Politicians supporting scientists? That doesn't happen very much. Once again, you're speaking out of your ass. Why did you write that the scientists were saying that, when you admit that it is not true?
All I want to see is a very PUBLIC top to bottom review of all the data and the science,
That's what scientists fucking do. If you knew anything about science or academia, you'd know that it is a very public process, where everybody is constantly scrutinizing everybody else's data and methods. You seem to have gotten it into your head that there is some shady conspiracy going on, where there simply isn't.
Scientists: "OMFG the sky is falling!
Scientists:Turn over power and ALOT of money to the government (not just your government but to the UN) to fix everything"
But that's not what the scientists are saying, so your premise is flawed from the outset.
The scientists and academics allowed themselves to become political;
What does that even mean? All science has political implications. That doesn't mean the researchers are doing it for politics, and it certainly doesn't warrant government harassment of scientists. There had better be a damn good reason and some solid evidence of malfeasance before such "probing" is initiated.
The difference is that Mozilla can't legally include h.264 support
Why not?
t, but they can and do legally implement support for third party plug-ins.
So, why won't they allow third-party plug-ins for H.264 via the HTML5 video tag, but they will allow the Flash plug-in?
Apple's HTML5 implementation is non-free only, which is dangerous to the free world
Dangerous to the free world? That's about the worst hyperbole I've ever heard. What, people's human rights and democracy will be taken away if a browser supports a non-FOSS CODEC? Again, why is H.264 such a dangerous threat, but Flash is not? How about GIF?
I think that should be obvious - Mozilla has literally no way of offering H.264 without illegally implementing patented code.
Why would they have to implement H.264 itself, rather than allow the user to add it via a plug-in, just as with Flash?
Besides, your statement is not true - what's to stop Mozilla licensing H.264 just like everybody else does?
Not support so much as allow;
Yet this is what Mozilla is saying - they won't allow H.264 support via the HTML5 video tag. So, if you're upset about Apple not allowing Flash on the iPhone, it would be hypocritical to also not be upset at Mozilla for not allowing H.264 in Firefox.
Apple bluntly tells us what we can run. Microsoft "only" wants to tell us what we can't run.
But that's not true for mobile platforms. Microsoft is implementing the exact same level of control with the Zune and Windows Phone 7. Compare apples to apples.
Microsoft is restricted both by custom and the threat of government retribution from using the kind of strongarm tactics that Apple is getting away with in the market where it is most dominant, mobile "app" sales.
This comparison is specious. Microsoft positioned itself as the default OS and software for a whole industry, to be implemented on third-party hardware. Microsoft abused this position by forcing those third-parties to only support their software, and no others. This was but one of their anti-trust abuses.
Apple, on the other hand, make their own hardware and software ecosystem. They don't manipulate third parties to do anything, or prevent them from making products on other platforms.
Your idea that Microsoft is "restricted" is absurd. Yes, they had some impotent lawsuits leveled against them, but they certainly weren't holding back on abusing their monopoly in the 1990s. And what about gaming systems? The Xbox is more dominant in gaming consoles than Apple is in mobile phones, yet you rarely hear anybody decrying the closed Xbox platform.
since the webbrowser is what the user interacts with directly. If the webbrowser so choses, it can limit access to this "free web."
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? My web browser deliberately limits access to ads, and I like this. That doesn't make the web any less "free."
Do you really not understand this simple concept? The web is a different entity to the client software that accesses it. Different web browsers have different features and different restrictions. This is completely tangential to whether the web itself is "free."
Are you saying the web would be more free if my web browser forced me to watch ads that I don't want to watch?
If you own a Windows computer, you are free to write, use, sell or give away applications with zero involvement from Microsoft other than your initial purchase.
And, if you own a Mac, you are free to write, sell or give away applications with zero involvement from Apple.
If you own an iPod/iPad/iPhone, you are required to interact with Apple to do any of those things.
And if you own a Zune/Kin/Windows 7 Phone you are required to interact with Microsoft to do any of those things.
