* Flumotion is useless (first post)
* My post is useless (second post)
My assertions to date were firstly, that the penetration of the Ogg codec is rather limited. Secondly, that your post did not answer the question as asked. Now, I understand your burning need to turn a relatively simple question into a roundtable discussion, but the fact is that your post did not answer the question as asked. If you prefer not to have people point that out, I recommend you not do it.
Googling for "flumotion osx" will give you even more information.
Actually I did that, and no, actually, it doesn't return more information. Running through the first fifty hits does not reveal anything to indicate how well it might run on OS X, nor anything to indicate that it runs on OS X at all.
You ignore the fact that they may well have a Linux (or maybe BSD box too) laying around, or that they could install it on an existing box.
I am also ignoring the "fact" that the submitter may have a magic wishing fairy who can instantly implement the preferred solution with a bit of pixie dust and a wave of the magic wand, for the very simple reason that I do not know either of those two propositions to be anything remotely like a "fact", and neither, I suspect, do you. What we do know as a matter of actual fact, however, is that the submitter has Apple machines available and ready to go. That's it - that's all you know. Anything else is purely a product of wishful thinking on your part. Well, that's fine, but it doesn't solve the problem in anything other than an imaginary fashion.
I've been defending myself against your attempts to shut me up . Or what was the point of telling me that they have already got all the information they need, if not to say "shut up"?
If I wanted to tell you to shut up, I'd simply say so. Instead, I am informing you that you are not answering the question as asked. Perhaps, in the future, you should address the actual question presented by the submitter, and then provide additional information as you see fit. You're welcome.
You seem to have this idea that it's all about "slamming" someone or something - really, it's about answering the question that's been asked. It appears to me that the submitter may already have the resources in place to use QT, but wants to know if there is some advantage to WMV. Or maybe not - perhaps no resources are in place, but the submitter would like to weigh the pros and cons of each solution.
In any case, your suggestion that Flumotion is somehow "free" assumes facts not in evidence. Does Flumotion even run on OS X? Doesn't look like it to me. Or did you intend for the submitter to go out, buy a box, install Linux, and then run Flumotion? And that would be "free" how? Does anyone in their office even have experience with Linux, or is it your intent to have them learn a whole new OS in addition to a whole new streaming media server? Isn't it possible that the submitter has better things to do - e.g., creating the media that puts food on the table - than satisfy your desire for political purity?
It depends on a lot of things, of which budget is one. I think we can assume that the submitter is better aware of his own needs than either you or I, and he's narrowed it down to these two readily available solutions. However, there's always a few in the crowd who, when asked whether the Toyota is better than the Honda or what, can't resist the urge to chime in "Buy a unicycle!" He asked about QT and WMV - presumably, if he was interested in a survey of everyone's pet faves, the question would have been a bit more open-ended.
Which virtually nobody has installed on the client side, and which most people will not bother to install simply to watch this thing. Really, you want to do this with a minimum of fuss to the end user, or they'll simply move on and do something else instead - "minimum fuss" meaning "no new codecs/players". Stick with what your audience already has available to them, trust me, and since it sounds like they're already set up for WMV/QT, why pay for something else?
No subsidies in France. Quite the opposite : there's a 19.6% sale tax in the prices quoted in the article.
Since when are taxes and subsidies mutually exclusive? The French government subsidizes cinema, and you still pay VAT and the subsidy at the box office.
...a properly redundant RAID array of inexpensive disks...
You mean "a properly redundant redundant array of inexpensive disks array of inexpensive disks"? Judging by your post here, you're well on your way to insanely redundant levels of insane redundancy....
Considering that pacemakers have been powered by lithium batteries for nearly thirty years now, I suspect that the lithium content of any new battery will hardly be a dealbreaker.
