According to Wikipedia, "A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end user, with no intervening computer operator."
The iPad is not a personal computer, since the iPad *does* have an intervening computer operator (Apple) which defines which applications may or may not be installed on the iPad.
Since, according to the article, the Kindle is in fact "a Linux device with a ~533Mhz ARM processor" and with the addition of Qt being successfully compiled in it, doesn't that mean that the Kindle is in fact what the iPad is not ? A tablet personal computer ?
You think that my problem is clicking the icons ? These are adblocked. You think if you wanted to share interesting things in other networks you couldn't greasemonkey them yourself ? Of course not.
It's that they facilitate people who wish to share "interesting things" on gossip networks that bugs me.
The truth is that spam has been successfully fought by filters without compromising legitimate email. Furthermore as Paul Graham had stated, spammers have been forced to yield in smaller text-based messages or in-line images.
In particular,
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
Possibly but the probability of losing legitimate email by modern heuristics is (proven) smaller than the probability of accidentally deleting it when it is mixed with spam.
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
They do, sometimes without their knowledge
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
They would lose more without filtering. See 1st argument.
(X) Asshats
How ?
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
And also extreme profitability in having a working e-mail address.
(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
This isn't the mid 90s anymore.
(X) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
The practicality of heuristic filtering (SpamAssassin etc) is proved by its transparency. Even old e-mail clients such as Outlook 97 can filter out email marked by X-Spam headers. Gmail and the rest of the privacy traders do it for you automatically.
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
Run it locally. Mozilla Messaging does.
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
Age old forms copied from the newsgroups can't be used as arguments anymore. Time to be creative again!
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
I don't think that a car analogy can work here, but a pizza analogy might. You mean that if I like pizzas doesn't necessarily mean I can make good ones ? Or not ?
They have a browser that is somewhat popular, but that's it.
And what "it" means is that nobody would risk locking that userbase out of their service. Let Google try that and we'll resume that debate on Slashdot.
* Support Firefox trough funding (so that nobody can call you evil) * Buy one of the most successful video sites. * Implement a technology on this site that you know for sure Firefox can't use. * Reduce competition on this site by using a video format not everyone can use on their site(increasing linking and video embedding to your own site)
* Watch your share degrade as Firefox-supporting competition rises * Lose Profit
Had you read the article, you'd find your point: "Everyone should be able to browse the Web with a free software stack without having to jump through arcane hoops to download and install software"
That also gives them significant leverage in forcing video services to support Theora on HTML5. And that's far easier than negotiating with patent royalties lawyers.
Don't worry. No matter how much astroturfing takes place the fact won't change that any video service who fails to support Firefox would lose a share too large to be underestimated.
As for the argument against h.264, it's valid. But the full effect of it will be understood after Dec 31 2010
Don't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB? PCI? AGP? Those are all standards.
People might cought the fees but Mozilla doesn't include implementations of USB, PCI and AGP. If people were to cough a standard fee for H264 on their OS, then Mozilla would also support it. But, as the article states: "Most users with Windows Vista and earlier do not have an H.264 codec installed. So for the majority of our users, this doesn't solve any problem.". Hey, did you read the article ?
I'm assuming you are projecting the fact that most people are purely interested in open source. You are wrong. Most people want things to just work.
But idealism is the "reason for Mozilla to exist." as the article states which really begs the question: did you read the article ?
The day Firefox stops *just working* [competitors will win]
Oh, h264 video is the definition of a workable web browser? I don't think so, but also how about "Currently providing H.264 content on the Internet is zero-cost, but after 2010 that will almost certainly change [...] If you just want to put a few videos on your Web site, or add a help video to your Web application, or put a video cut-scene in your Web game, that is probably not something you want to do." ?
By the way, has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing?
Look, just read the article, ok ? (Sorry no video option available)
Slashdot Mirror
But you ~are~ a part of this tech elite. So why would you prefer a restricted device vs an unrestricted (and more capable) one ?
Why did you write that in proper English ?
What does XKCD tell you to think about hypocrisy ?
oops!
There are better solutions out there. Many tablets are far more capable than an iPad and they give you freedom to do anything you like with them.
Sure, just don't confuse them with personal computers. Put them in the smart terminal tablet category and we are fine.
"intervening" ?
According to Wikipedia, "A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end user, with no intervening computer operator."
The iPad is not a personal computer, since the iPad *does* have an intervening computer operator (Apple) which defines which applications may or may not be installed on the iPad.
Since, according to the article, the Kindle is in fact "a Linux device with a ~533Mhz ARM processor" and with the addition of Qt being successfully compiled in it, doesn't that mean that the Kindle is in fact what the iPad is not ? A tablet personal computer ?
The guy who is responsible for that, should be transferred to cleaning public urinals in Kairo.