So, what's the difference that makes Microsoft more free?
Incorrect. The users have the option of changing the code themselves and buying whatever personal licence they need to use the H.264. Thats the point!
That's a pretty pathetic point. Mozilla says that they don't want you to use H.264, so the solution is to code it yourself, and buy a license? Not exactly user-friendly.
I don't really give a fuck what it's called anymore. I never liked "IT" in the first place, it was always a meaningless bullshit term. "Information Technology" could mean a pencil, for fuck's sake. An IT worker could be someone who operates a pencil sharpener. And it's only gotten worse since they tried to think up more "clever" initialisms.
2. isnt all janitor work basic.
Perhaps, but some clogged toilets could get pretty complicated pretty quickly.
3. IT is really more like HR for technology, TR more like it.
I might have some witty response if I knew what "TR" meant, other than "table row" or "Total Recall."
Users don't have the choice to get support for Theora video on Apple's iWhatever platform, for instance.
And Mozilla users don't get the option of H.264 on their platform. So, why no outrage at Mozila and Firefox?
o if "the free web" wants to support Apple, "the free web" needs to support the proprietary h.264
And yet Firefox supports the proprietary Flash plugins. Outside of certain sites, the web isn't particularly "free."
If not, either Apple's customers have been denied access to the free web, or free software support of the free web is impossible, which makes the free web remarkably unfree.
Many of Apple's customers are denied access to certain web elements because of the lack of Flash support. But there is full support for the "free" web if your definition of that web is open standards. But video formats are an entirely different kettle of fish. HTML doesn't define video formats, much as it doesn't define image formats. It's a tangential argument.
What I really don't get is why there is so much outrage over H.264, but nobody is complaining about FOSS browsers supporting Flash.
At least Microsoft allows me the freedom to be "tasteless".
But if you choose Microsoft Windows, you are also dependent on Microsoft. How is this any different? How can Microsoft be considered open, when their products are utterly proprietary?
No one should actually buy into the idea that Jobs is some sort of nice-guy-hippie. He just wants people to buy into his brand of vendorlock.
Yet, you believe that Microsoft is somehow about freedom and not vendor lock-in. A very strange belief.
Yes, people just do whatever they are told by corporations. They are all mindless droids who hate freedom, EXCEPT FOR YOU, the true savior of humanity, who is unaffected by marketing, and here to save use all! You're so awesome, you don't even own a TV, or anything made by a faceless corporation, not even a computer.
A free Web needs free software. You cannot have a free Web if your access to the software you use to engage the Web is limited to an arbitrary number of computers, or if you are not allowed to conduct business on the Web using the software, or if you are forbidden from asking someone to develop additional features you need.
The web is a separate entity to the client software that accesses it. If somebody accesses the "free web" with a proprietary client, that doesn't make the web any less free or open. The "free web" is dependent on open standards, not the open source nature of browsers. As long as open source browsers exist, I don't see what the FSF's problem is, users still have a choice.
Well, you said that the lack of support of MKV was because of companies that don't care about quality software. Samsung doesn't care about quality software, yet supports MKV. Meanwhile, there are plenty of other companies that do care about quality software, but don't support MKV. So, your argument doesn't really add up. If anything, Samsung's support for MKV is about making a profit, not caring about quality software.
Slashdot Mirror
Politicians supporting scientists? That doesn't happen very much. Once again, you're speaking out of your ass. Why did you write that the scientists were saying that, when you admit that it is not true?
All I want to see is a very PUBLIC top to bottom review of all the data and the science,
That's what scientists fucking do. If you knew anything about science or academia, you'd know that it is a very public process, where everybody is constantly scrutinizing everybody else's data and methods. You seem to have gotten it into your head that there is some shady conspiracy going on, where there simply isn't.
Scientists: "OMFG the sky is falling!
Scientists:Turn over power and ALOT of money to the government (not just your government but to the UN) to fix everything"
But that's not what the scientists are saying, so your premise is flawed from the outset.
