I understand hat "fair and balanced" does not mean "opposing extremes", but I was pointing-out that if you have one extreme, it's better to have another to call its bluff, and vice versa.
Ok, so what does that mean? Fox News is the only "extreme" news channel. All the others are basically moderate. So, are you saying we need some extreme-left news channels to balance out Fox News?
This is the history of the world man: there's almost never such a thing as "neutral" journalism, even rarer to have anything but extremes, sensationalism, etc..
There have been plenty of those around for quite a while: the BBC, PBS and NPR, New York Times, etc. Of course, nothing can ever be completely neutral, but organizations such as those do have ethical standards and try to investigate and report impartially.
the up-side to having Fox around is that it's one side of the nonsense that gets to criticize the other, and vice versa.
How is that an up-side? Partisan bickering is not what journalism is about. And this is exactly the trap that Fox has set for the media and its consumers - the "Fair and Balanced" nonsense contained in the idea that good reporting is all about finding two opposing extremes.
i DO greatly appreciate the open source community and it's ability to spread the open source love to ALL platforms easily and effectively.
But that's not what's happening here. H.264 is far more widely (and better) supported on multiple platforms than Theora.
if youtube/google DID do this then when you got to their site then it'd most probably announce this in the run up and say "we are moving over to [insert codec here] please go to this link and download and install the appropriate version for your operating system"
Actually, what they will (and actually are with the current HTML5 trial) doing is suggesting users use compatible browsers, such as Safari or Chrome, and that doesn't include Firefox.
It's a better solution, because plug-ins tend to suck, and you're leaving compatibility/security issues to a third party rather than the browser's vendor. It's also much easier for users to understand the concept of a new browser than a "plug-in" or "codec." And users won't have to update the plug-in separately to their browser.
and a similar notice for when a change over happened. it's not like google don't have the resources to carry off such a feat and the open source community, i would imagine would be back it to the hilt.
But Google is backing H.264 and opposing Theora, so that ship has sailed. People are either going to get Chrome or Safari, or IE10 - or use a fork of the Firefox project.
Sure, Firefox is installed on many computers. But how many mobile devices? Also to consider is how many people are going to continue using Firefox if it doesn't support H,264? And those computers with Firefox installed usually have at least one other browser installed, too.
I think he meant one can legally racially discriminate in America. That is true. Governments can't because of equal protection. Businesses can't because of anti-discrimination laws. But you can.
Which is why "freedom from" tends to be a more precise usage. You can say you have "freedom from government discrimination" but saying that you have "freedom of equality" falls down, because in many cases you don't.
"Open, inclusive web" has nothing to do with popularity. H264 will (or already has?) require fees to produce the content and must be licensed from several large companies including M$ and Apple
I was mainly responding to the "inclusive web where everyone can participate with no barriers to entry" part. Theora is a much bigger barrier to entry for most people, and much less inclusive. A hell of a lot of people have computers and devices that are already equipped to play H.264. Very few people have computers and devices equipped to play Theora.
Theora is open to everyone, and requires no money. You can find plenty of open source, freely available editing tools...
But actually getting them and installing them on the plethora of platforms out there is a pretty big barrier compared to just using what you already have, that supports H.264. Do you really think that the majority of web users are going to seek out those tools?
You should really *think* about the words you type rather than parrot what you hear on TV.
That's an ironic statement, given how little thought you have put into your words.
There is a difference between freedom of speech *which grants you the ability to say what you want-it additionally grants speech to the list of freedoms you already enjoy* vs freedom from being murdered *which is just a retards way of defining "security of person"* Freedom is different from security...
I never said anything about security. Do you have reading comprehension problems?
Freedom from government censorship is a silly way of saying "freedom of speech."
They are two different things, but they are both meaningful. "Freedom" has many different shades of meaning. For example: when I am on vacation, I am free from the duties of my job. So, please explain again how "freedom from" is not a valid term.
If you hear anyone ever speak the words "freedom from government censorship" ask them "do you mean free speech, because if you do, just say free speech."
