What I am starting to notice is that when I talk about IT, I am talking about programmers, developers.
That's interesting, because the very last thing I would think of when confronted with "IT" is programmers and developers. When I hear "IT" I think of mindless middle-management and bureaucracy. It's such a meaningless term. It could mean anything from an abacus lubricator to a librarian.
Why would a programmer want to be associated with such a term? Programming has much more in common with mathematics and writing. After all, it is the mastery of languages and numbers. It deserves a much higher station than "IT."
I watched one episode of this garbage when it first came out. A few weeks later I accidentally watched a small portion of another episode. Never again.
If you have no sense of humor, why were you watching a comedy? I mean, how can anybody not enjoy the character Moss? Forgettable dialog? Yeah right. "You there, computer man. Fix My Pants." is not forgettable dialog.
But even so -- no laugh-track should be an option, just like "laugh track" should *not* be an option on The Godfather, Schindler's List,
Are you fucking kidding me? That would be absolutely awesome. Especially for Schindler's List. I mean, who would take that movie seriously in the first place?
So, that's either irrelevant, or you've successfully refuted your own argument. I don't remember Samsung being a company that cares about quality software.
Because Apple and Microsoft are pushing patented, unfree "standards" as a way of raising the barrier to entry to the market. You see, in a free market, the price of goods approaches the cost of their production, which means profit margins tend towards the minimum. Both companies seek to avoid this by raising the barrier to entry to exclude competition.
But neither Microsoft or Apple owns H.264, and the cost of licensing is close to zero (and is actually zero in many cases) so this argument makes no sense. How is H.264 a barrier to entering the market?
It'll make lots of sense to your grandchildren when they're serfs mining helium3 on the moon.
For fuck's sake, I want to be a serf mining helium3 on the moon. Now you're saying my grandchildren will get to do that? Fuck that. Now they're never going to inherit my valuable antique Pentium 4.
Speaking of James Cameron and publicity, it's bizarre that the summary mentions him as the director of Avatar and Titanic, but neglects to mention his seminal works; Aliens and Terminator.
I don't see why James Cameron's involvement is necessary. Stereoscopic imaging is pretty simple technology, and it's not like James Cameron invented it. What's so hard about turning a fixed-focal-length stereo camera into one that has zoom lenses? And why would you employ a film director, rather than an optical engineer to do it?
Yes, they do. The higher they raise the barrier to entry of the particular market, the lower the chances of having a new Google leaving them hanging as it happened with the web market.
How would Google "leave them hanging" by releasing a video CODEC as Open Source? Apple and Microsoft could just use that, seeing as it is Open Source.
Not really. That Apple et al own patents over h.264 doesn't mean there's nobody *else* owning patents over it, as so many Microsoft and Apple products have shown these past couple decades.
But being a "patent pool" composed of the major players in the industry means that you'd have to be pretty wealthy or ballsy to go up against them.
Does it matter whose "fault" it is? I was just stating the facts.
Perhaps the people behind MKV should make more of an effort to get it supported on different devices, much as the DivX people have done. It's not like companies aren't supporting MKV out of malicious intent, it's just that there's no compelling reason for them to do so. After all, how often is it used outside of torrents of ripped movies or TV shows?
The amount of profit they make from being part of the licensing pool would amount to a rounding error. Besides, you've got it wrong, Apple and Microsoft pay for those licenses, they don't profit from them.
You put up a website, how are people going to find it? You need to pay for marketing. Meanwhile, millions of people visit the iTunes App Store every day, without any effort from you. There's also the issue of trust - you have to convince people to install a.exe file from some random website, while the App Store is a trusted source.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, people are entitled to their opinions. And I'm also entitled to say that they are wrong, tasteless, or humorless.
What I am starting to notice is that when I talk about IT, I am talking about programmers, developers.
That's interesting, because the very last thing I would think of when confronted with "IT" is programmers and developers. When I hear "IT" I think of mindless middle-management and bureaucracy. It's such a meaningless term. It could mean anything from an abacus lubricator to a librarian.
Why would a programmer want to be associated with such a term? Programming has much more in common with mathematics and writing. After all, it is the mastery of languages and numbers. It deserves a much higher station than "IT."
IT is basic janitorial work.
godwinned.
Is that when God wins? It's not really surprising. He makes the rules, after all.
How could anything possibly be more related to that subject than Aliens?
Terminator might be more closely related, given that it's about robots, and it's robots that will will be going to Mars.
