what he did say, and that it you made no attempt to refute, is that it would hurt apple's and microsoft's attempts to push proprietary codecs as standard.
I don't think that Apple and Microsoft have any particular interest in "pushing" H.264 simply because it is proprietary. Rather, it is a CODEC that is widely supported, and in particular has many mobile devices that include hardware decoding support. It also benefits from being pretty clear from a legal perspective with respect to patents. Neither Apple or Microsoft gain anything from it being proprietary.
When each of your sub-chunks involves touching each and every personal computing device on the planet, it's more sensible for Mozilla to draw the line in the sand where they did.
So, H.264 is forbidden, but allowing Flash is perfectly OK? That's a very strange "line in the sand" to draw.
They don't have to. Ever try sharing an MP3 with someone that owns an iPhone without installing iTunes? You can't.
Why not? You can give them the file on any number of media - CD, USB drive, SD card, FTP server, email, "cloud" service, etc. Why do you need to install iTunes?
I have multiple 8GB SD cards loaded up wiith different kinds of music.
That sounds very inefficient and awkward. It's 2010, and you're still using music in a similar way to CDs and vinyl records? You're needlessly tying your music to a physical object in an era where that is totally unnecessary.
I find it puzzling in the extreme that/. , the site that screams bloody murder when MSFT blinks,
I'm not sure what slashdot you're reading, perhaps it is the slashdot of 1998? These days, slashdot screams bloody murder whenever Apple blinks, and yawns whenever Microsoft does anything. Wait, does Microsoft actually do anything these days?
You might find that it is nothing like how it's beeing portrayed.
We are now cruising at a level of two to the power of twenty-five thousand and falling, and we will soon be restoring normality, just as soon as we are sure what is normal, anyway. Thank you.
A guy trying to do good and failing, and a guy doing evil are exactly the same except in intentions.
No, they aren't. That's a stupid thing to say. A guy who tries to feed the homeless and fails (perhaps resulting in a few homeless people dying, who would have died anyway, despite his efforts) is very different to rounding up the homeless and cooking them in ovens to feed the plutocrats.
I don't see any evidence that people under 35 are deterred by the illegality of unauthorized copying of copyrighted material. They are doing it regardless of the legal status. This is like claiming that if heroin became legal, suddenly people would flock to use heroin - i.e unsupported by data or common sense.
Look at the mouse. I can make a lot of complaints about it but have we yet found an input tool to make the mouse completely a thing of the past? No. It's just like we haven't really found a good replacement for the keyboard. People keep trying but I think it's safe to say the computers of the next decade will come with mice and keyboards.
Yet, when the mouse and the GUI was first released to the public, there was much whining from the tech community, with many geeks complaining that it was an inefficient gimmick that would never take off. It was just a toy, a fad. Today geeks are saying "you'll pry my mouse from my cold, dead, hands."
I thought Apple's grudge against Flash was all about free Flash applications competing with it's own commercial apps from the App Store. Want your lame "fart button"? Just browse to www.fartbutton.com and have a field day for *free*;
Well, you'd be wrong. HTML (and particularly HTML5) web applications can basically do everything Flash can do, and Apple has no problem with those.
No Flash, no cool little applications on your Phone for free... your only source for a quick fix is the App Store.
So, how do you explain the fact that most of those App Store apps are free?
ALL of my users complain loudly when things aren't fast and snappy. I would NEVER put any of these people 'on the cloud', considering one lost packet is enough to get them riled up. It's bad enough that they will complain about new emails not coming in....it would be worse if they can't get to ANY of them when their connection is down.
You obviously don't understand "the cloud." You have copies of the data locally on your laptop or device. You can work offline fine, it doesn't need an internet connection to work. It just synchronizes with the online data when it does have an internet connection.
It's hard to believe that you actually "have users" when you don't understand such basic concepts. Good luck keeping that job!
No sane business is going to trust all of their valuable IP with a 3rd party,
I dunno, the vast majority of companies out there are way less competent when it comes to data security than Google and Apple. They'd probably get much better security with the 3rd party experts than their in-house IT staff.
But because it is a product that your poor uncool friends can't afford, whilst you can, makes the purchase even better.
Who the fuck can't afford a Mac? Depending on the vintage, even a homeless person might obtain one for free from a dumpster. Perfectly usable modern Macs are available on eBay for $100 - $200. People don't buy Macs because they're "exclusive." We're not exactly talking Chanel or Louie Vitton here.
