But I would have purchased one expressly because it did look like a Fisher Price product. It was totally worthy of toying around and even letting my children use.
You don't think Microsoft is in cahoots with hardware makers??? You better believe it. Software has been and always will be inextricably tied to hardware. The PC revolution happened not because of software, but because of the comoditization of the hardware. We're seeing it again with smart phones.
The Linux kernel is working out filesystems and making things faster, all the while adding drivers.
Drivers? For what? Hardware?
But then again, are all of the programs installed on the average Windows box also cohesively working as a team?
Microsoft has developed a successful platform, not because of its technical merits, but because it writes software for cheap hardware. It makes writing for that platform extremely easy. So yes, they work cohesively more so than you give credit.
See, you're not looking towards the future. You need to be thinking what browsers people will be using. See, you keep thinking that everyone in the future will be sitting at home on a computer. You keep thinking that whatever browser people will be using, they'll have myriad choices on what device they will be using it on.
More and more people will be using mobile devices to do surfing, watch videos, etc. This comes back to hardware. What devices currently have a hardware decoder for Theora? How many in the future will? I would place my chips on h.264 being on more future devices looooooonnngggg before I see them with Theora.
Which market? The browser market is currently tipped toward Theora, because Firefox, being an open source project, is unlikely to implement H.264
But what stops a hardware device maker from including them with its device? Again, your thinking is too limited.
And that is my greatest criticism for OSS (yes, I know generalities)--it only thinks of its own self-importance, too busy playing 'me too', and not taking the big picture into consideration when developing a strategy (if one is even created at all).
But not necessarily because they're 'evil'. Free Software has no strategy for hardware. It has no coherent strategy for what it wants. It's not looking to the future of what it can be and what it wants to do. It's not enough to have a 'me too' mentality. (That's also what's killing Microsoft!)
And in simple terms, as a business, I wouldn't want that kind of thinking in my products.
But you highlight why 'free' software is not enough. Apple wanted a chip, so it used its buying power for one to be created. It retains the right to use whatever technology it wants. But more importantly than that, where's the free community on hardware? There's your answer.
If you're wanting something to compete on the global stage, then it needs to step up and address all facets of its possible use because there is more to technology than if it's an open standard or not. If nothing else, Theora is an embarrassment to the OSS community because of this. It should have been brought to the table as a complete solution, instead of a half-hearted attempt at resolving a browser issue. So don't come crying about problems with the free market when the solution presented by Free Software couldn't solve the problems at hand. The market judged, Theora was left wanting.
The market has already decided. But it wasn't decided because of software, it was decided on hardware. Theora does not have a dedicated hardware decoder that hardware makers can pull off the shelf and incorporate into their devices. h.264 does. And, when you take into consideration the sheer number of devices that have that chip installed (virtually every 5th generation iPod and forward from Apple) it becomes very easy to tell that h.264 was going to be the winner.
Why the false dichotomy? The market had already voted long before W3C threw in the towel. Apple wasn't going to budge simply because its hardware platform was geared for h.264. It would render the hardware obsolete because now you have to run a software decoder for Theora, sapping the battery for processing that a dedicated, low power h.264 chip already does.
The problem with the 'open standard' is not necessarily its inferiority, per se, but its complete, utter lack of general market acceptance.
To that end, good software is good software no matter the development methodology, license, etc. I would hope that one of the hallmarks of open development includes an open mind.
Anyone who has been following the development of Windows 7 (and isn't just another uninformed Slashdotter) knows there is a lot of changes from Vista to 7.
I think most of the griping revolves around the opinion that Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. IMHO Vista was a stop gap to an already tardy release. Windows 7 should have been Vista SP3. If you look at XP SP2, there were great strides made when you compare it to its gold edition.
For $29 bucks I would heartily upgrade to Windows 7. Now, I'm not so sure. I am, however, ready to line up for my Snow Leopard upgrade.
That's the spirit! We've been attacking this problem from the wrong angle. Since it is obvious that Man is responsible for climate change, we can just eliminate the species from the Earth and solve all our climate change problems.
Now, who to inherit the Earth once Homo sapien has been removed?
Or just memorize what's there until it's no longer against the law to posses one. If the kerosene doesn't fry the electronics while turned on, the flames sure will...
Humans are a technology-using species and as such it is perfectly fine for a human being to rely on said technology to stay alive.
I wonder, though, if Man's next evolutionary leap will require him to engineer himself in order to survive. Consider all the people with genetic abnormalities who are living longer than Nature normally would have permitted. People who may have been selected out, but are now surviving and perpetuating their 'disadvantage' because of some post-discovery treatment. Imagine in the far distant future when it becomes *necessary* to weed out undesirable genes for the survival of the species. I don't think that will happen in the next thousand millennia, but it is very interesting to think that we have evolved to a point where it is now possible to solve some of our own future evolutionary problems.
Ever consider those who are not able to produce because of some "after-market" problem? Not all fertility problems are a result of genetic deficiencies. Sometimes the occur as part of the environment.
