If you don't like kooties, block them. For those that don't even understand what a kootie is, make it clear what the government is doing and prove it through open source. Makes for a better web experience.
Computer programs are quite different from the creative works copyright was intended for,
I wonder if you could explain what you see as the difference between a computer program's source code, and a how-to manual written in a human-readable but specialized technical language.
i>Apple is only "less bad" than Microsoft insofar as they do not have the dominant position to be as bad as Microsoft.
WTF are you blabbing about? Apple owns the leading online music store and the best-selling music player. They totally dominate online music distribution.
Because in 4 years time you might not like what the new iPod has become and your old one has died.. How you gona play that music you paid for on that fancy new now?
I'll use this advanced Unix program called "cp" to transfer them to another device.
Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it's now no longer HIS but OURS.
Because Tolkien is dead. Dead men do not need to collect royalties, because no amount of financial incentive will permit them to create more new works.
If the browser is lying, it isn't an HTML5-compliant browser;
That won't stop the know-nothing end user from bitching at the website author because their "internet TV don't work." That's the reason you gave for wanting the codec in the spec, so the user won't whine at the site maintainers when it doesn't work. If that's the goal, it failed before it started.
The idea is that if a small time content creator uses the universally supported codec, they don't get ranty email complaining that the television on their computer thingy be broke.
You really think this is about the small-time content creator? What makes you think so? Is it all the small-time content creators who have a place at the standards-setting table, who are ethusiastically embracing patented and licenseable codecs being made mandatory by the big players? Really?
It cares because if there isn't a mandatory-supported codec in the spec, you can't provide content encoded in one codec and no that any HTML5-compliant browser will be able to deal with it.
You still can't know that the browser will be able to deal with it. The browser could lie about its capabilities. The user could have disabled video support in the configuration. The user could be surfing through a proxy that renders the video tag inert. There are a zillion reasons why content won't render the way the author intends no matter how carefully the spec is written, because it's not his computer nor his software that is rendering it.
If this attempt at mandating a particular codec in the spec had succeeded, and a better codec came along later that authors preferred but the spec didn't support, they'd go right back to using Flash and ActiveX for video content and all this heat and smoke over the codec would have been for naught.
Because a major focus of HTML5 is eliminating the need for the user to download additional components beside the browser to use web applications.
If a monolithic browser is such a good idea, why not a monolithic operating system? Why should a PC user have to purchase or download a word processor or spreadsheet separately? Build that in, too. Build it all in!
Me too. So what? If you have a H.264 codec and an Ogg codec already installed, it won't prompt you for those. How many online vids have you watched recently that weren't in one of those formats?
Is that really a problem for any site that uses common video formats? People should be suspicious of new codecs.
If you have to code for IE6 you can't use transparent PNGs can you?
Sure you can. If web coders used trasparent PNGs, that'd make the web look craptastic for IE6 users, and so they'd ditch their crappy browser for one that works better (or they'd just get used to a crappy-looking web, just like we've all gotten used to slashdot). Instead of making sure users knew that IE6 was a load of crap, web designers instead hid the defects and prolonged the life of IE6. You have only yourselves to blame for the IE6 woes.
Really? Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used? Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?
Slashdot Mirror
Can I take a picture of my bills to deposit them?
This video reveals Obama's Real Agenda in his own words - foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=7478735
Beck's tears are delicious. Thanks for that.
... rename the original 1979 film to "Alien: A New Hope."
I think if they just cast Giger himself as the alien, the movie will scare the shit out of anyone.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/H._R._Giger.jpg
If you don't like kooties, block them. For those that don't even understand what a kootie is, make it clear what the government is doing and prove it through open source. Makes for a better web experience.
What's the problem with that?
Why do people continue to support this behavior?
Because we don't give a shit about what FOSS fanbois think, and Richard Stallman is scary looking.
Is there anything else I can help you with?
AT&T doesn't want you to use voice apps on your iPod?
Oh yeah, in case you didn't know, the iPod touch runs everything the iPhone does, and isn't locked into any carrier.
So Apple's willing to throw the iPod under the bus for AT&T, this is what the Kincaid cat thinks?
This time it's blacker and deeper than ever!
First Disney movie with that tagline!
Computer programs are quite different from the creative works copyright was intended for,
I wonder if you could explain what you see as the difference between a computer program's source code, and a how-to manual written in a human-readable but specialized technical language.
Really, and that affects me how?