It makes perfect sense if you've ever in your entire life loaded film into a normal 35mm SLR.
In my photography career, I've loaded thousands of rolls of 35mm film, and this still doesn't make sense for digital cameras.
You open the back of the camera by rotating it about 180 degrees. At this point, the naked sensor will be facing you, not the lens, and can be cleaned.
Yeah, so? I can already access the front of sensor through the lens mount. Having some rotating sensor mounted on a hinge only introduces play into the sensor position, potentially reducing accuracy of focus. Having it firmly fixed in position makes a lot more sense.
The "self-cleaning" doo-dads you refer to seem to only vibrate the sensor, shaking off anything with poor adhesion. It might be a temporary improvement with some types of funk, but not all.
That's why you have your cameras professionally serviced every 6-12 months.
I don't understand where you were going with your last paragraph, but I can only guess that you're an engineer of the sort that cannot tolerate the existence of any extra parts or functionality unless you, yourself, both understand them and find them useful.
No, I've been a photographer for at least 20 years, and don't see how it makes sense with modern technology. I think you're just being nostalgic. Why should these extra parts exist, when they are at best unnecessary, and at worst, counterproductive?
I simply don't get this whole "reading on the can" thing. Do you people have some kind of bowel problem that causes you to take an inordinate amount of time to shit?
Getting a program to version 0.01 or 0.09 might be worth a spare-time development effort. But without some other sort of motivation, the developer may not feel like taking it to 1.0.
So, basically the idea is that people who start worthwhile software projects and have new ideas don't deserve compensation, but the hangers-on who exploit those visions, do deserve to be paid? Sounds somewhat similar to the business model of those RIAA and MPAA middle-men.
Slashdot Mirror
what he did say, and that it you made no attempt to refute, is that it would hurt apple's and microsoft's attempts to push proprietary codecs as standard.
I don't think that Apple and Microsoft have any particular interest in "pushing" H.264 simply because it is proprietary. Rather, it is a CODEC that is widely supported, and in particular has many mobile devices that include hardware decoding support. It also benefits from being pretty clear from a legal perspective with respect to patents. Neither Apple or Microsoft gain anything from it being proprietary.
Granted MKV is just a container... it is still a far better container.
... that doesn't work with most devices or software on the market.
When each of your sub-chunks involves touching each and every personal computing device on the planet, it's more sensible for Mozilla to draw the line in the sand where they did.
So, H.264 is forbidden, but allowing Flash is perfectly OK? That's a very strange "line in the sand" to draw.
They don't have to. Ever try sharing an MP3 with someone that owns an iPhone without installing iTunes? You can't.
Why not? You can give them the file on any number of media - CD, USB drive, SD card, FTP server, email, "cloud" service, etc. Why do you need to install iTunes?
I have multiple 8GB SD cards loaded up wiith different kinds of music.
That sounds very inefficient and awkward. It's 2010, and you're still using music in a similar way to CDs and vinyl records? You're needlessly tying your music to a physical object in an era where that is totally unnecessary.
I find it puzzling in the extreme that /. , the site that screams bloody murder when MSFT blinks,
I'm not sure what slashdot you're reading, perhaps it is the slashdot of 1998? These days, slashdot screams bloody murder whenever Apple blinks, and yawns whenever Microsoft does anything. Wait, does Microsoft actually do anything these days?
You might find that it is nothing like how it's beeing portrayed.
We are now cruising at a level of two to the power of twenty-five thousand and falling, and we will soon be restoring normality, just as soon as we are sure what is normal, anyway. Thank you.
Its the reason I check CNN, Fox, and NBC for mainstream news rather than just one of them.
There's your problem. Why are you watching TV news at all? Are you too lazy to read?
A guy trying to do good and failing, and a guy doing evil are exactly the same except in intentions.
No, they aren't. That's a stupid thing to say. A guy who tries to feed the homeless and fails (perhaps resulting in a few homeless people dying, who would have died anyway, despite his efforts) is very different to rounding up the homeless and cooking them in ovens to feed the plutocrats.
Were it legal, that number would skyrocket.
I don't see any evidence that people under 35 are deterred by the illegality of unauthorized copying of copyrighted material. They are doing it regardless of the legal status. This is like claiming that if heroin became legal, suddenly people would flock to use heroin - i.e unsupported by data or common sense.
Look at the mouse. I can make a lot of complaints about it but have we yet found an input tool to make the mouse completely a thing of the past? No. It's just like we haven't really found a good replacement for the keyboard. People keep trying but I think it's safe to say the computers of the next decade will come with mice and keyboards.
