When I was in school, we used to call these kids "poor, tired, undisciplined, and pissed off." Now they have this fancy "ADHD" term for it. Good thing they can medicate them into a stupor now. God forbid their parents have to take time out from the meth cook to do any parenting at all. At least the TV can still parent them a little.
Nowhere. But right now it's the most widely adopted and implemented (pretty much everyone but Firefox either does or is planning to support it). Until there is an alternative that all the major browsers support, Firefox is going to continue to lag behind. WebM is promising. But without MS onboard, it's going nowhere.
Look, I *love* Firefox. I use it pretty much exclusively myself. Nothing can touch add-ons like NoScript, AdBlock, etc. (and most of my add-ons and their associated functionality can't be found on Chrome, Opera, etc.). But if they think that Google, who provides about 85% of Mozilla's total revenue, is going to sit back and let them take the technical lead over Chrome, they're nuts. And speed has always been one of Chrome's few positive qualities over Firefox.
Not only that, but Mozilla can't afford to license h264. And that already puts them behind on HTML5. I am hoping that either html5 never catches on, the other browsers all agree to an open format (like WebM), or there is some kind of flash-player type add-on made for Firefox to support h264. But without one of those, Firefox is (sadly) already in a rough spot for the next gen.
And I say all that as someone who hates the idea of giving up my Firefox and having to get my browser from an increasingly-evil Google, an already evil Microsoft, or a closed-off Opera. If I wanted evil and closed, I would have bought an iPad, not a netbook.
"6. HTML 5 still has video codec patent issues to work out."
No, it doesn't. This is just plain FUD.
Well, in that case, I'm sure you wouldn't mind telling us name of this mythic codec that's supported by all the major browsers in their html5 implementations. No, really, we're all anxiously waiting...
With Apple fanboys, it's so hard to tell. I think this is likely a joke, but then I've heard Apple friends say stuff like that and be dead serious about it.
God, I hope your post is being sarcastic. You talk about all the Apple products you buy, even ones that you haven't figured out a use for or that you only buy as status symbols, and then turn around and call MS people stupid sheep? Surely you can't be for real.
I don't buy that for a second. The number one rule of editing is to make it NON-DESTRUCTIVE. There is no way any professional editor (or restoration specialist) would have destroyed the original master print as part of the "restoration" process. It would have done grave damage to their professional cred. And those guys take their professional credentials pretty seriously. There is no conceivable reason they even would have needed to destroy it. The first step in any resotration process would have been to digitally copy it (likely frame by frame). And even the restored copy would have been saved (since all the editing at that point would have been digital NLE).
Lucas is just being self-serving. He thinks the "special editions" are better than the originals and is surrounded by kiss-asses who don't dare disagree. So he pretends that these ARE the originals (even demanding that documentaries license the new footage as if it were the original, I've noticed). I just wish 1977 George Lucas were here to kick the shit out of him.
No way Steve Jobs has 7-inches
on
7-Inch iPad Rumored
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
If this is true, though, I predict millions of Apple fans will rush out and buy one before they even know what exactly they'll use it for or what purpose it is actually intended to serve. And anyone who questions the wisdom of this will be immediately dismissed as a "Microsoft conformist" who doesn't understand how Steve is creating a beautiful closed ecosystem that will save us all from the oppression of more open platforms.
It's the same kind of ridiculous turns of character they do in a lot of movies. Harvey Dent in the recent "Dark Knight" was another one of those: "I saw my beloved girlfriend murdered, so not only will I not shoot the super-villain who killed her when I get the chance, but I'll also become a super-villain myself, and IMMEDIATELY too!" The scripts of these kinds of movies have all the subtlety and thoughtfulness of a runaway freight train.
We didn't think of them as much a danger either; until they knocked down our World Trade Center, destroyed a large section of out Pentagon, took down 4 airliners, and killed 3,000 of our people--all in the course of about 2 hours. Religious fanatics are always dangerous to the secularized West. Hell, they're always dangerous *in* the secularized West.
Back in the day, most of us had dialup and had any number of ISP's to choose from. There was no need for such regulation because there was so much competition. Now, most of us have broadband and that means one or two big telco's to choose from. I have exactly one broadband ISP to choose from myself (Comcast) if I want to go over over 3mbps, and a grand total of one more to choose from at 3mbps and lower (AT&T). Now, if the government doesn't stop them, and both Comcast and Verizon decide to create their own segregated internets, where exactly can I go? Nowhere. Back in the day, AOL did this, but there were plenty of other ISP's to go to. Now they're aren't. And there likely never will be because only the cablco's and telco's own the cables. And there isn't enough bandwidth in wireless to ever make it an equal competitor. So, without the government, I will forever be AT&T and Comcast's bitch--with nowhere else to turn if I don't like it.
Is suspect the *real* reason isn't known (and maybe never will be). The board obviously wanted him gone, and not just because of some silly harassment suit that could have been easily handled. The evidence pointed to a mutual relationship, and that would have made it easy to fight and cheap to pay off (if they had been inclined). The sexual harassment thing was likely just a convenient pretense for a board that had been wanting to let him go for whatever other reason(s) for some time.