Truthfully, I don't know enough about Miers to say for sure, but my suspicion is that she handled the appeal, but not necessarily the arguments in the trial court - hence, you have to go to the appeals court level to see her involvement in the case, as you say. Since we're only interested in her, and not so much about the case itself, that's probably why the reporter stuck to the appellate case. This is purely speculation on my part, as I haven't bothered to look the case up, but it's not implausible;)
It helps to keep a sense of the order in which things happened. Someone brought a class-action suit against Microsoft. Part of that is defining who and what the class of people is that are entitled to be represented by the plaintiff's attorneys. The plaintiff argued before the trial judge that the class should consist of everyone who owned DOS 6 (or whatever the product in question was), and the trial judge agreed with that definition of the class. Microsoft is permitted to appeal that decision, however, and that's what they did - appeal the trial judge's decision to a higher court. At that point, because it's an appeal of a lower court decision - although not the final verdict - the the case is listed with the name of the party bringing the appeal first.
Anyway, if that still doesn't make sense, just remember the general rule - the person/party asking the court for some sort of relief is always listed first.
Isn't the plaintiff usually listed first? Or was Microsoft the plaintiff in this case?
The class certification was reversed on appeal - in appellate courts, the party bringing the appeal is listed first, even if they were the defendant in the lower court.
Hey, thanks to both you and the gp for some actual thoughtful comments - I was just starting to despair at the notion that the forum was already overrun by assorted fruitcakes when I found them;)
However, at a glance, China appears to be advancing without democracy and civil rights. It's a frightening thought that the chinese communist party may have found a way to have their cake and eat it too, by becoming an economic superpower while still maintaining authoritarianism.
For the moment. However, look at how elections go in this country for a moment. When the economy is bad, that's the only issue that people want to talk about, the only issue that matters to them - e.g., 1980 and 1992. When the economy is good, on the other hand, we all spend a lot of time discussing all sorts of other issues - abortion, affirmative action, welfare reform, gay marriage, et cetera. In other words, when you're secure in your job, not worried about where your next meal is coming from, you have the luxury of thinking more broadly, and thinking about things beyond your own immediate personal situation, such as how you want your society to look and act. In short, you start thinking about real freedoms and liberties.
Moreover, as you advance your station in life, your own sense of yourself must inevitably advance as well. Think about it for a moment - if you're some anonymous peasant toiling away in Coal Mine Number 34, living in some sort of collective housing, with not much to your name that you can really claim as your own, there isn't much the state can do to you to make your life worse. Oh, sure, they can shoot you, but that's about all they can take away from you - you haven't got anything else to lose. But now you've gotten a bit fatter and sassier, you've got a bit of scratch to call your own, maybe a place of your own, some place to hang your hat at the end of the day that really belongs to you - now you do have something to lose via the dictates of an arbitrary authoritarian state, and concomitantly, something worth defending against the encroachments of that same state. Serfs don't rebel, because they have nothing worth fighting for - nothing concrete anyway, and ideas about freedom don't feed you or your family. Men who have something to defend, even if it's something relatively small by outside standards, will resist, however, sometimes violently.
The question, to my mind, has been whether or not one could have Western-style living standards without the attendant Western-style concepts of liberty, rule of law, etc. I think the Chinese may have stumbled on a way to do it backwards. Instead of freedom leading to material success, I think that there is a very good chance that the Chinese government will discover that freedom becomes an inevitable consequence of material success. They don't think so - it seems that they believe that they can ride the tiger indefinitely. I think not. I think that once the average Chinese has something real and tangible to lose at the hands of the state, that tiger will turn on them posthaste.
Of course, time will tell. But I do not think the Chinese government is in a tenable position, over the long term.
I might agree with you if we didn't have set precedent for lower expectations, responsibilities and judgement from adults under 21 and children under 18.
Maybe I'll accept such penalties for children committing non-violent "hacking" crimes when we treat drunk drivers and wife-beaters and child-abusers and rapists with the same ferocity.
It doesn't have to be an either-or thing, really. If you feel that society doesn't give enough weight to the punishments in those crimes, you're far more likely to have success arguing that the penalties there should be stiffened. I'll not argue.
Well, I respect your opinion, although I disagree. Burglary and auto theft are non-violent crimes, and I'm not especially agitated at the thought of sixteen year olds drawing a bit of time in juvie for those crimes. Considering this was done in federal court, I think it's a rather more reasonable punishment than sending him off to federal adult pound-me-in-the-ass prison, which would have been quite excessive, and more reasonable than letting him off with no time at all. While he might not fully grasp the potential consequences insofar as the likelihood of punishment is concerned - who does, at that age? - sixteen is really quite old enough to understand that what you're doing is both wrong and illegal.
accessing T-Mobile USA's internal systems and posting data from Paris Hilton's mobile phone on the Web will serve 11 months in a juvenile facility.