Yet, when the mouse and the GUI was first released to the public, there was much whining from the tech community, with many geeks complaining that it was an inefficient gimmick that would never take off. It was just a toy, a fad. Today geeks are saying "you'll pry my mouse from my cold, dead, hands."
Many people still don't feel like having a "cloud" service in the Internet hold the only copy of my documents.
Why would you have your only copy in "the cloud"?
devs have to pay fees to make free apps! the pc is not like that!
Windows is free of charge now? That's news to me. Also, all developer's tools for Windows are now free, too?
I thought Apple's grudge against Flash was all about free Flash applications competing with it's own commercial apps from the App Store. Want your lame "fart button"? Just browse to www.fartbutton.com and have a field day for *free*;
Well, you'd be wrong. HTML (and particularly HTML5) web applications can basically do everything Flash can do, and Apple has no problem with those.
No Flash, no cool little applications on your Phone for free... your only source for a quick fix is the App Store.
So, how do you explain the fact that most of those App Store apps are free?
ALL of my users complain loudly when things aren't fast and snappy. I would NEVER put any of these people 'on the cloud', considering one lost packet is enough to get them riled up. It's bad enough that they will complain about new emails not coming in....it would be worse if they can't get to ANY of them when their connection is down.
You obviously don't understand "the cloud." You have copies of the data locally on your laptop or device. You can work offline fine, it doesn't need an internet connection to work. It just synchronizes with the online data when it does have an internet connection.
It's hard to believe that you actually "have users" when you don't understand such basic concepts. Good luck keeping that job!
When you go to work in an office, you won't be using a Dell
Well, that much is true.
No sane business is going to trust all of their valuable IP with a 3rd party,
I dunno, the vast majority of companies out there are way less competent when it comes to data security than Google and Apple. They'd probably get much better security with the 3rd party experts than their in-house IT staff.
But because it is a product that your poor uncool friends can't afford, whilst you can, makes the purchase even better.
Who the fuck can't afford a Mac? Depending on the vintage, even a homeless person might obtain one for free from a dumpster. Perfectly usable modern Macs are available on eBay for $100 - $200. People don't buy Macs because they're "exclusive." We're not exactly talking Chanel or Louie Vitton here.
which will inevitably contain a metric assload of extras.
But what if my ass isn't metric?
"A Frenchman who police say hacked Twitter accounts belonging to US President Barack Obama and celebrities could face jail."
That seems somewhat redundant. Shouldn't all Frenchmen be in jail, regardless of whatever hacking they've done?
It makes perfect sense if you've ever in your entire life loaded film into a normal 35mm SLR.
In my photography career, I've loaded thousands of rolls of 35mm film, and this still doesn't make sense for digital cameras.
You open the back of the camera by rotating it about 180 degrees. At this point, the naked sensor will be facing you, not the lens, and can be cleaned.
Yeah, so? I can already access the front of sensor through the lens mount. Having some rotating sensor mounted on a hinge only introduces play into the sensor position, potentially reducing accuracy of focus. Having it firmly fixed in position makes a lot more sense.
The "self-cleaning" doo-dads you refer to seem to only vibrate the sensor, shaking off anything with poor adhesion. It might be a temporary improvement with some types of funk, but not all.
That's why you have your cameras professionally serviced every 6-12 months.
I don't understand where you were going with your last paragraph, but I can only guess that you're an engineer of the sort that cannot tolerate the existence of any extra parts or functionality unless you, yourself, both understand them and find them useful.
No, I've been a photographer for at least 20 years, and don't see how it makes sense with modern technology. I think you're just being nostalgic. Why should these extra parts exist, when they are at best unnecessary, and at worst, counterproductive?
I simply don't get this whole "reading on the can" thing. Do you people have some kind of bowel problem that causes you to take an inordinate amount of time to shit?
Umm... geeks spend a hell of a lot money on computer hardware
Why would a carny who bites the heads off chickens for a living need computer hardware?
That the world is round has been known since antiquity.
But the world is not round. It's a spheroid.
Getting a program to version 0.01 or 0.09 might be worth a spare-time development effort. But without some other sort of motivation, the developer may not feel like taking it to 1.0.
So, basically the idea is that people who start worthwhile software projects and have new ideas don't deserve compensation, but the hangers-on who exploit those visions, do deserve to be paid? Sounds somewhat similar to the business model of those RIAA and MPAA middle-men.