... why not smile and be happy while you're doing what you think is the correct thing?
Especially when it's springtime.
No, real geeks use FriendFace
For a real geek comedy show see, The Big Bang Theory
Are you having a laugh?
I watched one episode of this garbage when it first came out. A few weeks later I accidentally watched a small portion of another episode. Never again.
If you have no sense of humor, why were you watching a comedy? I mean, how can anybody not enjoy the character Moss? Forgettable dialog? Yeah right. "You there, computer man. Fix My Pants." is not forgettable dialog.
But even so -- no laugh-track should be an option, just like "laugh track" should *not* be an option on The Godfather, Schindler's List,
Are you fucking kidding me? That would be absolutely awesome. Especially for Schindler's List. I mean, who would take that movie seriously in the first place?
they have. Samsung apparently supports MKV
So, that's either irrelevant, or you've successfully refuted your own argument. I don't remember Samsung being a company that cares about quality software.
It doesnt matter that they dont own it as long as it raises the cost of entry it will benefit them.
Yes, but it doesn't.
Even a nominal entrance fee is sufficient to exclude free from the party.
Entrance to what, exactly? It's not as if either company is in the business of developing video CODECs.
Anyone can take 3D photos. But you still need a good photographer to bring out the best of a scene.
Well, yes, but I would assume NASA are interested in scientific imaging, not aesthetics or composition.
Because Apple and Microsoft are pushing patented, unfree "standards" as a way of raising the barrier to entry to the market. You see, in a free market, the price of goods approaches the cost of their production, which means profit margins tend towards the minimum. Both companies seek to avoid this by raising the barrier to entry to exclude competition.
But neither Microsoft or Apple owns H.264, and the cost of licensing is close to zero (and is actually zero in many cases) so this argument makes no sense. How is H.264 a barrier to entering the market?
MS and Apple lose their lock-in on the market. Lock-in is very valuable
That makes no sense. Neither MS or Apple has "lock-in" on H.264. Anybody can use it, and neither of them own it.
It'll make lots of sense to your grandchildren when they're serfs mining helium3 on the moon.
For fuck's sake, I want to be a serf mining helium3 on the moon. Now you're saying my grandchildren will get to do that? Fuck that. Now they're never going to inherit my valuable antique Pentium 4.
Speaking of James Cameron and publicity, it's bizarre that the summary mentions him as the director of Avatar and Titanic, but neglects to mention his seminal works; Aliens and Terminator.
I don't see why James Cameron's involvement is necessary. Stereoscopic imaging is pretty simple technology, and it's not like James Cameron invented it. What's so hard about turning a fixed-focal-length stereo camera into one that has zoom lenses? And why would you employ a film director, rather than an optical engineer to do it?
Yes, they do. The higher they raise the barrier to entry of the particular market, the lower the chances of having a new Google leaving them hanging as it happened with the web market.
How would Google "leave them hanging" by releasing a video CODEC as Open Source? Apple and Microsoft could just use that, seeing as it is Open Source.
Not really. That Apple et al own patents over h.264 doesn't mean there's nobody *else* owning patents over it, as so many Microsoft and Apple products have shown these past couple decades.
But being a "patent pool" composed of the major players in the industry means that you'd have to be pretty wealthy or ballsy to go up against them.
Does it matter whose "fault" it is? I was just stating the facts.
Perhaps the people behind MKV should make more of an effort to get it supported on different devices, much as the DivX people have done. It's not like companies aren't supporting MKV out of malicious intent, it's just that there's no compelling reason for them to do so. After all, how often is it used outside of torrents of ripped movies or TV shows?
you have to buy mac osx but on pc there is no fee to put app out for free on your own.
There's also no fee to release an app for Mac OS X, so what's your point?
You do the work on your laptop, then sync it with the cloud. What the fuck is so hard to understand?
The amount of profit they make from being part of the licensing pool would amount to a rounding error. Besides, you've got it wrong, Apple and Microsoft pay for those licenses, they don't profit from them.
You put up a website, how are people going to find it? You need to pay for marketing. Meanwhile, millions of people visit the iTunes App Store every day, without any effort from you. There's also the issue of trust - you have to convince people to install a .exe file from some random website, while the App Store is a trusted source.
everything that's over 2.50 gets rounded up to 2.99 and everything under 2.50 gets rounded down to 1.99
What happens to something that's exactly $2.50?
So... that would make two Richard Stallmans rather than one? Do you think we could get them to debate with one another?