There is a big difference between demanding equal rights and demanding that everyone who isn't blind or deaf dumb their webpages down to the lowest common denominator because you have a shitty browser and/or a shitty reader. The more they push these laws, the more they go beyond simple things like "Include alt tags for images" or even "Include closed captioning for videos" and the more they get into "Make this page text-only and very plain, or ELSE!" Equal in the sense of Harrison Bergeron, isn't being equal, it's just oppressing another group (i.e., those who CAN see and hear).
Doom 3's problem wasn't its lighting. The problem was that it was a linear hall-runner with every hostile encounter completely scripted with obvious triggers, made in an age of games like Half-Life 2, Halo, etc. Going from playing games with wide-open spaces and multiple ways to approach a problem to Doom 3 felt like a step back in time (and not in a good way).
Actually, their directory was very useful in the early days of the web. Back then, search algorithms sucked and their was nothing like Google around. You could go over to Alta Vista and type in "Independent Film" and get a bunch of sites back about independent contractors, film stock, etc. Yahoo was the only reliable way to consistently find good topic-oriented sites. So they WERE quite valuable in those early days, and could have (and, to some extent, did) make a lot of advertising money. The problem was that Google came along with its much improved searches, and Google's infrastructure wasn't nearly as labor-intensive as a human-edited web directory.
No, that's the Cardassians. Here's how you can tell the difference: One is evil, manipulative, hideous-looking, and vicious--the other fought a war against the Federation.
Not taking a $33/share buyout from MS, with Google snapping at your heals? But hey, you got to thumb your nose at the evil MS, right? Of course, it was at your shareholder's and company's expense.
Likely, he's too high profile and too obvious to kill. The CIA traditionally doesn't "assassinate" usually anyway (in the sense of a sniper with a rifle). Usually their targets have unfortunate accidents, like plane crashes (as they did with annoying leaders like Omar Torrijos and Jaime Aguilera). In this guy's case, it would probably be better to either discredit him somehow (i.e. something somewhat less crude than the Scientology-esque "He's a child molester, says ex-wife!" but along the same lines) or to subtly threaten someone or something he cares about.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was in school, we used to call these kids "poor, tired, undisciplined, and pissed off." Now they have this fancy "ADHD" term for it. Good thing they can medicate them into a stupor now. God forbid their parents have to take time out from the meth cook to do any parenting at all. At least the TV can still parent them a little.
Nowhere. But right now it's the most widely adopted and implemented (pretty much everyone but Firefox either does or is planning to support it). Until there is an alternative that all the major browsers support, Firefox is going to continue to lag behind. WebM is promising. But without MS onboard, it's going nowhere.
Look, I *love* Firefox. I use it pretty much exclusively myself. Nothing can touch add-ons like NoScript, AdBlock, etc. (and most of my add-ons and their associated functionality can't be found on Chrome, Opera, etc.). But if they think that Google, who provides about 85% of Mozilla's total revenue, is going to sit back and let them take the technical lead over Chrome, they're nuts. And speed has always been one of Chrome's few positive qualities over Firefox.
Not only that, but Mozilla can't afford to license h264. And that already puts them behind on HTML5. I am hoping that either html5 never catches on, the other browsers all agree to an open format (like WebM), or there is some kind of flash-player type add-on made for Firefox to support h264. But without one of those, Firefox is (sadly) already in a rough spot for the next gen.
And I say all that as someone who hates the idea of giving up my Firefox and having to get my browser from an increasingly-evil Google, an already evil Microsoft, or a closed-off Opera. If I wanted evil and closed, I would have bought an iPad, not a netbook.
You mean like the U.S. has agreed to be held accountable? Or does the law only apply to other countries?
Well, in that case, I'm sure you wouldn't mind telling us name of this mythic codec that's supported by all the major browsers in their html5 implementations. No, really, we're all anxiously waiting...
With Apple fanboys, it's so hard to tell. I think this is likely a joke, but then I've heard Apple friends say stuff like that and be dead serious about it.
God, I hope your post is being sarcastic. You talk about all the Apple products you buy, even ones that you haven't figured out a use for or that you only buy as status symbols, and then turn around and call MS people stupid sheep? Surely you can't be for real.
Just rent them and copy them if you feel so bad about it.
I don't buy that for a second. The number one rule of editing is to make it NON-DESTRUCTIVE. There is no way any professional editor (or restoration specialist) would have destroyed the original master print as part of the "restoration" process. It would have done grave damage to their professional cred. And those guys take their professional credentials pretty seriously. There is no conceivable reason they even would have needed to destroy it. The first step in any resotration process would have been to digitally copy it (likely frame by frame). And even the restored copy would have been saved (since all the editing at that point would have been digital NLE).
