The machiavellian move would have been NOT to release those plugins, and from one day to the next
No, that would have been the "Suicidal" move, which would have doomed Youtube to irrelevance within 6 months, and lined the pockets of the people who run sites like Vimeo. They're dropping in-browser support for H.264 to "focus efforts on free and innovative" standards... in order to write plugins for 2 other browsers? Seriously, that doesn't even pass the sniff test.
If you're concerned about the resources you're spending implementing H.264 playback support in ONE browser that you control the entire source base for, how is it a better use of resources to write WebM plugins for 2 other browsers which you don't control, on multiple platforms? You just doubled your work by deciding to support two very different browsers (Safari & IE) on 2 different platforms.
Nah, they won't even notice there's a new plugin to install. They'll continue receiving H.264 video via Flash, like they always have, everywhere except on Youtube.
Hooray for "standards", right? Glad that Google's propping up the de facto one, Flash.
If they win, what benefit will I see as a consumer?
None. You know this, I know this, and Google knows this. This has nothing to do with doing the "best thing for the customer."
All this will do is prolong Flash's lifespan. Nobody's going to re-encode their existing video to WebM (except YouTube, which Google controls), and instead, they'll simply serve Chrome users with Flash-wrapped H.264.
That's right, FLASH-wrapped. Because Google, in an effort to "encourage open standards and innovation" is single-handedly propping up Adobe's proprietary platform, and starting a dick-measuring contest with an open standard that happens to not be "free". Never mind that their own proposed "free and open" format might not survive a court challenge on patent infringement.
You do realize that I'm not the Anonymous Coward who originally responded to you, right? So let's review:
You made the assertion that "Republicans call us demoncrats all the time," which was made with such an air of tender, wounded naievete. I pointed out that other than right here where you claimed that you get called that "all the time," and thus felt the need to "reclaim the word," I've never heard any Democrat referred to as that, so I was bewildered as to why you would seem to think that everybody should know that it's a common term for Democrats among right-wingers.
You proceeded to curse and call names, because I guess that makes you feel better. Spoiled children are known for their tantrums when they don't get their way, I guess.
As far as you treating me more civilly, I could not care less what your opinion is of me, frankly. I've scraped unidentifiable muck off the treads of my boots which I've found more interesting and insightful than your uninformed lunacy.
So... you're not a democrat, you're a self-styled anarchist, which in my experience means you probably took a single philosophy class in college and decided you were smarter than everybody around you as a result, and you get a pathetically smug little hardon from calling yourself an anarchist, because it makes you feel like you're a special little snowflake. I'm pretty close, aren't I?
Of course, I have to ask, if you're not a democrat, then why did you assert that, and I quote, "Republicans call us demoncrats all the time"? (emphasis mine.)
You keep making the statement that you don't care if you're "hurting my feelings," which I find curious because I'm not the one who's acting like a butt-hurt little bitch here, with the cursing and the name-calling. That'd be you, friend.
Who did I vote for? I tossed my vote away on Barr/Root (Libertarian) in 2008 as a protest, because I didn't particularly like Obama/Biden *or* McCain/Palin.
If Hillary Clinton had been the democratic nominee, she would have received my vote, because I think she was the most-qualified person in the race in 2008. Her husband, Bill (remember him? Democrat from Arkansas? 2-term president?), received my vote. George Bush got my vote the first time he was elected; John Kerry got it the second time, because I was disappointed with Bush's performance.
But yeah, you're totally right. Never voted Democrat in my life. NEVAR EVAR.
As far as being thin-skinned, I'm not sure how you get that I'm being "defensive" in pointing out your (once again) obvious exaggeration and overstatement in an attempt to sound put-upon and oh-so-beleaguered in your role as "THE ONE TRUE DEMOCRAT". If you call my comment defensive, well, I'm not the one slinging insults and cursing, friend. Just sayin'.
"you guys"? So because I point out your naked exaggeration and overstatement, I'm immediately a Republican who demonizes his opponents?