The scientists and academics allowed themselves to become political;
What does that even mean? All science has political implications. That doesn't mean the researchers are doing it for politics, and it certainly doesn't warrant government harassment of scientists. There had better be a damn good reason and some solid evidence of malfeasance before such "probing" is initiated.
Being gay is a behavior,
No it's not. One could "be gay" buy never have sex with another person of the same sex. Just as slashdotters can "be straight" and remain virgins.
They know how to sell hardware, but they have never been really good at selling HP as a brand.
HP has a pretty solid brand reputation in the corporate and engineering spaces. And even a bit in the consumer space when it comes to laser printers.
There is no such problem standing in Apple's way when it comes to supporting Theora, it wouldn't even cost them anything.
Incorrect. Theora may very well be patent encumbered, and it could cost Apple a lawsuit.
The difference is that Mozilla can't legally include h.264 support
Why not?
t, but they can and do legally implement support for third party plug-ins.
So, why won't they allow third-party plug-ins for H.264 via the HTML5 video tag, but they will allow the Flash plug-in?
Apple's HTML5 implementation is non-free only, which is dangerous to the free world
Dangerous to the free world? That's about the worst hyperbole I've ever heard. What, people's human rights and democracy will be taken away if a browser supports a non-FOSS CODEC? Again, why is H.264 such a dangerous threat, but Flash is not? How about GIF?
In Firefox's case, they can't (legally) include it.
Why not? It's not like they would be denied the right to license it.
They have nothing to do with the stupid software patent licensing restrictions that prevent them from offering that option.
How is Mozilla prevented from offering H.264?
I think that should be obvious - Mozilla has literally no way of offering H.264 without illegally implementing patented code.
Why would they have to implement H.264 itself, rather than allow the user to add it via a plug-in, just as with Flash?
Besides, your statement is not true - what's to stop Mozilla licensing H.264 just like everybody else does?
Not support so much as allow;
Yet this is what Mozilla is saying - they won't allow H.264 support via the HTML5 video tag. So, if you're upset about Apple not allowing Flash on the iPhone, it would be hypocritical to also not be upset at Mozilla for not allowing H.264 in Firefox.
Apple bluntly tells us what we can run. Microsoft "only" wants to tell us what we can't run.
But that's not true for mobile platforms. Microsoft is implementing the exact same level of control with the Zune and Windows Phone 7. Compare apples to apples.
Microsoft is restricted both by custom and the threat of government retribution from using the kind of strongarm tactics that Apple is getting away with in the market where it is most dominant, mobile "app" sales.
This comparison is specious. Microsoft positioned itself as the default OS and software for a whole industry, to be implemented on third-party hardware. Microsoft abused this position by forcing those third-parties to only support their software, and no others. This was but one of their anti-trust abuses.
Apple, on the other hand, make their own hardware and software ecosystem. They don't manipulate third parties to do anything, or prevent them from making products on other platforms.
Your idea that Microsoft is "restricted" is absurd. Yes, they had some impotent lawsuits leveled against them, but they certainly weren't holding back on abusing their monopoly in the 1990s. And what about gaming systems? The Xbox is more dominant in gaming consoles than Apple is in mobile phones, yet you rarely hear anybody decrying the closed Xbox platform.
since the webbrowser is what the user interacts with directly. If the webbrowser so choses, it can limit access to this "free web."
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? My web browser deliberately limits access to ads, and I like this. That doesn't make the web any less "free."
Do you really not understand this simple concept? The web is a different entity to the client software that accesses it. Different web browsers have different features and different restrictions. This is completely tangential to whether the web itself is "free."
Are you saying the web would be more free if my web browser forced me to watch ads that I don't want to watch?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Are you?
If you own a Windows computer, you are free to write, use, sell or give away applications with zero involvement from Microsoft other than your initial purchase.
And, if you own a Mac, you are free to write, sell or give away applications with zero involvement from Apple.