I know the above seems harsh, but it is a risk that I have been watching with some consternation since the first "test-tube" baby was born in the 1970s. Since then there seems to be an explosion of people, who otherwise could not conceive, pushing out quadruplets, quintuplets, and more, all the while depleting the gene-pool.
Those multi-births only occur because many fertilized embryos are placed in the host as a precaution against those that do not survive the process. I am sure as the technology progresses the need for multiple IVFs will decrease, abating your concerns purely upon technological reasons. That aside, considering how diverse the gene pool is, we shouldn't consider a rare multi-birth a threat to its dilution.
I imagine that someday a person who is hurt in a way that robs them of the ability to normally reproduce would be able to take a simple DNA sample and IVF them a child. Not a clone, mind you, but creating gametes from DNA samples to create offspring.
Tell me about it. I wish they'd drop L4D and the TF2 updates and concentrate on wrapping up Half Life 2: Episode 3. Anything else is just a distraction.
Along that vein, having spoken with a number of lawyers, they all had admitted to 'borrowing' text from other agreements. One in particular took a fancy to Apple legal speak and regular used its legal copy, substituting its name for the company he was doing work. Why work for the hours you're billing? 1 min copy/paste/substitute, 100 hours playing golf to 'think' about what else to include.
I want to take issue with one point of the article, is that you can one-click uninstall the extention. My 'Uninstall' button was not disabled. I was able to remove it from Firefox. The Windows registry entries in the Annoyances were not there. The folder in %SYSTEMDRIVE%\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\Windows Presentation Foundation was still there, as well as the entry in Firefox's about.config.
And that's where this app doesn't get it. The whole point of Boxee is to integrate the experience with a ten foot interface. The standalone app breaks that. If they really wanted to make their app successful, it would come with an SDK from which they can control how it's delivered, but allow developers control how it's presented. This way they get their ad revenue, whilst consumers get the integration with their preferred viewing mechanism.
Simply because they're not paid to think. They're drones. If they started showing signs of unique thought and it turned out to be 'the wrong thing', then they'd be out of a job, replaced by another drone. Following protocol is greater assurance of continued employment.
Slashdot Mirror
But I would have purchased one expressly because it did look like a Fisher Price product. It was totally worthy of toying around and even letting my children use.
You don't think Microsoft is in cahoots with hardware makers??? You better believe it. Software has been and always will be inextricably tied to hardware. The PC revolution happened not because of software, but because of the comoditization of the hardware. We're seeing it again with smart phones.
The Linux kernel is working out filesystems and making things faster, all the while adding drivers.
Drivers? For what? Hardware?
But then again, are all of the programs installed on the average Windows box also cohesively working as a team?
Microsoft has developed a successful platform, not because of its technical merits, but because it writes software for cheap hardware. It makes writing for that platform extremely easy. So yes, they work cohesively more so than you give credit.
See, you're not looking towards the future. You need to be thinking what browsers people will be using. See, you keep thinking that everyone in the future will be sitting at home on a computer. You keep thinking that whatever browser people will be using, they'll have myriad choices on what device they will be using it on.
More and more people will be using mobile devices to do surfing, watch videos, etc. This comes back to hardware. What devices currently have a hardware decoder for Theora? How many in the future will? I would place my chips on h.264 being on more future devices looooooonnngggg before I see them with Theora.
Which market? The browser market is currently tipped toward Theora, because Firefox, being an open source project, is unlikely to implement H.264
But what stops a hardware device maker from including them with its device? Again, your thinking is too limited.
And that is my greatest criticism for OSS (yes, I know generalities)--it only thinks of its own self-importance, too busy playing 'me too', and not taking the big picture into consideration when developing a strategy (if one is even created at all).
But not necessarily because they're 'evil'. Free Software has no strategy for hardware. It has no coherent strategy for what it wants. It's not looking to the future of what it can be and what it wants to do. It's not enough to have a 'me too' mentality. (That's also what's killing Microsoft!)
And in simple terms, as a business, I wouldn't want that kind of thinking in my products.
When consumers purchased 22,727,000 iPods and 4,363,000 iPhones in the 1st quarter of fiscal 2009 alone.
Looking at h.264 hardware marketshare, that alone is pretty damning. Next question?
But you highlight why 'free' software is not enough. Apple wanted a chip, so it used its buying power for one to be created. It retains the right to use whatever technology it wants. But more importantly than that, where's the free community on hardware? There's your answer.
If you're wanting something to compete on the global stage, then it needs to step up and address all facets of its possible use because there is more to technology than if it's an open standard or not. If nothing else, Theora is an embarrassment to the OSS community because of this. It should have been brought to the table as a complete solution, instead of a half-hearted attempt at resolving a browser issue. So don't come crying about problems with the free market when the solution presented by Free Software couldn't solve the problems at hand. The market judged, Theora was left wanting.
The market has already decided. But it wasn't decided because of software, it was decided on hardware. Theora does not have a dedicated hardware decoder that hardware makers can pull off the shelf and incorporate into their devices. h.264 does. And, when you take into consideration the sheer number of devices that have that chip installed (virtually every 5th generation iPod and forward from Apple) it becomes very easy to tell that h.264 was going to be the winner.