But "free speech" can have meanings other than "freedom from government censorship," so they aren't equivalent.
the point *I* am making is that your verbiage and general use of language is based on parroting nonsensical statements you hear on TV.
That would be a stupid thing to say, because it is not.
The GGGP is explaining that the term "freedom from" is BS. There is no such thing as a negative freedom (a "freedom from"), you cannot take away something and expect a higher degree of freedom.
That's completely nonsensical. Saying "freedom from" is not a "negative freedom" - that's just a made-up term that makes no sense. It's Orwellian doublespeak. We can't be free if we aren't free from certain things, like oppression.
How is saying that one should be "free from tyranny" at odds with saying one should be "have freedom of liberty"? They are just different expressions of a similar sentiment.
Mozilla's only interest is in building an open, inclusive web where everyone can participate with no barriers to entry. H.264 represents the direct antithesis of this goal.
But H.264 has much wider support than Theora. So, isn't Mozilla's blocking of H.264 in favor of Theora the antithesis of this goal?
If those are equivalent, then how is execution by the State legal? Murder is illegal, but you can be sentenced to death by electric chair or lethal injection, so you don't really have freedom of life, do you? You're not even allowed to legally kill your own self.
Freedom from discrimination = Freedom of Liberty
But you're not at liberty to murder someone, so how do you have freedom of liberty?
Freedom from government censorship = Freedom of Free Speech
But you don't have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, so how do you have freedom of speech?
If Apple has banned Flash, then why can I still use it on my Mac? And how is Adobe still able to sell it?
It's no longer Apples product once I bought it, it's mine.
Absolutely. Go nuts. Do whatever the fuck you want with it. Jailbreak it, hack it, smash it into pieces. That doesn't mean Apple is obligated to provide you with Flash.
No. Freedom from murder isn't freedom, nor is freedom from discrimination, or freedom from government censorship.
Why not? How about freedom from slavery? I think there are quite a few million people who would agree that their freedom from slavery is an actual freedom.
(not to mention incorrect... you can still be murdered or discriminated or censored).
This is a nonsensical argument. You have the right to liberty, freedom of speech, etc. That doesn't mean those rights can't be infringed. Are you saying that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are meaningless because it is physically possible to violate those laws? You're completely missing the point.
I think the intended contrast was between entrusting your documents to large corporations or entrusting your documents to your own solution (developed in-house or purchased) that runs on equipment you administer and fully control.
Realistically, how many companies do that? Most companies use Microsoft Office, which they don't fully control. And most companies use outsourced servers, services, pretty much everything. A company that rolls all of its own technology is basically wasting resources.
Quite possibly. The cinemas scan my iPhone when I download the PDF tickets one is supposed to print out. They can always manually enter the numbers if the scan fails. Why would they print the numbers if there wasn't a chance of the scanner failing?
"Freedom from censorship" is "freedom of expression".
And it's also freedom from censorship.
"Freedom from discrimination" is "equal rights under the law".
And it's also freedom from discrimination.
"Freedom from murder" - well, again, since you presumably have a right to life and liberty, yes, murdering you abridges that right. But it's not a "freedom from".
How is it not a freedom from murder?
Rights are better stated in the affirmative.
Why?
If you talk about all the things you should be protected against (since that's somewhat limitless), it's difficult to enumerate all of them.
It's equally as difficult to enumerate all the things one should have the freedom to do.
Stating an affirmative right ("freedom of expression" or "freedom of religion") makes it clear that there are few, if any exceptions, unless it tramples on someone else's affirmatively stated rights.
Not really. Take "freedom of religion" as an example. That phrasing doesn't make it clear that one should also be free to be without religion. It could be interpreted to mean that religion is free to do whatever it pleases.
I think that in and of itself is sufficient reason to not use a cloud solution.
What's your reasoning behind this? Entrusting your documents to large corporations basically is business. Do you think you'll get better results with a small business or something?
Negative freedoms: the biggest load of BS to infect pop sociology in the last century. When someone claims to offer or desire "freedom from" anything, run for the hills,
Freedom from murder isn't a freedom? Freedom from discrimination isn't a freedom? Freedom from government censorship? These are established legal freedoms and human rights. Where do you get this nonsense from?
