If they didn't censor, they'd just be blocked like the GP said.
So what? Why do they have an obligation to go into China? Why support totalitarianism?
The best thing they can do is keep with the market so that maybe they can make a difference in the future if they so desire.
Now, that's naive thinking. Google just wants to make money. What makes you think they care about making a difference? if they wanted to make a difference, they would take a stand - not act like every other apologist for China like Microsoft. Doing this now only delays any change. It legitimizes censorship and heavy-handed government tactics.
Alternatively, at least the revenue that they're making in China can go to projects like this one that they're currently funding.
So, going against human rights is perfectly OK if it gives people more toys back home? I also don't think this is a good thing. Most of the things Google are currently doing are bad, not good. So, if we can reduce their funding for these projects, then all the better.
Don't believe their lies. Google is founded on exploiting what you do online.
It is Google's fault that their player is crap. Even if the videos were decent - the format that Google are using looks terrible, and makes bad videos look even worse. It's also their fault for just accepting any old crap and allowing it to appear on the front page - rather than selecting the best stuff to showcase on the front page.
divx isnt a bastardization. unless thats what you call the most popular video format for full length movies on the internet.
It is, actually. It's not "open" - and it's not a standard, either. It was just a stop-gap hack, to meet the market for illegal video downloads. The reason being that the mainstream players had not incorporated such compression technology into their products. It doesn't have industry backing, nor does it have Open Source principles. Now there are real standards that do the same job as DivX. So why use the less-standard version?
It's exactly this kind of shit that screwed online media. Don't wait until there is a standard, just use some quickly put-together proprietary plug-in. Remember the days when you had to load Netscape up with a different plug-in for practically every site?
If you expect them to pick #2, you're a damn fool.
I don't expect them to not do that. But it would be nice if they stopped pretending to do no evil. I don't see any exemption in their statement saying that evil is OK, as long as millions are to be made.
well id rather have crappyier(sp?) video quality and a player that can actually REMEMBER MY VOLUME SETTINGS...
You know, you edon't have to play Quicktime videos in Quicktime. Use iTunes, VLC, or any number of third-party players. Another thing not possible with Google video. Apple's DRM works in any application that uses Quicktime for playback.
I do find your priorities rather odd - the default volume setting being more important than video quality?
the compromise between size and quality goes to divx. qt files are huge comparatively.
Sorry, this is just wrong. Quicktime supports hundreds of CODECs, which offer different performance and size tradeoffs. besides, Quicktime's MPEG-4 video is basically the same as DivX. The difference is that Apple uses a true standard, while DivX is a bastard.
I don't understand why people bash Quicktime so much. Quicktime basically invented video on the desktop - and since the very early days had quality that took other companies years to catch up to. it is indeed sad that crap like Windows Media and Realplayer became dominant online. That ruined the online video market. It could have been done well with Quicktime (which is also a fully-featured API). Instead we got horrible, washed out streaming junk, and endless "buffering" loops. Somebody with a website and iMovie can produce more professional-looking online videos than the shit major news sources like CNN and MSN have on their websites. Isn't that rather odd?
No, because the ballot will contain all possible choices, including but not limited to the one you think you picked. The printout will contain only those choices the system thinks that you selected, making it much much simpler.
It still contains the same number of items to check, so it is not any more simple. Also, it might make it harder. Some people vote against candidates, not for them. So they might not remember the name of who they voted for - they want to check who they didn't vote for.
a) These would be much, much easier to count
Why would these be "much much" easier to count than any other paper ballot?
b) They did count ballots in Ohio, Florida, et cetera. Just not enough of them.
But weren't the ones that they did count, ruled inadmissable? This is my point - the courts and government will pull out all stops to avoid a recount mattering.
and its WAY better than WMP or quicktime video *shudder*
Are you fucking kidding me? The video on Google's service looks terrible. It uses Flash, for Dog's sake. A well encoded Quicktime movie (especially H.264) looks far better than anything else. Just look at Apple's movie trailers for example. Absolutely stunning. Where are the Windows Media or Flash videos that look as good as those movie trailers?