You think that my problem is clicking the icons ? These are adblocked. You think if you wanted to share interesting things in other networks you couldn't greasemonkey them yourself ? Of course not.
It's that they facilitate people who wish to share "interesting things" on gossip networks that bugs me.
... and the twitter icon as well, appearing on every story and even on my own journal:
fuck off Slashdot.
At least you could avoid MSFT by going Linux or Apple.
You can also avoid gmail and use hushmail or simply run your own mailserver. But that address next to your name... it seems like gmail to me!?
The truth is that spam has been successfully fought by filters without compromising legitimate email. Furthermore as Paul Graham had stated, spammers have been forced to yield in smaller text-based messages or in-line images.
In particular,
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
Possibly but the probability of losing legitimate email by modern heuristics is (proven) smaller than the probability of accidentally deleting it when it is mixed with spam.
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
They do, sometimes without their knowledge
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
They would lose more without filtering. See 1st argument.
(X) Asshats
How ?
(X) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
And also extreme profitability in having a working e-mail address.
(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
This isn't the mid 90s anymore.
(X) Ideas similar to this are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
The practicality of heuristic filtering (SpamAssassin etc) is proved by its transparency. Even old e-mail clients such as Outlook 97 can filter out email marked by X-Spam headers. Gmail and the rest of the privacy traders do it for you automatically.
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
Run it locally. Mozilla Messaging does.
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
Age old forms copied from the newsgroups can't be used as arguments anymore. Time to be creative again!
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
But cutting down their profit is.
...contrary to other multinational and highly outsourced IT companies ?
Wouldn't that explain why Apple fan news (eg. Slashdot) come mainly from the US ?
I don't think that a car analogy can work here, but a pizza analogy might. You mean that if I like pizzas doesn't necessarily mean I can make good ones ? Or not ?
A good Pizza Analogy anyone ?
Dependent on Google ? Are you taking 90s style magazines such as PCpro seriously ?
Name one major open source project that stopped evolving as a result of funding withdrawal.
In fact name one major open source project that stopped evolving period.
I agree but tell that to the astroturfers who think that h.264 on HTML5 would threaten Mozilla's market share. Look here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1522496&cid=30880802
They have a browser that is somewhat popular, but that's it.
And what "it" means is that nobody would risk locking that userbase out of their service. Let Google try that and we'll resume that debate on Slashdot.
Firefox users will just get routed to the old flash interface on YouTube.
Then what is the issue, you think ?
* Support Firefox trough funding (so that nobody can call you evil)
* Buy one of the most successful video sites.
* Implement a technology on this site that you know for sure Firefox can't use.
* Reduce competition on this site by using a video format not everyone can use on their site(increasing linking and video embedding to your own site)
* Watch your share degrade as Firefox-supporting competition rises
* Lose Profit
Had you read the article, you'd find your point: "Everyone should be able to browse the Web with a free software stack without having to jump through arcane hoops to download and install software"
Just don't think the Web should rely on h.264
Insisting on fighting H.264 will be exactly like refusing to support MP3/AAC
Mozilla has not supported MP3/AAC all these years and that didn't stop them from getting their marketshare.
Mozilla think that they can bend a whole market of decoding, encoding, streaming, recording and editing by refusing to add it to their browser.
On the web ? Yes they can.
That also gives them significant leverage in forcing video services to support Theora on HTML5. And that's far easier than negotiating with patent royalties lawyers.
Don't worry. No matter how much astroturfing takes place the fact won't change that any video service who fails to support Firefox would lose a share too large to be underestimated.
As for the argument against h.264, it's valid. But the full effect of it will be understood after Dec 31 2010
Someone else will then. Serving video to Firefox users is not an opportunity to be missed if YouTube can't.
Don't people have to cough up a license fee to implement USB? PCI? AGP? Those are all standards.
People might cought the fees but Mozilla doesn't include implementations of USB, PCI and AGP. If people were to cough a standard fee for H264 on their OS, then Mozilla would also support it. But, as the article states: "Most users with Windows Vista and earlier do not have an H.264 codec installed. So for the majority of our users, this doesn't solve any problem.". Hey, did you read the article ?
I'm assuming you are projecting the fact that most people are purely interested in open source. You are wrong. Most people want things to just work.
But idealism is the "reason for Mozilla to exist." as the article states which really begs the question: did you read the article ?
The day Firefox stops *just working* [competitors will win]
Oh, h264 video is the definition of a workable web browser? I don't think so, but also how about "Currently providing H.264 content on the Internet is zero-cost, but after 2010 that will almost certainly change [...] If you just want to put a few videos on your Web site, or add a help video to your Web application, or put a video cut-scene in your Web game, that is probably not something you want to do." ?
By the way, has any of the Mozilla folk sat down at the table and talked with the folks that own whatever IP needs licensing?
Look, just read the article, ok ? (Sorry no video option available)