Look at Steve Jobs own policies. After all wasn't everyone happy with web apps? Wasn't web 2.0 and AJAX good enough? Oh and what about multi-tasking, copy-and-paste all things that Jobs had said no one needed but eventually it came.
Sorry, you're just full of shit. Jobs never said these things were not needed, and he did not say they would never come to the phone. Native apps were planned from the beginning. It just wasn't ready in time for the release of the original iPhone. You certainly have a masterly way of totally misunderstanding statements. I'm inclined to think it's deliberate, though, given your trollish ways. If it's not deliberate, it's either comprehension failure, or sourcing your info from tainted sources. You know what they say, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
While I dislike Gates with a passion, he did create a platform that is remarkably open.
But the Mac OS is just as open as Windows. And Windows Phone 7 is just as closed as the iPhone. So, where's the difference?
Tell me, would you tolerate the sugar company banning you from eating their sugar raw? No? Then explain why you tolerate Apple banning flash
The problem is that you're talking about two radically different things. Apple has not banned Flash, they are just not providing it on their mobile devices. Adobe is still free to offer it on whatever other platforms will allow them to. In your analogy, I guess it's the difference between the sugar company passing a law to prevent you eating sugar, versus them not providing you with a spoon to eat their sugar with.
If you are all about freedom, then does Apple not have the freedom to ship whatever software they like on their products? Should they be mandated to package somebody else's software? Why is nobody whining about RealPlayer not being installed on iPhones?
What Tate failed to realize that he was actually arguing with a bot, and Apple decided to start testing their new artificially intelligent overlord outside the lab. He then woke up in the morning with a stolen iPhone prototype in his pocket, and a dead hooker in his bed.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading the "dots" wouldn't help you in seeing the image data stored on a laserdisc: It's not a binary format.
Doesn't that make it a lot easier to decode, then?
I understand hat "fair and balanced" does not mean "opposing extremes", but I was pointing-out that if you have one extreme, it's better to have another to call its bluff, and vice versa.
Ok, so what does that mean? Fox News is the only "extreme" news channel. All the others are basically moderate. So, are you saying we need some extreme-left news channels to balance out Fox News?
This is the history of the world man: there's almost never such a thing as "neutral" journalism, even rarer to have anything but extremes, sensationalism, etc..
There have been plenty of those around for quite a while: the BBC, PBS and NPR, New York Times, etc. Of course, nothing can ever be completely neutral, but organizations such as those do have ethical standards and try to investigate and report impartially.
What about it? That' not deployed anywhere yet, and Google is using H.264 for Youtube at the moment.
We simply want facts from wikipedia, nothing more, nothing less.
That's not possible from any source. The creation of "facts" is always a subjective and fraught process.
the up-side to having Fox around is that it's one side of the nonsense that gets to criticize the other, and vice versa.
How is that an up-side? Partisan bickering is not what journalism is about. And this is exactly the trap that Fox has set for the media and its consumers - the "Fair and Balanced" nonsense contained in the idea that good reporting is all about finding two opposing extremes.
i DO greatly appreciate the open source community and it's ability to spread the open source love to ALL platforms easily and effectively.
But that's not what's happening here. H.264 is far more widely (and better) supported on multiple platforms than Theora.
if youtube/google DID do this then when you got to their site then it'd most probably announce this in the run up and say "we are moving over to [insert codec here] please go to this link and download and install the appropriate version for your operating system"
Actually, what they will (and actually are with the current HTML5 trial) doing is suggesting users use compatible browsers, such as Safari or Chrome, and that doesn't include Firefox.
It's a better solution, because plug-ins tend to suck, and you're leaving compatibility/security issues to a third party rather than the browser's vendor. It's also much easier for users to understand the concept of a new browser than a "plug-in" or "codec." And users won't have to update the plug-in separately to their browser.
and a similar notice for when a change over happened. it's not like google don't have the resources to carry off such a feat and the open source community, i would imagine would be back it to the hilt.
But Google is backing H.264 and opposing Theora, so that ship has sailed. People are either going to get Chrome or Safari, or IE10 - or use a fork of the Firefox project.