Lucas is just being self-serving. He thinks the "special editions" are better than the originals and is surrounded by kiss-asses who don't dare disagree. So he pretends that these ARE the originals (even demanding that documentaries license the new footage as if it were the original, I've noticed). I just wish 1977 George Lucas were here to kick the shit out of him.
If this is true, though, I predict millions of Apple fans will rush out and buy one before they even know what exactly they'll use it for or what purpose it is actually intended to serve. And anyone who questions the wisdom of this will be immediately dismissed as a "Microsoft conformist" who doesn't understand how Steve is creating a beautiful closed ecosystem that will save us all from the oppression of more open platforms.
Also in Palpatine's defense, there was also the matter of a huge frickin' shield around the thing.
Nuclear weapons, while also not generally thought of as environmentally friendly, are remarkably effective at vaporizing large volumes of human waste.
It's the same kind of ridiculous turns of character they do in a lot of movies. Harvey Dent in the recent "Dark Knight" was another one of those: "I saw my beloved girlfriend murdered, so not only will I not shoot the super-villain who killed her when I get the chance, but I'll also become a super-villain myself, and IMMEDIATELY too!" The scripts of these kinds of movies have all the subtlety and thoughtfulness of a runaway freight train.
We didn't think of them as much a danger either; until they knocked down our World Trade Center, destroyed a large section of out Pentagon, took down 4 airliners, and killed 3,000 of our people--all in the course of about 2 hours. Religious fanatics are always dangerous to the secularized West. Hell, they're always dangerous *in* the secularized West.
Back in the day, most of us had dialup and had any number of ISP's to choose from. There was no need for such regulation because there was so much competition. Now, most of us have broadband and that means one or two big telco's to choose from. I have exactly one broadband ISP to choose from myself (Comcast) if I want to go over over 3mbps, and a grand total of one more to choose from at 3mbps and lower (AT&T). Now, if the government doesn't stop them, and both Comcast and Verizon decide to create their own segregated internets, where exactly can I go? Nowhere. Back in the day, AOL did this, but there were plenty of other ISP's to go to. Now they're aren't. And there likely never will be because only the cablco's and telco's own the cables. And there isn't enough bandwidth in wireless to ever make it an equal competitor. So, without the government, I will forever be AT&T and Comcast's bitch--with nowhere else to turn if I don't like it.
Is suspect the *real* reason isn't known (and maybe never will be). The board obviously wanted him gone, and not just because of some silly harassment suit that could have been easily handled. The evidence pointed to a mutual relationship, and that would have made it easy to fight and cheap to pay off (if they had been inclined). The sexual harassment thing was likely just a convenient pretense for a board that had been wanting to let him go for whatever other reason(s) for some time.
There is a big difference between demanding equal rights and demanding that everyone who isn't blind or deaf dumb their webpages down to the lowest common denominator because you have a shitty browser and/or a shitty reader. The more they push these laws, the more they go beyond simple things like "Include alt tags for images" or even "Include closed captioning for videos" and the more they get into "Make this page text-only and very plain, or ELSE!" Equal in the sense of Harrison Bergeron, isn't being equal, it's just oppressing another group (i.e., those who CAN see and hear).
Of course, it would give us more choice. And, what's more, it's very "green" (since everyone seems to be using that buzzword these days).
Anyone remember their previous board spying scandal? Must be a REAL fun place to work.
Doom 3's problem wasn't its lighting. The problem was that it was a linear hall-runner with every hostile encounter completely scripted with obvious triggers, made in an age of games like Half-Life 2, Halo, etc. Going from playing games with wide-open spaces and multiple ways to approach a problem to Doom 3 felt like a step back in time (and not in a good way).
"Yeah, and we won't have flying cars and cities on the moon by 2010," says a guy from 1969 who everyone laughed at.
Actually, their directory was very useful in the early days of the web. Back then, search algorithms sucked and their was nothing like Google around. You could go over to Alta Vista and type in "Independent Film" and get a bunch of sites back about independent contractors, film stock, etc. Yahoo was the only reliable way to consistently find good topic-oriented sites. So they WERE quite valuable in those early days, and could have (and, to some extent, did) make a lot of advertising money. The problem was that Google came along with its much improved searches, and Google's infrastructure wasn't nearly as labor-intensive as a human-edited web directory.
No, that's the Cardassians. Here's how you can tell the difference: One is evil, manipulative, hideous-looking, and vicious--the other fought a war against the Federation.
Not taking a $33/share buyout from MS, with Google snapping at your heals? But hey, you got to thumb your nose at the evil MS, right? Of course, it was at your shareholder's and company's expense.
Likely, he's too high profile and too obvious to kill. The CIA traditionally doesn't "assassinate" usually anyway (in the sense of a sniper with a rifle). Usually their targets have unfortunate accidents, like plane crashes (as they did with annoying leaders like Omar Torrijos and Jaime Aguilera). In this guy's case, it would probably be better to either discredit him somehow (i.e. something somewhat less crude than the Scientology-esque "He's a child molester, says ex-wife!" but along the same lines) or to subtly threaten someone or something he cares about.