Some OS that's able to run Linux binaries might be (rightly) judged as showing that Linux is something to be taken seriously, but I really don't see how this feature makes it "friendly" to Linux. It's a bit like saying Microsoft was being "friendly" to Netscape with the release of Internet Explorer.
the web is still primarily a visual medium in terms of what it delivers to end users
Unless you're blind, disable images, use a text browser, a PDA/cell browser, increase the font size so you can actually read the text, or any combination of the above.
Dude, you have bigger fish to fry. You have an evil twin. I'd be more worried about plots to frame or kill you than whether your future employer is Googling for things about you.
It's important to note that there are disabled hackers, though. A relative of mine in Norway worked on IBM's ViaVoice software in its early life (maybe he still does, I dunno). He's also blind.
Every minute and every dollar spent making linux work for the blind is a minute not spent making linux work better for the average user.
Define "average". The number of Americans who are "hearing impaired" was (in 1991) listed at 20 million. The number of Americans over 40 who are completely blind is over one million. Adding "visually impaired" to this adds another 2.4 million. All of these numbers will balloon as the baby boom generation ages.
I realize "average" to you probably means people who are [insert dominant race here], middle class, and have never had to deal with any true hardships. However, a bit of respect costs you nothing, so I'd appreciate it if you'd quit being an ass and take your poor attitude elsewhere.
How about other types of disabilities? How about if a person is blind and deaf? Or is missing both arms? Or is a quadrapeligic? How do we help them install and use linux? It seems to me that you have to draw the line someplace.
"Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me." --Jesus of Nazareth
Re:Capitalism at its finest....
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: 1
Capitalism at its finest? Not really. All this has done is show the large, oppresive media cartels that they have another viable way of avoiding risks. Shows that weren't blockbusters get exiled to cable syndication for a few years, and if they get deemed successful, the same people who axed the show before bring it back and look like the good guys.
Re:Now it's time to kill The Simpsons
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: 1
The Simpsons is becoming the Garfield of animated TV.
Re:Now it's time to kill The Simpsons
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: 1
American Dad was more or less McFarlane's response to the Presidency of George W. Bush
Fixed.
And yes, I agree that Family Guy has gotten much worse.
I really hate how Eric Raymond and the OSI have hijacked the Free Software movement and attempted to mold it into what they see as ideal. But perhaps I'm reading their intentions incorrectly. If all they wanted to do was create a buzzword that would get misused and misquoted, they've succeeded. If they wanted to further the spirit of classical computing environments (where code was simply shared), or further the mission of GNU (creating a completely free operating system), they have completely and utterly failed.
What they have wrought is a culture where corporations can attempt to get the equivalent of "street cred" by paying lip service to free and open code. The best example I can think of is everybody's favorite monopoly. What the "Open Source" campaign showed Microsoft is that you can re-brand someone else's idea but suit it to advance something completely different. For more on this subject, see the novel 1984.
But most importantly, Linus Torvalds has nothing to do with "Open Source". It is also important to note that he originally released Linux under a license that did not allow any selling of the software, not even for cost of media (floppies, etc). Some of you might reply to this by pointing out that he often publicly disagrees with Stallman over some issues. This is a red herring, as Torvalds himself often then follows this up by saying "but I'm just a kernel hacker".
Firefox does NOT pass the Acid2 test.... The dev tree might, but who counts that?
As a corollary, who touts passing Acid2 as the cornerstone of their browser? I believe the only answer right now would be Apple/KDE zealots, but that's just virtual wanking. What people don't seem to think about is it doesn't mean anything if your browser can pass some specific test like Acid2, especially if the rest of the CSS support mangles pages worse than IE. A little perspective is important, folks.
And with the draconian copyright laws we currently have, most (all?) of the music on OCRemix is considered infringing. I only mention this so we all remember that there's quite a few issues involved in the struggle for better copyright law.
Is it possible to encode aacPlus files without DRM? If so, why aren't more people doing so, because for what I understand it outperforms both mp3Pro and ogg.
I don't understand why you're comparing an audio encoding format with a media container format. (hint: you can put FLAC audio in OGG files, and those definitely beat aacPlus)
They also have smaller file size [compared to MP3] when it comes to the same quality.
This isn't exactly true. You might want to dig up some of the listening tests on this site.
I'll spoil it for you here anyway: there really isn't a clear winner. Depending on when the test was done and what bitrates they were looking at, different codecs come out on top. LAME was the king for a long time, but I believe Vorbis has surpassed it in most circumstances (as has Apple's AAC in a few). Basically, different codecs/encoders leapfrog each other. Vorbis hackers come out of the woodwork and start distributing patches that eventually get included in the official Xiph tree. LAME seems to always be under development, and there are efforts beginning to write version 4 which will de-gunk and modularise the source. As for Apple/MS/Nero, I don't know how much they improve their codecs, although I know AAC has improved since release.