What I can say is that a google search for "DEMONCRAT" returns links to (right at the top): -- Urban Dictionary (long a noted source for political commentary and family values rhetoric); -- Landover Baptist Church, a satirical web site which is quite clearly and obviously a liberal parody of the bible thumping morons referenced in my previous post.
Sounds like I'm not the one doing the demonizing. Oh, and for the record: registered to vote as an Independent, friend. No party commands my unquestioning loyalty.
No, the "ease of break-in" doesn't make a difference, except where you have *contracted* to take certain precautions against theft as a risk mitigation factor, and then you fail to fulfill your obligations under that contract.
The police don't let a thief go because he took stuff from an unlocked house. The ease with which the thief broke in has no bearing on whether or not he committed a crime.
A judge has ruled that she did nothing "illegal" in using personal email as she did. Is it sloppy? Sure. Is it a gray area? Sure. Is it something where she complied with the letter, but not the obvious spirit of the law? You betcha. Could she have shown better judgement? Absolutely. But when a judge issues a ruling that she didn't do anything illegal, and you continue calling her actions "illegal," well... it just suggests that you're blinded by partisan hatred for the woman, rather than an objective assessment of the facts.
And let's be clear about one other thing: as governor of Alaska, Ms. Palin is subject to the ALASKA state laws that govern email retention. If she had been elected to federal office as our Vice President, *then* she would have been subject to FEDERAL email retention requirements.
Go look up the definition of "hacker," and realize that the language is larger than your particular limited worldview.
"Hacker" is used, especially in common usage - such as you would read from a non-technical journalist - to describe someone who gains unauthorized access to a computer or computer service.
It doesn't matter what you WANT the term to mean. Your objection to one of its most common uses is duly noted, and has been discarded as irrelevant pedantry.
Actually, I read somewhere (not sure of accuracy and can't find the link right now, so take it with a grain of salt) that the school could have forced him into an assessment, at least. I don't know that I would necessarily object to schools having that authority, either. Locking someone away because the school says so is too much power, but I don't think it would be unreasonable that the school could require an assessment by a licensed mental health professional.
As far as checking for weapons, I believe az is fairly permissive in terms of carry and concealed carry regulations, and I think the venue probably didn't lend itself to much "crowd control" - a supermarket is usually designed to get people in and shopping. Perhaps they could set up metal detectors and the like, I don't know.
I think the unfortunate upshot of this is that the politicians are going to become more inaccessible and remote from their constituents, which is not a good thing. Meet and greets will be held only with carefully-vetted audiences in secured locations, which is just going to result in a political class that's more out of touch with the people.
And to be clear, the Palin ad was tasteless, over-the-top rhetoric. It was dumb, and lacks a critical element of civility that our politicians, who should be leaders and role models, should always exhibit.
I don't like the ad at all - I just don't think you can attribute the actions of a delusional psychotic to it. If that ad had never been printed, this kid still would have hurt someone, and it's entirely likely, given his "anti-government" nonsense on YouTube and elsewhere, that Rep. Giffords would still have been the target.
And let's be clear: nobody got shot "as a result of" Palin's map either. I'm no fan of Ms. Plain, and I mourn the tragic deaths of the people killed, and sincerely hope all the people injured make full, miraculous recoveries. Calling this anything other than a tragic crime by a seriously mentally I'll individual is stupid.
Argue lax gun law enforcement all you want, I'll agree with you on that one. Argue insufficient mental health coverage for citizens, I'll agree with you on that one too. But if you're going to suggest that a campaign ad is "the reason" for this tragedy, you're off your fucking rocker. Let's also dig into what type of music, movies, and books he liked - maybe we can get eminem, slayer, Quentin Tarantino, and clockwork orange banned too, right?
If violent imagery were all that was needed to touch off an event like this, our streets would be awash in blood. And Ms. Palin's map, as "violent" imagery goes, is pretty fucking tame compared to an Eminem song. I'll give you one guess which of the two he was probably far more often-exposed to, as well.
Yeah, total shame about that Martha Stewart. She goes to a federal prison camp, and comes out a hardened assassin. But I love her new "white power" tattoos, they're sexy as hell. Oh wait - that didn't happen at all, did it?