The explosive growth of unique visitors to the iTunes Music Store is the result of one thing: the explosive growth of sales of iPods (particularly to new users).
This is 90% true - but I know about a dozen people who don't use iPods, but are registered for iTunes. Why? Because of the free song of the week to download, and the fact you can burn them to a regular Audio CD. Sure, they probably heard about the iTunes store from iPod owners, but still.
Google has absolutely no experience making a consistent and simple interface.
That is indeed true. Once you go beyond their main search page - Google have terrible interfaces. Look at the interface on Google video. Just what the hell is that consistent with?
As far as the minimalist appearance of the main Google page - it simply does not count as interface design. It's just "not putting ads and shit everywhere." Google uses the interfaces that others have created for the GUI and web browser of the host computer. Except when they make standalon application like Google Earth - but then the interfaces suck really badly.
I think you'll find Google tend to be better focused.
Google is focused? Shit, they're all over the map. Google search - great. Google lanuguage tools, Google News - great, focused on search and simplicity. But then we get to Google video, Google Desktop, Google Earth, Google in China (even though they "do no evil") Google Wi-Fi, etc.
It seems they have lost any focus and just want to monoolize whatever they can get their hands on.
So one big question is whether or not there will be meaningful price competition, the other big question for me is whether or not "Don't Be Evil" means "Don't Use DRM",
That's fucking rich. You advocate ripping people off by using shady, possibly Mafia run (you know, the guys who kill people and break their fingers) business in Russia. But then you say that DRM is evil. get a grip.
Personally, I don't believe in "evil." But let's call it ethics. It is far more ethical to use DRM than it is to support violent criminals, or to rip off people who produce music. Anyone downloading from AllofMP3.com does not earn the right to be taken seriously when decrying DRM.
How is DRM ever going to be eliminated, if the general public just sees the people who don't like it, participating in borderline-illegal (definitely illegal to most non-geeks) activities. People will see that and embrace DRM not to be like you.
Google video doesn't make your scenario sound very promising. the "free section" is full of absolutely terrible crap. I'd pay NOT to look at Google video, it's that bad. Poor quality videos of dubious merit. At least the cash hungry mongrels have an incentive to produce quality material.
And Google *is* a cash-hungry mongrel. Just because you don't buy the free videos, doesn't mean Google isn't doing it for the cash.
Climate change is so much fun to argue about, because people have already concluded everything, so now they just look to support their positions.
I don't think that's true. We are still gathering data to work out exactly what the impact might be. Seems you are the one who has made up his mind, and you project that onto others.
And any new player that doesn't use Windows Media is a good thing.
Not necessarily. Look how bad RealPlayer is. Look how bad practically all the third-party video players are. Doesn't really matter anyway - because whatever format they use, it will have DRM, so it won't be compatible with the non-DRM version of the same format.
That's where the whole "counting" thing comes in. You count the paper ballots.
But unless counting the paper votes is mandatory - then it will never happen. Look at the 2000 election, where they stopped counting the ballots.
Not really. The paper ballot that gets printed by the voting machine could be very simple. It would simply have a line for each issue on the slate, and would read: "1) President: Donald Duck./n2) Vice President: Ross Perot/n..." Very easy to read, check, verify, whatever.
If that's simple, then won't the ballot also be simple? After all, they will both contain the same number of issues or candidates. This contradicts your point that in the US there are too many issues for it to be simple.
The paper ballots would be considered the canonical record in the case of any discrepencies.
How do they know there are any discrepancies if they don't count the paper ballots, anyway?
The global warming crowd has turned this into a religion. It is time to put the church of global warming to bed.
Eh? Most of the respected scientists and rational thinkers do believe that there is climate change being caused by human activity. I mean, it's logical. How do you pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - without causing some atmospheric effects?
The religious thinkers and propagandists are the ones who say we shouldn't be thinking about this. Usually they are driven by massive money interests, like the oil companies. It's hard to find someone who doesn't take climate change seriously who is not a shill or misinformed.