Why the false dichotomy? The market had already voted long before W3C threw in the towel. Apple wasn't going to budge simply because its hardware platform was geared for h.264. It would render the hardware obsolete because now you have to run a software decoder for Theora, sapping the battery for processing that a dedicated, low power h.264 chip already does.
The problem with the 'open standard' is not necessarily its inferiority, per se, but its complete, utter lack of general market acceptance.
To that end, good software is good software no matter the development methodology, license, etc. I would hope that one of the hallmarks of open development includes an open mind.
Too bad it has to be that way, but it is much easier to kill a bill than to kill the resultant law. I hope NC's (attempted) money grab was worth it.
Anyone who has been following the development of Windows 7 (and isn't just another uninformed Slashdotter) knows there is a lot of changes from Vista to 7.
I think most of the griping revolves around the opinion that Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. IMHO Vista was a stop gap to an already tardy release. Windows 7 should have been Vista SP3. If you look at XP SP2, there were great strides made when you compare it to its gold edition.
For $29 bucks I would heartily upgrade to Windows 7. Now, I'm not so sure. I am, however, ready to line up for my Snow Leopard upgrade.
We need less people, not less cows.
That's the spirit! We've been attacking this problem from the wrong angle. Since it is obvious that Man is responsible for climate change, we can just eliminate the species from the Earth and solve all our climate change problems.
Now, who to inherit the Earth once Homo sapien has been removed?
According to Wikipedia, nor do the penguins!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metric_system_adoption_map.svg
To add:
Relying on the expected behavior (Google not processing JS) of something over which you have no control for your security is pretty silly as well.
Sort of a form of group vigilantism.
It's not vigilantism if it is state sponsored.
Or just memorize what's there until it's no longer against the law to posses one. If the kerosene doesn't fry the electronics while turned on, the flames sure will...
Humans are a technology-using species and as such it is perfectly fine for a human being to rely on said technology to stay alive.
I wonder, though, if Man's next evolutionary leap will require him to engineer himself in order to survive. Consider all the people with genetic abnormalities who are living longer than Nature normally would have permitted. People who may have been selected out, but are now surviving and perpetuating their 'disadvantage' because of some post-discovery treatment. Imagine in the far distant future when it becomes *necessary* to weed out undesirable genes for the survival of the species. I don't think that will happen in the next thousand millennia, but it is very interesting to think that we have evolved to a point where it is now possible to solve some of our own future evolutionary problems.
Ever consider those who are not able to produce because of some "after-market" problem? Not all fertility problems are a result of genetic deficiencies. Sometimes the occur as part of the environment.
I know the above seems harsh, but it is a risk that I have been watching with some consternation since the first "test-tube" baby was born in the 1970s. Since then there seems to be an explosion of people, who otherwise could not conceive, pushing out quadruplets, quintuplets, and more, all the while depleting the gene-pool.
Those multi-births only occur because many fertilized embryos are placed in the host as a precaution against those that do not survive the process. I am sure as the technology progresses the need for multiple IVFs will decrease, abating your concerns purely upon technological reasons. That aside, considering how diverse the gene pool is, we shouldn't consider a rare multi-birth a threat to its dilution.
I imagine that someday a person who is hurt in a way that robs them of the ability to normally reproduce would be able to take a simple DNA sample and IVF them a child. Not a clone, mind you, but creating gametes from DNA samples to create offspring.
That was for the spectrum that standard def TV is vacating. That is in the 700MHz range. 3G operates at 1900-2025MHz and 2110-2200MHz in the US.
Tell me about it. I wish they'd drop L4D and the TF2 updates and concentrate on wrapping up Half Life 2: Episode 3. Anything else is just a distraction.
Along that vein, having spoken with a number of lawyers, they all had admitted to 'borrowing' text from other agreements. One in particular took a fancy to Apple legal speak and regular used its legal copy, substituting its name for the company he was doing work. Why work for the hours you're billing? 1 min copy/paste/substitute, 100 hours playing golf to 'think' about what else to include.
Don't worry! With the new release you can connect any third party hardware for use as a human interface input.
I want to take issue with one point of the article, is that you can one-click uninstall the extention. My 'Uninstall' button was not disabled. I was able to remove it from Firefox. The Windows registry entries in the Annoyances were not there. The folder in %SYSTEMDRIVE%\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\Windows Presentation Foundation was still there, as well as the entry in Firefox's about.config.
And that's where this app doesn't get it. The whole point of Boxee is to integrate the experience with a ten foot interface. The standalone app breaks that. If they really wanted to make their app successful, it would come with an SDK from which they can control how it's delivered, but allow developers control how it's presented. This way they get their ad revenue, whilst consumers get the integration with their preferred viewing mechanism.
Simply because they're not paid to think. They're drones. If they started showing signs of unique thought and it turned out to be 'the wrong thing', then they'd be out of a job, replaced by another drone. Following protocol is greater assurance of continued employment.