The teenager pleaded guilty last week to a series of hacking incidents, the theft of personal information and making bomb threats to high schools in Florida and Massachusetts, according to a statement from the U.S. attorney for the district of Massachusetts.
All crimes took place over a 15-month period, beginning in March 2004. Victims suffered a total of about US$1 million in damages, according to the statement.
...
In addition to the T-Mobile incident and making bomb threats at high schools, the teen admitted to hacking into the network of a major Internet service provider, a data broker and a second major telephone provider, according to the U.S. attorney statement.
In the case of the ISP, the teen was able in August 2004 to access computers on the company's internal network and obtain proprietary information by installing a rogue program on an employee's computer, according to the statement. The ISP was America Online, a source familiar with the matter said Wednesday.
In January, the minor gained access to the systems of a data broker, which he used to look up information on individuals, according to the U.S. Attorney's statement. The data broker is LexisNexis, WashingtonPost.com reported. LexisNexis earlier this year said an intrusion into its databases may have compromised personal information of about 310,000 Americans.
In June, a second phone company became a victim to the juvenile's attack, according to the U.S. Attorney's statement. A phone that had been activated fraudulently was disabled, and the teen retaliated with a denial-of-service attack on the company's Web site when it refused to reactivate the phone.
Eleven months is excessive? Gotta disagree with you there - considering that we're talking about a veritable spree here, I don't think eleven months is especially cruel or unusual. It's a bit beyond prank-calling Paris's pals, don't you think?
Well, sure. On the other hand, I once had my wallet stolen - had to get a new driver's license, credit cards, etc. It was a pain. But I don't think that single incident is indicative of a trend towards people losing their right to carry a wallet, or any other general pattern of infringement on one's wallet-carrying rights.
Now, when the state starts breaking into cellphones, on the other hand, or stops punishing people who do so, then I think we can file this under YRO a bit more comfortably. Until then, maybe we need a "sometimes bad people do bad things" category, or a "shit happens" category.
It's true - those bastards at the Enquirer never come around any more, since I stopped having drug-fueled weekend-long threesomes with Jennifer Aniston and Gwyneth Paltrow. sniff
I can't for the life of me figure out why stuff like this keeps getting stuck in the YRO section. As far as I can tell, the only person whose rights were in any danger was Paris Hilton - granted, her privacy is largely a theoretical concept these days, but nevertheless, what possible bearing does this kind of thing have on my rights online?
Slashdot Mirror
Did I say that? Read for content, my friend.
Try the very first post I replied to when you have a moment.
* Flumotion is useless (first post)
* My post is useless (second post)
My assertions to date were firstly, that the penetration of the Ogg codec is rather limited. Secondly, that your post did not answer the question as asked. Now, I understand your burning need to turn a relatively simple question into a roundtable discussion, but the fact is that your post did not answer the question as asked. If you prefer not to have people point that out, I recommend you not do it.
Googling for "flumotion osx" will give you even more information.
Actually I did that, and no, actually, it doesn't return more information. Running through the first fifty hits does not reveal anything to indicate how well it might run on OS X, nor anything to indicate that it runs on OS X at all.
You ignore the fact that they may well have a Linux (or maybe BSD box too) laying around, or that they could install it on an existing box.
I am also ignoring the "fact" that the submitter may have a magic wishing fairy who can instantly implement the preferred solution with a bit of pixie dust and a wave of the magic wand, for the very simple reason that I do not know either of those two propositions to be anything remotely like a "fact", and neither, I suspect, do you. What we do know as a matter of actual fact, however, is that the submitter has Apple machines available and ready to go. That's it - that's all you know. Anything else is purely a product of wishful thinking on your part. Well, that's fine, but it doesn't solve the problem in anything other than an imaginary fashion.
I've been defending myself against your attempts to shut me up . Or what was the point of telling me that they have already got all the information they need, if not to say "shut up"?