This is solely a side-effect of the current demographics of Net usership. Those who contribute to Wikipedia are most likely techier/geekier than the average person, and I mean this in the sense that they get excited about cool new toys (and videogames/sci-fi attract a large number of these types). They already "get it" in regards to the bazaar method.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people who could be making valuable contributions to a project like this, but don't. They may not have access, or they may not have heard about it. Then there are many who don't like using computers except for the bare minimum they have to. Some are indignant and think such a project is a waste of time. Some don't have time.
As computer/net usership continues to become a more mainstream thing, I think we'll see the balance of topics on Wikipedia become better.
Slashdot Mirror
Some OS that's able to run Linux binaries might be (rightly) judged as showing that Linux is something to be taken seriously, but I really don't see how this feature makes it "friendly" to Linux. It's a bit like saying Microsoft was being "friendly" to Netscape with the release of Internet Explorer.
When they implement emacs(), I'm definitely jumping ship to one of the BSDs.
Umm, 2.10?
Unless you're blind, disable images, use a text browser, a PDA/cell browser, increase the font size so you can actually read the text, or any combination of the above.
To contrast the CSS Zen Garden, see also the CSS Trappist Monastery.
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
As opposed to what, a decreasing number of successive hours?
The creator of a conscious movement cannot hijack it, as they are the genesis. Argument defeated in one sentence.
Dude, you have bigger fish to fry. You have an evil twin. I'd be more worried about plots to frame or kill you than whether your future employer is Googling for things about you.
Looks like ESR has finally gotten a slashdot account...
It's important to note that there are disabled hackers, though. A relative of mine in Norway worked on IBM's ViaVoice software in its early life (maybe he still does, I dunno). He's also blind.
Define "average". The number of Americans who are "hearing impaired" was (in 1991) listed at 20 million. The number of Americans over 40 who are completely blind is over one million. Adding "visually impaired" to this adds another 2.4 million. All of these numbers will balloon as the baby boom generation ages.
I realize "average" to you probably means people who are [insert dominant race here], middle class, and have never had to deal with any true hardships. However, a bit of respect costs you nothing, so I'd appreciate it if you'd quit being an ass and take your poor attitude elsewhere.
"Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me." --Jesus of Nazareth
Capitalism at its finest? Not really. All this has done is show the large, oppresive media cartels that they have another viable way of avoiding risks. Shows that weren't blockbusters get exiled to cable syndication for a few years, and if they get deemed successful, the same people who axed the show before bring it back and look like the good guys.
The Simpsons is becoming the Garfield of animated TV.
Fixed.
And yes, I agree that Family Guy has gotten much worse.
Send me money to cover the fees, and I'll get right on that.
What they have wrought is a culture where corporations can attempt to get the equivalent of "street cred" by paying lip service to free and open code. The best example I can think of is everybody's favorite monopoly. What the "Open Source" campaign showed Microsoft is that you can re-brand someone else's idea but suit it to advance something completely different. For more on this subject, see the novel 1984.
But most importantly, Linus Torvalds has nothing to do with "Open Source". It is also important to note that he originally released Linux under a license that did not allow any selling of the software, not even for cost of media (floppies, etc). Some of you might reply to this by pointing out that he often publicly disagrees with Stallman over some issues. This is a red herring, as Torvalds himself often then follows this up by saying "but I'm just a kernel hacker".
Ah, I see. It's better to perpetuate misinformation than to tell the truth.
As a corollary, who touts passing Acid2 as the cornerstone of their browser? I believe the only answer right now would be Apple/KDE zealots, but that's just virtual wanking. What people don't seem to think about is it doesn't mean anything if your browser can pass some specific test like Acid2, especially if the rest of the CSS support mangles pages worse than IE. A little perspective is important, folks.
And with the draconian copyright laws we currently have, most (all?) of the music on OCRemix is considered infringing. I only mention this so we all remember that there's quite a few issues involved in the struggle for better copyright law.
I don't understand why you're comparing an audio encoding format with a media container format. (hint: you can put FLAC audio in OGG files, and those definitely beat aacPlus)
This isn't exactly true. You might want to dig up some of the listening tests on this site.
I'll spoil it for you here anyway: there really isn't a clear winner. Depending on when the test was done and what bitrates they were looking at, different codecs come out on top. LAME was the king for a long time, but I believe Vorbis has surpassed it in most circumstances (as has Apple's AAC in a few). Basically, different codecs/encoders leapfrog each other. Vorbis hackers come out of the woodwork and start distributing patches that eventually get included in the official Xiph tree. LAME seems to always be under development, and there are efforts beginning to write version 4 which will de-gunk and modularise the source. As for Apple/MS/Nero, I don't know how much they improve their codecs, although I know AAC has improved since release.
On the other hand, there are a lot of people who could be making valuable contributions to a project like this, but don't. They may not have access, or they may not have heard about it. Then there are many who don't like using computers except for the bare minimum they have to. Some are indignant and think such a project is a waste of time. Some don't have time.
As computer/net usership continues to become a more mainstream thing, I think we'll see the balance of topics on Wikipedia become better.
KOJIMA IS DRUNK AND UNRULY