The "federal prison" this kid is going to is the same sort of facility Ms. Stewart went to for her securities conviction. This is not a jail, it's a work program with (MAYBE) a chainlink fence around it. He'll spend his time there working on whatever sort of work program the Ashland facility arranges for its inmates.
He's going to a minimum or low security facility, which is typically almost completely unsecured, and has a focus on work and job programs. We are not talking about "hard time" here. He'll be serving alongside white-collar criminals, not exactly a dangerous bunch.
The Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Ashland is a low security institution housing male inmates with a satellite camp that houses minimum security inmates.
Minimum Security: Minimum security institutions, also known as Federal Prison Camps (FPCs), have dormitory housing, a relatively low staff-to-inmate ratio, and limited or no perimeter fencing. These institutions are work- and program-oriented; and many are located adjacent to larger institutions or on military bases, where inmates help serve the labor needs of the larger institution or base.
Low Security: Low security Federal Correctional Institutions (FCIs) have double-fenced perimeters, mostly dormitory or cubicle housing, and strong work and program components. The staff-to-inmate ratio in these institutions is higher than in minimum security facilities.
I see, so if it's easy to break into someplace, it's legal to do so?
If that's the standard of privacy and property you want to go with, then I guess you wouldn't mind somebody bugging all your phones, and tracking your every movement, right? After all, its pretty easy to do. How angry can you be about it when somebody does it?
Well, I did pretty much say exactly that in my initial response:
HTML5 may get there, and perhaps the web sites aren't really taking the time to develop webapps or proper style sheets for mobile devices, but the small-screen format does lend itself to a customized viewer; larger screen devices, it's less of an issue.
Many of the web sites out there haven't spent the time and effort to build proper mobile-format stylesheets and layouts, and so the custom app tends to be superior, because that is designed specifically for the capabilities of the device. I certainly can't disagree that they *can* look just as good, but if you do a survey of common apps versus the associated web sites, there's definitely a heavy bias towards mobile apps being better designed & laid-out for the smaller screen sizes than the web site itself.
Because I have several email addresses, and having them all deliver mail into a single inbox in the Mail app that comes with my iPhone is preferable to me than Mail for 2 addresses, and a second location for mail via the GMail mobile version.
Please also note that I said "generally," not "always".
This is a stupid argument. You can purchase and install a winch and brush guard on your jeep, provided: 1) The brush guard and winch are designed to fit the jeep; 2) Jeep provides you with the relevant anchor points on your vehicle for these addons to fasten to; 3) You (or someone you pay) know how to attach the device to your jeep.
If you want to install an app on your iPhone, you have to buy an app that is designed to work on the iPhone. Which means, you need to buy an app that is on the app store, because that is the "interface" apple provides for you to add things to your phone with.
Would you accuse Ford of monopolistic behavior if you couldn't swap the winch from your Jeep to your new Explorer? After all, it's an after-market part, who is FORD to tell YOU what you can or can't do with your winch?
I don't see how this can be seen as anything but a giant loss for FOSS and the 4 freedoms.
You noticed that, huh? Me too.
For the record, I was clarifying the point of the article, in my response to h4rr4r - I wasn't necessarily saying I agreed that it's a good thing for open source, but it is an *interesting* turn of events when you see a bunch of repressive governments suddenly discovering true religion and embracing open source and "freedom".
I also thought that Stallman's 2007 visit to Cuba, and Cuba's subsequent announcement that it was embracing FOSS, and following in the footsteps of Venezuela under Hugo Chavez was comedy gold. That visit got a writeup here in Slashdot, and I was roundly down-modded for stating the obvious: that FOSS was just going to be used as a tool for exerting more state control over the people of Cuba and Venezuela.
Of course, the activists were too busy being offended by being described as ponytailed geeks to comprehend the actual point of this article. Apparently, reading comprehension is not a strong point.
The terms of the license will not be raised more than 10% per renewal period. That's baked right into the license terms, and if MPEG-LA tries to hike them more than that, they won't be able to collect.
Look for the inclusion of "tastefully presented Google ads to support our critical mission of openness and freedom" on every Wikipedia page, you mean? Though honestly, that would be preferable to enduring that unnerving stare every time I visited wikipedia.