If I wanted to tell you to shut up, I'd simply say so. Instead, I am informing you that you are not answering the question as asked. Perhaps, in the future, you should address the actual question presented by the submitter, and then provide additional information as you see fit. You're welcome.
In any case, your suggestion that Flumotion is somehow "free" assumes facts not in evidence. Does Flumotion even run on OS X? Doesn't look like it to me. Or did you intend for the submitter to go out, buy a box, install Linux, and then run Flumotion? And that would be "free" how? Does anyone in their office even have experience with Linux, or is it your intent to have them learn a whole new OS in addition to a whole new streaming media server? Isn't it possible that the submitter has better things to do - e.g., creating the media that puts food on the table - than satisfy your desire for political purity?
False. Perhaps you should read the posts yourself.
It depends on a lot of things, of which budget is one. I think we can assume that the submitter is better aware of his own needs than either you or I, and he's narrowed it down to these two readily available solutions. However, there's always a few in the crowd who, when asked whether the Toyota is better than the Honda or what, can't resist the urge to chime in "Buy a unicycle!" He asked about QT and WMV - presumably, if he was interested in a survey of everyone's pet faves, the question would have been a bit more open-ended.
Which virtually nobody has installed on the client side, and which most people will not bother to install simply to watch this thing. Really, you want to do this with a minimum of fuss to the end user, or they'll simply move on and do something else instead - "minimum fuss" meaning "no new codecs/players". Stick with what your audience already has available to them, trust me, and since it sounds like they're already set up for WMV/QT, why pay for something else?
...I assume he's putting on the show because he wants people to, you know, actually watch it. ;)
Since when are taxes and subsidies mutually exclusive? The French government subsidizes cinema, and you still pay VAT and the subsidy at the box office.
You mean "a properly redundant redundant array of inexpensive disks array of inexpensive disks"? Judging by your post here, you're well on your way to insanely redundant levels of insane redundancy....
Considering that pacemakers have been powered by lithium batteries for nearly thirty years now, I suspect that the lithium content of any new battery will hardly be a dealbreaker.
Truthfully, I don't know enough about Miers to say for sure, but my suspicion is that she handled the appeal, but not necessarily the arguments in the trial court - hence, you have to go to the appeals court level to see her involvement in the case, as you say. Since we're only interested in her, and not so much about the case itself, that's probably why the reporter stuck to the appellate case. This is purely speculation on my part, as I haven't bothered to look the case up, but it's not implausible ;)
Anyway, if that still doesn't make sense, just remember the general rule - the person/party asking the court for some sort of relief is always listed first.
The class certification was reversed on appeal - in appellate courts, the party bringing the appeal is listed first, even if they were the defendant in the lower court.
I believe the "75 special editions" thing refers to the Lexuses, not the Skycar. One Skycar, 75 Lexuses (Lexii?).
However, at a glance, China appears to be advancing without democracy and civil rights. It's a frightening thought that the chinese communist party may have found a way to have their cake and eat it too, by becoming an economic superpower while still maintaining authoritarianism.
For the moment. However, look at how elections go in this country for a moment. When the economy is bad, that's the only issue that people want to talk about, the only issue that matters to them - e.g., 1980 and 1992. When the economy is good, on the other hand, we all spend a lot of time discussing all sorts of other issues - abortion, affirmative action, welfare reform, gay marriage, et cetera. In other words, when you're secure in your job, not worried about where your next meal is coming from, you have the luxury of thinking more broadly, and thinking about things beyond your own immediate personal situation, such as how you want your society to look and act. In short, you start thinking about real freedoms and liberties.
Moreover, as you advance your station in life, your own sense of yourself must inevitably advance as well. Think about it for a moment - if you're some anonymous peasant toiling away in Coal Mine Number 34, living in some sort of collective housing, with not much to your name that you can really claim as your own, there isn't much the state can do to you to make your life worse. Oh, sure, they can shoot you, but that's about all they can take away from you - you haven't got anything else to lose. But now you've gotten a bit fatter and sassier, you've got a bit of scratch to call your own, maybe a place of your own, some place to hang your hat at the end of the day that really belongs to you - now you do have something to lose via the dictates of an arbitrary authoritarian state, and concomitantly, something worth defending against the encroachments of that same state. Serfs don't rebel, because they have nothing worth fighting for - nothing concrete anyway, and ideas about freedom don't feed you or your family. Men who have something to defend, even if it's something relatively small by outside standards, will resist, however, sometimes violently.