The "ozone hole" is not caused by global warming (which is correctly called Climate Change). It is caused by chemical depletion - the chloroflourocarbons and other chemicals reacting with the ozone. Now, this thinning of ozone does not help the warming effect - as it lets more heat in. Climate change is the net effect of things like ozone depletion and the "greenhouse effect" which is the trapping of carbon dioxide and heat.
Is ethanol "the answer" - no it's one tool among many. Why do people think there should be one, single solution for alternative energy? Different methods are good for different purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
So what? Why do they have an obligation to go into China? Why support totalitarianism?
The best thing they can do is keep with the market so that maybe they can make a difference in the future if they so desire.
Now, that's naive thinking. Google just wants to make money. What makes you think they care about making a difference? if they wanted to make a difference, they would take a stand - not act like every other apologist for China like Microsoft. Doing this now only delays any change. It legitimizes censorship and heavy-handed government tactics.
Alternatively, at least the revenue that they're making in China can go to projects like this one that they're currently funding.
So, going against human rights is perfectly OK if it gives people more toys back home? I also don't think this is a good thing. Most of the things Google are currently doing are bad, not good. So, if we can reduce their funding for these projects, then all the better.
Don't believe their lies. Google is founded on exploiting what you do online.
It is Google's fault that their player is crap. Even if the videos were decent - the format that Google are using looks terrible, and makes bad videos look even worse. It's also their fault for just accepting any old crap and allowing it to appear on the front page - rather than selecting the best stuff to showcase on the front page.
It is, actually. It's not "open" - and it's not a standard, either. It was just a stop-gap hack, to meet the market for illegal video downloads. The reason being that the mainstream players had not incorporated such compression technology into their products. It doesn't have industry backing, nor does it have Open Source principles. Now there are real standards that do the same job as DivX. So why use the less-standard version?
It's exactly this kind of shit that screwed online media. Don't wait until there is a standard, just use some quickly put-together proprietary plug-in. Remember the days when you had to load Netscape up with a different plug-in for practically every site?
I don't expect them to not do that. But it would be nice if they stopped pretending to do no evil. I don't see any exemption in their statement saying that evil is OK, as long as millions are to be made.
Is this a PR move designed to make Google look less evil, after the world reacted in disgust to their censorship in China?
You know, you edon't have to play Quicktime videos in Quicktime. Use iTunes, VLC, or any number of third-party players. Another thing not possible with Google video. Apple's DRM works in any application that uses Quicktime for playback.
I do find your priorities rather odd - the default volume setting being more important than video quality?
the compromise between size and quality goes to divx. qt files are huge comparatively.
Sorry, this is just wrong. Quicktime supports hundreds of CODECs, which offer different performance and size tradeoffs. besides, Quicktime's MPEG-4 video is basically the same as DivX. The difference is that Apple uses a true standard, while DivX is a bastard.
I don't understand why people bash Quicktime so much. Quicktime basically invented video on the desktop - and since the very early days had quality that took other companies years to catch up to. it is indeed sad that crap like Windows Media and Realplayer became dominant online. That ruined the online video market. It could have been done well with Quicktime (which is also a fully-featured API). Instead we got horrible, washed out streaming junk, and endless "buffering" loops. Somebody with a website and iMovie can produce more professional-looking online videos than the shit major news sources like CNN and MSN have on their websites. Isn't that rather odd?
It still contains the same number of items to check, so it is not any more simple. Also, it might make it harder. Some people vote against candidates, not for them. So they might not remember the name of who they voted for - they want to check who they didn't vote for.
a) These would be much, much easier to count
Why would these be "much much" easier to count than any other paper ballot?
b) They did count ballots in Ohio, Florida, et cetera. Just not enough of them.
But weren't the ones that they did count, ruled inadmissable? This is my point - the courts and government will pull out all stops to avoid a recount mattering.
Are you fucking kidding me? The video on Google's service looks terrible. It uses Flash, for Dog's sake. A well encoded Quicktime movie (especially H.264) looks far better than anything else. Just look at Apple's movie trailers for example. Absolutely stunning. Where are the Windows Media or Flash videos that look as good as those movie trailers?