Jimbo, if I give you a quarter, will you stop making creepy-sexy eyes at me?
Slashdot Mirror
No, that would have been the "Suicidal" move, which would have doomed Youtube to irrelevance within 6 months, and lined the pockets of the people who run sites like Vimeo. They're dropping in-browser support for H.264 to "focus efforts on free and innovative" standards... in order to write plugins for 2 other browsers? Seriously, that doesn't even pass the sniff test.
If you're concerned about the resources you're spending implementing H.264 playback support in ONE browser that you control the entire source base for, how is it a better use of resources to write WebM plugins for 2 other browsers which you don't control, on multiple platforms? You just doubled your work by deciding to support two very different browsers (Safari & IE) on 2 different platforms.
Nah, they won't even notice there's a new plugin to install. They'll continue receiving H.264 video via Flash, like they always have, everywhere except on Youtube.
Hooray for "standards", right? Glad that Google's propping up the de facto one, Flash.
None. You know this, I know this, and Google knows this. This has nothing to do with doing the "best thing for the customer."
All this will do is prolong Flash's lifespan. Nobody's going to re-encode their existing video to WebM (except YouTube, which Google controls), and instead, they'll simply serve Chrome users with Flash-wrapped H.264.
That's right, FLASH-wrapped. Because Google, in an effort to "encourage open standards and innovation" is single-handedly propping up Adobe's proprietary platform, and starting a dick-measuring contest with an open standard that happens to not be "free". Never mind that their own proposed "free and open" format might not survive a court challenge on patent infringement.
You do realize that I'm not the Anonymous Coward who originally responded to you, right? So let's review:
You made the assertion that "Republicans call us demoncrats all the time," which was made with such an air of tender, wounded naievete. I pointed out that other than right here where you claimed that you get called that "all the time," and thus felt the need to "reclaim the word," I've never heard any Democrat referred to as that, so I was bewildered as to why you would seem to think that everybody should know that it's a common term for Democrats among right-wingers.
You proceeded to curse and call names, because I guess that makes you feel better. Spoiled children are known for their tantrums when they don't get their way, I guess.
As far as you treating me more civilly, I could not care less what your opinion is of me, frankly. I've scraped unidentifiable muck off the treads of my boots which I've found more interesting and insightful than your uninformed lunacy.
So... you're not a democrat, you're a self-styled anarchist, which in my experience means you probably took a single philosophy class in college and decided you were smarter than everybody around you as a result, and you get a pathetically smug little hardon from calling yourself an anarchist, because it makes you feel like you're a special little snowflake. I'm pretty close, aren't I?
Of course, I have to ask, if you're not a democrat, then why did you assert that, and I quote, "Republicans call us demoncrats all the time"? (emphasis mine.)
You keep making the statement that you don't care if you're "hurting my feelings," which I find curious because I'm not the one who's acting like a butt-hurt little bitch here, with the cursing and the name-calling. That'd be you, friend.
Who did I vote for? I tossed my vote away on Barr/Root (Libertarian) in 2008 as a protest, because I didn't particularly like Obama/Biden *or* McCain/Palin.
If Hillary Clinton had been the democratic nominee, she would have received my vote, because I think she was the most-qualified person in the race in 2008. Her husband, Bill (remember him? Democrat from Arkansas? 2-term president?), received my vote. George Bush got my vote the first time he was elected; John Kerry got it the second time, because I was disappointed with Bush's performance.
But yeah, you're totally right. Never voted Democrat in my life. NEVAR EVAR.
As far as being thin-skinned, I'm not sure how you get that I'm being "defensive" in pointing out your (once again) obvious exaggeration and overstatement in an attempt to sound put-upon and oh-so-beleaguered in your role as "THE ONE TRUE DEMOCRAT". If you call my comment defensive, well, I'm not the one slinging insults and cursing, friend. Just sayin'.
"you guys"? So because I point out your naked exaggeration and overstatement, I'm immediately a Republican who demonizes his opponents?