If you own an iPod/iPad/iPhone, you are required to interact with Apple to do any of those things.
And if you own a Zune/Kin/Windows 7 Phone you are required to interact with Microsoft to do any of those things.
So, what's the difference that makes Microsoft more free?
Incorrect. The users have the option of changing the code themselves and buying whatever personal licence they need to use the H.264. Thats the point!
That's a pretty pathetic point. Mozilla says that they don't want you to use H.264, so the solution is to code it yourself, and buy a license? Not exactly user-friendly.
I paid $199 for my iPhone and I can't play Facebook games?
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
1. isnt it called ITS now.
I don't really give a fuck what it's called anymore. I never liked "IT" in the first place, it was always a meaningless bullshit term. "Information Technology" could mean a pencil, for fuck's sake. An IT worker could be someone who operates a pencil sharpener. And it's only gotten worse since they tried to think up more "clever" initialisms.
2. isnt all janitor work basic.
Perhaps, but some clogged toilets could get pretty complicated pretty quickly.
3. IT is really more like HR for technology, TR more like it.
I might have some witty response if I knew what "TR" meant, other than "table row" or "Total Recall."
Users don't have the choice to get support for Theora video on Apple's iWhatever platform, for instance.
And Mozilla users don't get the option of H.264 on their platform. So, why no outrage at Mozila and Firefox?
o if "the free web" wants to support Apple, "the free web" needs to support the proprietary h.264
And yet Firefox supports the proprietary Flash plugins. Outside of certain sites, the web isn't particularly "free."
If not, either Apple's customers have been denied access to the free web, or free software support of the free web is impossible, which makes the free web remarkably unfree.
Many of Apple's customers are denied access to certain web elements because of the lack of Flash support. But there is full support for the "free" web if your definition of that web is open standards. But video formats are an entirely different kettle of fish. HTML doesn't define video formats, much as it doesn't define image formats. It's a tangential argument.
What I really don't get is why there is so much outrage over H.264, but nobody is complaining about FOSS browsers supporting Flash.
At least Microsoft allows me the freedom to be "tasteless".
But if you choose Microsoft Windows, you are also dependent on Microsoft. How is this any different? How can Microsoft be considered open, when their products are utterly proprietary?
No one should actually buy into the idea that Jobs is some sort of nice-guy-hippie. He just wants people to buy into his brand of vendorlock.
Yet, you believe that Microsoft is somehow about freedom and not vendor lock-in. A very strange belief.
Yes, people just do whatever they are told by corporations. They are all mindless droids who hate freedom, EXCEPT FOR YOU, the true savior of humanity, who is unaffected by marketing, and here to save use all! You're so awesome, you don't even own a TV, or anything made by a faceless corporation, not even a computer.
For example:
A free Web needs free software. You cannot have a free Web if your access to the software you use to engage the Web is limited to an arbitrary number of computers, or if you are not allowed to conduct business on the Web using the software, or if you are forbidden from asking someone to develop additional features you need.
The web is a separate entity to the client software that accesses it. If somebody accesses the "free web" with a proprietary client, that doesn't make the web any less free or open. The "free web" is dependent on open standards, not the open source nature of browsers. As long as open source browsers exist, I don't see what the FSF's problem is, users still have a choice.
"global superintelligence known as the cloud."
What, you haven't joined SkyNet yet? Get with the times, man
It's the authors use of phrases like "good data set", "objective analysis", and "the data had delivered a verdict" that anger me.
If that's enough to anger you, may I suggest laying off the coffee?
I make it a point to disseminate misinformation about me.
That's interesting. Generally, I just try to seminate as much as possible.
Well, you said that the lack of support of MKV was because of companies that don't care about quality software. Samsung doesn't care about quality software, yet supports MKV. Meanwhile, there are plenty of other companies that do care about quality software, but don't support MKV. So, your argument doesn't really add up. If anything, Samsung's support for MKV is about making a profit, not caring about quality software.