Sure, Firefox is installed on many computers. But how many mobile devices? Also to consider is how many people are going to continue using Firefox if it doesn't support H,264? And those computers with Firefox installed usually have at least one other browser installed, too.
I think he meant one can legally racially discriminate in America. That is true. Governments can't because of equal protection. Businesses can't because of anti-discrimination laws. But you can.
Which is why "freedom from" tends to be a more precise usage. You can say you have "freedom from government discrimination" but saying that you have "freedom of equality" falls down, because in many cases you don't.
They would if, for example, none of the videos on YouTube would play until they did.
Doubtful. They'd more likely seek out another site that is compatible with their devices.
"Open, inclusive web" has nothing to do with popularity. H264 will (or already has?) require fees to produce the content and must be licensed from several large companies including M$ and Apple
I was mainly responding to the "inclusive web where everyone can participate with no barriers to entry" part. Theora is a much bigger barrier to entry for most people, and much less inclusive. A hell of a lot of people have computers and devices that are already equipped to play H.264. Very few people have computers and devices equipped to play Theora.
Theora is open to everyone, and requires no money. You can find plenty of open source, freely available editing tools...
But actually getting them and installing them on the plethora of platforms out there is a pretty big barrier compared to just using what you already have, that supports H.264. Do you really think that the majority of web users are going to seek out those tools?
You should really *think* about the words you type rather than parrot what you hear on TV.
That's an ironic statement, given how little thought you have put into your words.
There is a difference between freedom of speech *which grants you the ability to say what you want-it additionally grants speech to the list of freedoms you already enjoy* vs freedom from being murdered *which is just a retards way of defining "security of person"* Freedom is different from security...
I never said anything about security. Do you have reading comprehension problems?
Freedom from government censorship is a silly way of saying "freedom of speech."
They are two different things, but they are both meaningful. "Freedom" has many different shades of meaning. For example: when I am on vacation, I am free from the duties of my job. So, please explain again how "freedom from" is not a valid term.
If you hear anyone ever speak the words "freedom from government censorship" ask them "do you mean free speech, because if you do, just say free speech."
But "free speech" can have meanings other than "freedom from government censorship," so they aren't equivalent.
the point *I* am making is that your verbiage and general use of language is based on parroting nonsensical statements you hear on TV.
That would be a stupid thing to say, because it is not.
The GGGP is explaining that the term "freedom from" is BS. There is no such thing as a negative freedom (a "freedom from"), you cannot take away something and expect a higher degree of freedom.
That's completely nonsensical. Saying "freedom from" is not a "negative freedom" - that's just a made-up term that makes no sense. It's Orwellian doublespeak. We can't be free if we aren't free from certain things, like oppression.
How is saying that one should be "free from tyranny" at odds with saying one should be "have freedom of liberty"? They are just different expressions of a similar sentiment.
Mozilla's only interest is in building an open, inclusive web where everyone can participate with no barriers to entry. H.264 represents the direct antithesis of this goal.
But H.264 has much wider support than Theora. So, isn't Mozilla's blocking of H.264 in favor of Theora the antithesis of this goal?
Freedom from murder = Freedom of Life
If those are equivalent, then how is execution by the State legal? Murder is illegal, but you can be sentenced to death by electric chair or lethal injection, so you don't really have freedom of life, do you? You're not even allowed to legally kill your own self.
Freedom from discrimination = Freedom of Liberty
But you're not at liberty to murder someone, so how do you have freedom of liberty?
Freedom from government censorship = Freedom of Free Speech
But you don't have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, so how do you have freedom of speech?
Apple has banned Flash.
If Apple has banned Flash, then why can I still use it on my Mac? And how is Adobe still able to sell it?
It's no longer Apples product once I bought it, it's mine.
Absolutely. Go nuts. Do whatever the fuck you want with it. Jailbreak it, hack it, smash it into pieces. That doesn't mean Apple is obligated to provide you with Flash.
No. Freedom from murder isn't freedom, nor is freedom from discrimination, or freedom from government censorship.