What I can say is that a google search for "DEMONCRAT" returns links to (right at the top):
-- Urban Dictionary (long a noted source for political commentary and family values rhetoric);
-- Landover Baptist Church, a satirical web site which is quite clearly and obviously a liberal parody of the bible thumping morons referenced in my previous post.
Sounds like I'm not the one doing the demonizing. Oh, and for the record: registered to vote as an Independent, friend. No party commands my unquestioning loyalty.
Really? Because I've never heard the term used by a Republican to describe a Democrat other than right here, when you just used it.
I've heard it used by Democrats who are trying to be snarky, and talk about how all Republicans are bible-thumping morons, though.
His dad's a congressman.
I'd say his chances of being corrupted by his surroundings are pretty much even.
You're right - because a low-budget 90's comedy about office drones is guaranteed to be a factually accurate representation.
No, the "ease of break-in" doesn't make a difference, except where you have *contracted* to take certain precautions against theft as a risk mitigation factor, and then you fail to fulfill your obligations under that contract.
The police don't let a thief go because he took stuff from an unlocked house. The ease with which the thief broke in has no bearing on whether or not he committed a crime.
And in response to your P.S.: http://www.adn.com/2010/01/22/1106051/judge-sides-with-state-palin-in.html
A judge has ruled that she did nothing "illegal" in using personal email as she did. Is it sloppy? Sure. Is it a gray area? Sure. Is it something where she complied with the letter, but not the obvious spirit of the law? You betcha. Could she have shown better judgement? Absolutely. But when a judge issues a ruling that she didn't do anything illegal, and you continue calling her actions "illegal," well... it just suggests that you're blinded by partisan hatred for the woman, rather than an objective assessment of the facts.
And let's be clear about one other thing: as governor of Alaska, Ms. Palin is subject to the ALASKA state laws that govern email retention. If she had been elected to federal office as our Vice President, *then* she would have been subject to FEDERAL email retention requirements.
Go look up the definition of "hacker," and realize that the language is larger than your particular limited worldview.
"Hacker" is used, especially in common usage - such as you would read from a non-technical journalist - to describe someone who gains unauthorized access to a computer or computer service.
It doesn't matter what you WANT the term to mean. Your objection to one of its most common uses is duly noted, and has been discarded as irrelevant pedantry.
Actually, I read somewhere (not sure of accuracy and can't find the link right now, so take it with a grain of salt) that the school could have forced him into an assessment, at least. I don't know that I would necessarily object to schools having that authority, either. Locking someone away because the school says so is too much power, but I don't think it would be unreasonable that the school could require an assessment by a licensed mental health professional.
As far as checking for weapons, I believe az is fairly permissive in terms of carry and concealed carry regulations, and I think the venue probably didn't lend itself to much "crowd control" - a supermarket is usually designed to get people in and shopping. Perhaps they could set up metal detectors and the like, I don't know.
I think the unfortunate upshot of this is that the politicians are going to become more inaccessible and remote from their constituents, which is not a good thing. Meet and greets will be held only with carefully-vetted audiences in secured locations, which is just going to result in a political class that's more out of touch with the people.
And to be clear, the Palin ad was tasteless, over-the-top rhetoric. It was dumb, and lacks a critical element of civility that our politicians, who should be leaders and role models, should always exhibit.
I don't like the ad at all - I just don't think you can attribute the actions of a delusional psychotic to it. If that ad had never been printed, this kid still would have hurt someone, and it's entirely likely, given his "anti-government" nonsense on YouTube and elsewhere, that Rep. Giffords would still have been the target.
And let's be clear: nobody got shot "as a result of" Palin's map either. I'm no fan of Ms. Plain, and I mourn the tragic deaths of the people killed, and sincerely hope all the people injured make full, miraculous recoveries. Calling this anything other than a tragic crime by a seriously mentally I'll individual is stupid.
Argue lax gun law enforcement all you want, I'll agree with you on that one. Argue insufficient mental health coverage for citizens, I'll agree with you on that one too. But if you're going to suggest that a campaign ad is "the reason" for this tragedy, you're off your fucking rocker. Let's also dig into what type of music, movies, and books he liked - maybe we can get eminem, slayer, Quentin Tarantino, and clockwork orange banned too, right?
