodels just begging for my lovin' should do just fine.