Why not? How about freedom from slavery? I think there are quite a few million people who would agree that their freedom from slavery is an actual freedom.
(not to mention incorrect... you can still be murdered or discriminated or censored).
This is a nonsensical argument. You have the right to liberty, freedom of speech, etc. That doesn't mean those rights can't be infringed. Are you saying that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are meaningless because it is physically possible to violate those laws? You're completely missing the point.
I think the intended contrast was between entrusting your documents to large corporations or entrusting your documents to your own solution (developed in-house or purchased) that runs on equipment you administer and fully control.
Realistically, how many companies do that? Most companies use Microsoft Office, which they don't fully control. And most companies use outsourced servers, services, pretty much everything. A company that rolls all of its own technology is basically wasting resources.
Quite possibly. The cinemas scan my iPhone when I download the PDF tickets one is supposed to print out. They can always manually enter the numbers if the scan fails. Why would they print the numbers if there wasn't a chance of the scanner failing?
"Freedom from censorship" is "freedom of expression".
And it's also freedom from censorship.
"Freedom from discrimination" is "equal rights under the law".
And it's also freedom from discrimination.
"Freedom from murder" - well, again, since you presumably have a right to life and liberty, yes, murdering you abridges that right. But it's not a "freedom from".
How is it not a freedom from murder?
Rights are better stated in the affirmative.
Why?
If you talk about all the things you should be protected against (since that's somewhat limitless), it's difficult to enumerate all of them.
It's equally as difficult to enumerate all the things one should have the freedom to do.
Stating an affirmative right ("freedom of expression" or "freedom of religion") makes it clear that there are few, if any exceptions, unless it tramples on someone else's affirmatively stated rights.
Not really. Take "freedom of religion" as an example. That phrasing doesn't make it clear that one should also be free to be without religion. It could be interpreted to mean that religion is free to do whatever it pleases.
I think that in and of itself is sufficient reason to not use a cloud solution.
What's your reasoning behind this? Entrusting your documents to large corporations basically is business. Do you think you'll get better results with a small business or something?
Negative freedoms: the biggest load of BS to infect pop sociology in the last century. When someone claims to offer or desire "freedom from" anything, run for the hills,
Freedom from murder isn't a freedom? Freedom from discrimination isn't a freedom? Freedom from government censorship? These are established legal freedoms and human rights. Where do you get this nonsense from?
Look at Steve Jobs own policies. After all wasn't everyone happy with web apps? Wasn't web 2.0 and AJAX good enough? Oh and what about multi-tasking, copy-and-paste all things that Jobs had said no one needed but eventually it came.
Sorry, you're just full of shit. Jobs never said these things were not needed, and he did not say they would never come to the phone. Native apps were planned from the beginning. It just wasn't ready in time for the release of the original iPhone. You certainly have a masterly way of totally misunderstanding statements. I'm inclined to think it's deliberate, though, given your trollish ways. If it's not deliberate, it's either comprehension failure, or sourcing your info from tainted sources. You know what they say, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
While I dislike Gates with a passion, he did create a platform that is remarkably open.
But the Mac OS is just as open as Windows. And Windows Phone 7 is just as closed as the iPhone. So, where's the difference?
Tell me, would you tolerate the sugar company banning you from eating their sugar raw? No? Then explain why you tolerate Apple banning flash
The problem is that you're talking about two radically different things. Apple has not banned Flash, they are just not providing it on their mobile devices. Adobe is still free to offer it on whatever other platforms will allow them to. In your analogy, I guess it's the difference between the sugar company passing a law to prevent you eating sugar, versus them not providing you with a spoon to eat their sugar with.
If you are all about freedom, then does Apple not have the freedom to ship whatever software they like on their products? Should they be mandated to package somebody else's software? Why is nobody whining about RealPlayer not being installed on iPhones?
So, the people who still want to print things won't do it from an iPad. What's the big deal there?
How are you going to get the thing to print?
People still print things?
What Tate failed to realize that he was actually arguing with a bot, and Apple decided to start testing their new artificially intelligent overlord outside the lab. He then woke up in the morning with a stolen iPhone prototype in his pocket, and a dead hooker in his bed.