If violent imagery were all that was needed to touch off an event like this, our streets would be awash in blood. And Ms. Palin's map, as "violent" imagery goes, is pretty fucking tame compared to an Eminem song. I'll give you one guess which of the two he was probably far more often-exposed to, as well.
Yeah, total shame about that Martha Stewart. She goes to a federal prison camp, and comes out a hardened assassin. But I love her new "white power" tattoos, they're sexy as hell. Oh wait - that didn't happen at all, did it?
The "federal prison" this kid is going to is the same sort of facility Ms. Stewart went to for her securities conviction. This is not a jail, it's a work program with (MAYBE) a chainlink fence around it. He'll spend his time there working on whatever sort of work program the Ashland facility arranges for its inmates.
He's going to a minimum or low security facility, which is typically almost completely unsecured, and has a focus on work and job programs. We are not talking about "hard time" here. He'll be serving alongside white-collar criminals, not exactly a dangerous bunch.
From the BOP web site:
And since the article calls it low security, but references the prison camp, he might be housed at either the low or min- security facility. Here's a description of the type of facility he's going to:
I see, so if it's easy to break into someplace, it's legal to do so?
If that's the standard of privacy and property you want to go with, then I guess you wouldn't mind somebody bugging all your phones, and tracking your every movement, right? After all, its pretty easy to do. How angry can you be about it when somebody does it?
Well, I did pretty much say exactly that in my initial response:
Many of the web sites out there haven't spent the time and effort to build proper mobile-format stylesheets and layouts, and so the custom app tends to be superior, because that is designed specifically for the capabilities of the device. I certainly can't disagree that they *can* look just as good, but if you do a survey of common apps versus the associated web sites, there's definitely a heavy bias towards mobile apps being better designed & laid-out for the smaller screen sizes than the web site itself.
Because I have several email addresses, and having them all deliver mail into a single inbox in the Mail app that comes with my iPhone is preferable to me than Mail for 2 addresses, and a second location for mail via the GMail mobile version.
Please also note that I said "generally," not "always".
I just decided to get rid of my iPhone.
This is a stupid argument. You can purchase and install a winch and brush guard on your jeep, provided:
1) The brush guard and winch are designed to fit the jeep;
2) Jeep provides you with the relevant anchor points on your vehicle for these addons to fasten to;
3) You (or someone you pay) know how to attach the device to your jeep.
If you want to install an app on your iPhone, you have to buy an app that is designed to work on the iPhone. Which means, you need to buy an app that is on the app store, because that is the "interface" apple provides for you to add things to your phone with.
Would you accuse Ford of monopolistic behavior if you couldn't swap the winch from your Jeep to your new Explorer? After all, it's an after-market part, who is FORD to tell YOU what you can or can't do with your winch?
You noticed that, huh? Me too.
For the record, I was clarifying the point of the article, in my response to h4rr4r - I wasn't necessarily saying I agreed that it's a good thing for open source, but it is an *interesting* turn of events when you see a bunch of repressive governments suddenly discovering true religion and embracing open source and "freedom".
I also thought that Stallman's 2007 visit to Cuba, and Cuba's subsequent announcement that it was embracing FOSS, and following in the footsteps of Venezuela under Hugo Chavez was comedy gold. That visit got a writeup here in Slashdot, and I was roundly down-modded for stating the obvious: that FOSS was just going to be used as a tool for exerting more state control over the people of Cuba and Venezuela.
Of course, the activists were too busy being offended by being described as ponytailed geeks to comprehend the actual point of this article. Apparently, reading comprehension is not a strong point.
The terms of the license will not be raised more than 10% per renewal period. That's baked right into the license terms, and if MPEG-LA tries to hike them more than that, they won't be able to collect.
Look for the inclusion of "tastefully presented Google ads to support our critical mission of openness and freedom" on every Wikipedia page, you mean? Though honestly, that would be preferable to enduring that unnerving stare every time I visited wikipedia.
Jimbo, if I give you a quarter, will you stop making creepy-sexy eyes at me?