I doesn't. So get off your high horse.
The only reason Microsoft dominates you is because you think computers are more important than music players. Other people think different.
i>Apple is only "less bad" than Microsoft insofar as they do not have the dominant position to be as bad as Microsoft.
WTF are you blabbing about? Apple owns the leading online music store and the best-selling music player. They totally dominate online music distribution.
Because in 4 years time you might not like what the new iPod has become and your old one has died.. How you gona play that music you paid for on that fancy new now?
I'll use this advanced Unix program called "cp" to transfer them to another device.
Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it's now no longer HIS but OURS.
Because Tolkien is dead. Dead men do not need to collect royalties, because no amount of financial incentive will permit them to create more new works.
Companies that actively thwart interoperability and promote lock-in are incompatible with the best interests of their own customers.
I like my iPod. I like iTunes. Why do I need interoperability?
I don't care how pretty Apple's products are.
I do. Now what?
Either you care enough to modify your behaviour, or you don't.
Guess which one applies to me.
Give your dollars to companies that are demonstrably "less bad" whenever possible.
I do. Apple is less bad than Microsoft, for some definition of "bad" you never imagined. Now go away and stop telling me what to think.
Obvious troll is obvious. Well, except to all you n00bs who modded him "interesting."
If the browser is lying, it isn't an HTML5-compliant browser;
That won't stop the know-nothing end user from bitching at the website author because their "internet TV don't work." That's the reason you gave for wanting the codec in the spec, so the user won't whine at the site maintainers when it doesn't work. If that's the goal, it failed before it started.
I located three 17" widescreen monitors in a couple of clicks on Newegg.com.
The idea is that if a small time content creator uses the universally supported codec, they don't get ranty email complaining that the television on their computer thingy be broke.
You really think this is about the small-time content creator? What makes you think so? Is it all the small-time content creators who have a place at the standards-setting table, who are ethusiastically embracing patented and licenseable codecs being made mandatory by the big players? Really?
It's 2009 and we still have to program around browser differences and quirks. Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous?
Of course. It's 2009 and we still have to program around OS differences and distro quirks. Why doesn't that seem just as ridiculous?
If everything is going to be web based for the next 20 or 30 or however many years don't you think we should fix that?
By locking us into a codec that may be obsolete in 5 years? No.
It cares because if there isn't a mandatory-supported codec in the spec, you can't provide content encoded in one codec and no that any HTML5-compliant browser will be able to deal with it.
You still can't know that the browser will be able to deal with it. The browser could lie about its capabilities. The user could have disabled video support in the configuration. The user could be surfing through a proxy that renders the video tag inert. There are a zillion reasons why content won't render the way the author intends no matter how carefully the spec is written, because it's not his computer nor his software that is rendering it.
If this attempt at mandating a particular codec in the spec had succeeded, and a better codec came along later that authors preferred but the spec didn't support, they'd go right back to using Flash and ActiveX for video content and all this heat and smoke over the codec would have been for naught.
Because a major focus of HTML5 is eliminating the need for the user to download additional components beside the browser to use web applications.
If a monolithic browser is such a good idea, why not a monolithic operating system? Why should a PC user have to purchase or download a word processor or spreadsheet separately? Build that in, too. Build it all in!
Me too. So what? If you have a H.264 codec and an Ogg codec already installed, it won't prompt you for those. How many online vids have you watched recently that weren't in one of those formats?
Is that really a problem for any site that uses common video formats? People should be suspicious of new codecs.
If you have to code for IE6 you can't use transparent PNGs can you?
Sure you can. If web coders used trasparent PNGs, that'd make the web look craptastic for IE6 users, and so they'd ditch their crappy browser for one that works better (or they'd just get used to a crappy-looking web, just like we've all gotten used to slashdot). Instead of making sure users knew that IE6 was a load of crap, web designers instead hid the defects and prolonged the life of IE6. You have only yourselves to blame for the IE6 woes.
Really? Why does the HTML5 spec care what codecs are used? Why doesn't it just provide a way to specify which codec the author used to encode the media file, and let the browser prompt the user to get it if needed?
Why would anyone buy a device where someone *else* decides what apps you can run and what you cannot run?
You mean something like an Xbox360, or a PS3, or a Nintendo DS? Or a Blu-ray player?
I don't know. Why would anybody buy those pieces of crap?
Andreeson's delusional thinking shouldn't be trusted.
After all, he's thirty-seven!