This is 90% true - but I know about a dozen people who don't use iPods, but are registered for iTunes. Why? Because of the free song of the week to download, and the fact you can burn them to a regular Audio CD. Sure, they probably heard about the iTunes store from iPod owners, but still.
That is indeed true. Once you go beyond their main search page - Google have terrible interfaces. Look at the interface on Google video. Just what the hell is that consistent with?
As far as the minimalist appearance of the main Google page - it simply does not count as interface design. It's just "not putting ads and shit everywhere." Google uses the interfaces that others have created for the GUI and web browser of the host computer. Except when they make standalon application like Google Earth - but then the interfaces suck really badly.
Google is focused? Shit, they're all over the map. Google search - great. Google lanuguage tools, Google News - great, focused on search and simplicity. But then we get to Google video, Google Desktop, Google Earth, Google in China (even though they "do no evil") Google Wi-Fi, etc.
It seems they have lost any focus and just want to monoolize whatever they can get their hands on.
That's fucking rich. You advocate ripping people off by using shady, possibly Mafia run (you know, the guys who kill people and break their fingers) business in Russia. But then you say that DRM is evil. get a grip.
Personally, I don't believe in "evil." But let's call it ethics. It is far more ethical to use DRM than it is to support violent criminals, or to rip off people who produce music. Anyone downloading from AllofMP3.com does not earn the right to be taken seriously when decrying DRM.
How is DRM ever going to be eliminated, if the general public just sees the people who don't like it, participating in borderline-illegal (definitely illegal to most non-geeks) activities. People will see that and embrace DRM not to be like you.
But what happened to DRM being evil? Does Google using DRM suddenly make it not-evil or something?
And Google *is* a cash-hungry mongrel. Just because you don't buy the free videos, doesn't mean Google isn't doing it for the cash.
I don't think that's true. We are still gathering data to work out exactly what the impact might be. Seems you are the one who has made up his mind, and you project that onto others.
Not necessarily. Look how bad RealPlayer is. Look how bad practically all the third-party video players are. Doesn't really matter anyway - because whatever format they use, it will have DRM, so it won't be compatible with the non-DRM version of the same format.
Scientists have always wanted to understand the Pidgeon-to-Pidgeon transfer protocol.
They hitched a lift with the whales.
But unless counting the paper votes is mandatory - then it will never happen. Look at the 2000 election, where they stopped counting the ballots.
Not really. The paper ballot that gets printed by the voting machine could be very simple. It would simply have a line for each issue on the slate, and would read: "1) President: Donald Duck. /n2) Vice President: Ross Perot/n..." Very easy to read, check, verify, whatever.
If that's simple, then won't the ballot also be simple? After all, they will both contain the same number of issues or candidates. This contradicts your point that in the US there are too many issues for it to be simple.
The paper ballots would be considered the canonical record in the case of any discrepencies.
How do they know there are any discrepancies if they don't count the paper ballots, anyway?
Eh? Most of the respected scientists and rational thinkers do believe that there is climate change being caused by human activity. I mean, it's logical. How do you pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - without causing some atmospheric effects?
The religious thinkers and propagandists are the ones who say we shouldn't be thinking about this. Usually they are driven by massive money interests, like the oil companies. It's hard to find someone who doesn't take climate change seriously who is not a shill or misinformed.
The "ozone hole" is not caused by global warming (which is correctly called Climate Change). It is caused by chemical depletion - the chloroflourocarbons and other chemicals reacting with the ozone. Now, this thinning of ozone does not help the warming effect - as it lets more heat in. Climate change is the net effect of things like ozone depletion and the "greenhouse effect" which is the trapping of carbon dioxide and heat.
Do you have an obsessive-compulsive disorder or something?
Is ethanol "the answer" - no it's one tool among many. Why do people think there should be one, single solution for alternative energy? Different methods are good for different purposes.
Not only does he do a good voice-over, if you rub is bald head, you get good luck and ship on time.
I heard that William Shatner is making a spoken word version of a Star Trek Game. He found a way.