The question, to my mind, has been whether or not one could have Western-style living standards without the attendant Western-style concepts of liberty, rule of law, etc. I think the Chinese may have stumbled on a way to do it backwards. Instead of freedom leading to material success, I think that there is a very good chance that the Chinese government will discover that freedom becomes an inevitable consequence of material success. They don't think so - it seems that they believe that they can ride the tiger indefinitely. I think not. I think that once the average Chinese has something real and tangible to lose at the hands of the state, that tiger will turn on them posthaste.
Of course, time will tell. But I do not think the Chinese government is in a tenable position, over the long term.
Sure it does. 10k gold is as low as you can go and still call it "gold". Via google, here's a semi-random example of 10k gold jewelry.
Tell me about it. We must be new here ;)
And I suspect that's why he drew a sentence of eleven months for what he did, instead of, say, twenty one months. Or thirty six months. Or 108 months.
Maybe I'll accept such penalties for children committing non-violent "hacking" crimes when we treat drunk drivers and wife-beaters and child-abusers and rapists with the same ferocity.
It doesn't have to be an either-or thing, really. If you feel that society doesn't give enough weight to the punishments in those crimes, you're far more likely to have success arguing that the penalties there should be stiffened. I'll not argue.
Well, I respect your opinion, although I disagree. Burglary and auto theft are non-violent crimes, and I'm not especially agitated at the thought of sixteen year olds drawing a bit of time in juvie for those crimes. Considering this was done in federal court, I think it's a rather more reasonable punishment than sending him off to federal adult pound-me-in-the-ass prison, which would have been quite excessive, and more reasonable than letting him off with no time at all. While he might not fully grasp the potential consequences insofar as the likelihood of punishment is concerned - who does, at that age? - sixteen is really quite old enough to understand that what you're doing is both wrong and illegal.
All crimes took place over a 15-month period, beginning in March 2004. Victims suffered a total of about US$1 million in damages, according to the statement.
...
In addition to the T-Mobile incident and making bomb threats at high schools, the teen admitted to hacking into the network of a major Internet service provider, a data broker and a second major telephone provider, according to the U.S. attorney statement.
In the case of the ISP, the teen was able in August 2004 to access computers on the company's internal network and obtain proprietary information by installing a rogue program on an employee's computer, according to the statement. The ISP was America Online, a source familiar with the matter said Wednesday.
In January, the minor gained access to the systems of a data broker, which he used to look up information on individuals, according to the U.S. Attorney's statement. The data broker is LexisNexis, WashingtonPost.com reported. LexisNexis earlier this year said an intrusion into its databases may have compromised personal information of about 310,000 Americans.
In June, a second phone company became a victim to the juvenile's attack, according to the U.S. Attorney's statement. A phone that had been activated fraudulently was disabled, and the teen retaliated with a denial-of-service attack on the company's Web site when it refused to reactivate the phone.
Eleven months is excessive? Gotta disagree with you there - considering that we're talking about a veritable spree here, I don't think eleven months is especially cruel or unusual. It's a bit beyond prank-calling Paris's pals, don't you think?
Now, when the state starts breaking into cellphones, on the other hand, or stops punishing people who do so, then I think we can file this under YRO a bit more comfortably. Until then, maybe we need a "sometimes bad people do bad things" category, or a "shit happens" category.
It's true - those bastards at the Enquirer never come around any more, since I stopped having drug-fueled weekend-long threesomes with Jennifer Aniston and Gwyneth Paltrow. sniff
I can't for the life of me figure out why stuff like this keeps getting stuck in the YRO section. As far as I can tell, the only person whose rights were in any danger was Paris Hilton - granted, her privacy is largely a theoretical concept these days, but nevertheless, what possible bearing does this kind of thing have on my rights online?
Pay *me* $40, and I'll think about it...