Of course the OP didn't bother to actually link to the real product announcement, instead just to some site slagging Flash. If any of you are under the impression that Flash is going away just because it wont be used for banner ads or video.. Just take a look at the type of 3D games that are currently being developed in Flash:
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/
Tell me with a straight face that people will be doing games like that in html the near future. I just don't get the hate.. each technology has its place. Once intrusive banner ads are done in html 5 and crappy javascript code is slowing your browser down, will you start hating HTML and Javascript just as much?
In a world where all content is housed at repositories controlled by the content providers, as soon as someone decides that such content needs "editing" for artistic, financial or political reasons.. then there's NO recourse, or even a source of proof that the previous version ever "existed" at all. Sounds like 1984 really just arrived.
So who DID shoot first, Han or Greedo? I SWEAR I remembered it otherwise.. but nope, I guess not.
I just learned that around 800 pedestrians per year are hit in San Francisco alone. Forgetting jokes about bums and jaywalkers, I'm guessing a significant percentage of those people were doing exactly what they were supposed to and the car just didn't stop for the red light, or didn't yield, or they didn't see that car coming from behind in the six-way intersection.
If there were no audio cues I am sure these unfortunate rates would just go up. If you're thinking in binary and believe we ONLY need one sense (sight) to protect us from accidents... give me some of what you're smoking, please...
Please, let this horrid buzzword die. Right now. All we have to do is convince the Slashdot editors to stop injecting it into articles.
Last time I turned around, "mashup" meant some kind of Frankenstein DJ set. Now it means the same thing as connecting software packages together by end users? WTF.
This is possible. But my personal guess is that most large companies will just bite the bullet and pay the protection money to keep thir bits a'flowin. They will raise prices/fees to compensate. Your $$$ -> Telcos.
Also smaller and medium sized ISPs who depend on tier 1 providers will also have to pay protection money to keep their customers web services from suffering. ISP charges customers more. More of your $$$ -> Telcos.
So I bet things will remain basically as they are, except we'll all be giving more cash directly or indirectly to the telcos.
Links to foreign sites or non-corporate approved sites however may suffer.:P
Like most of you, I am disgusted and disheartended by the state of the software industry. I feel as if its not worth trying to create my own product because of the dangers of stepping on someone's latent patent landmines.
But I'm wondering if the idea of dumping software patents can have any traction with the general public? The politicians are in the pockets of the big companies, and they're plenty happy to keep their entrenched positions with their armies of lawyers. Until the GENREAL public cries out for a change, it won't happen.
So far I have not heard anything about this matter outside of the geek community. (even some of my less geeky computer freinds have not heard/thought about this issue)
Could this be what the biznezpeeple think is a useful way to take in information? Or do they really just look at the perty pictures?
The worst of it is that this seems to be the standard for articles at Forbes. I've seen several other Forbes links that all work this way over the last few months.
You're certainly in the minority on Slashdot. But probly not the minority of the general populace. Most people like "flashy" things. And I've rarely seen a non-flash web site that can have as much bling bling as a Flash site.
Slashdot has its own very peculiar politics and tastes.
So sorry that Slashdot has become such a complete Apple fan-boy site. Its utterly predictable. How much do they get paid by Apple I wonder?
I have used both Macs and PCs, and I really prefer XP, the much wider variety of games and applications, and the cheaper, more varied and open hardware of the PC. And at least I have a freakin wheel on my (stock) mouse.
bogosity #1: XP is unstable. Not true. I never crash on my XP at work.. and only at home because I install so much junk to play with it. I'm sure an inept Macintosh application can cause problems too.
bogosity #2: Mac cant get viruses. Most likely not true. You wait until you have a sizeable marketshare Mr Apple-head, and you'll see virus writers turning the same attention to Mac as they do to PC. Its about critical mass. (OK the whole Outlook thing was a huge blunder for MS)
bogosity #3: Mac definitively "looks" better. Maybe to Apple fanboys, but I have always thought the iPod was ugly, the G3 design was ugly, the stalk was ass ugly.. only the powerbook looks decent to my eyes. And there are some really awesome looking PC cases out there. Those that cant find one with the variety available must be blind. And about that powerbook.. theres probly a hundred PC powerbook-look clones coming out. No problem there.
bogosity #4: Apple is faster. Give me a freakin break. AMD Athlon 64, hello? Not even talkin about dual or quad processor motherboards.
bogosity #5: Apple hardware is made well. Our Macintoshes burn out WAY faster than our PCs, even though they are used less. Its overpriced crappy hardware, I tell ya.
Go ahead, troll me. I needed to get this off my chest!:)
I know that you're jesting, but animal cruelty jokes always disturb me.. it just reminds me how many sick people actually get their kicks from animal torture. (which is an early predictor of sociopathic cruelty to humans)
I also hope that guy doesnt keep his hamsters in there for too long, theres no food or water available.
Oh what a moronic move this man has made, now he's almost assured his company of a Chapter 11 future.
I actually can understand his initial predicament.. all these eBay scam artists promoting their wares by using MAME's name. But why did he not just cooperate with the MAME team, by allocating resources to THEM to notify these people not to use the trademark, instead of doing an extremely rude and underhanded end-run? The MAME team is very clear that MAME is not about pirating roms, or making a buck and Im sure they would be happy to have help in preventing their name and logo from being slandered.
It was plain wrong of him to try to "steal" their name himself.
The way I see it, we have a Pascal's wager here.. if we believe we might be causing global warming.. and we're not.. then what do we lose? Not Much. In fact we will probably have gained by increasing global efficiency. The railing of conservatives saying jobs will be lost is nonsense; jobs always come in to fill any economic space. Like new jobs in installing efficiency systems, etc.
If we DONT believe we have caused global warming.. and we keep on dumping our pollution into the air, and OOOOPS we did cause it.. then we've just doomed ourselves to some VERY ugly changes in civilization. Goodbye coastal cities, goodbye species etc.
Which would the prudent man choose, even if the evidence is not all in yet?
Haha of course I'm not the prudent man according to Pascal's wager, because I'm truly on the path to Hell but I'm wagering it doesnt exist;)
From the report is seems they wanted each frame to be able to stand on its own as a freezeframe.. dancers need to analyze a single frame for poses etc.
And another bonus would be that since JPEG-2000 is a technology for encoding still bitmaps, one could grab a single frame of the movie and use it separately without any transcoding to another format.
Good point but your eyes must be sharp to spot the engagement of the artist. The artist (and we'll stick to human artists) would have to be the programmer of typographer. They engaged to create a machine to make art. That makes them an artist in an artistic endeavor. Typographer is just a tool of the artist.
Anyway, you certainly CAN formally analyze the compositions for balance,color, blah blah.. Depending on the algorithms the programmer chooses, these elements will have different distributions.
In some cases, intention is 90% of the art, as the results "on canvas" are quite pedestrian. (Warhol's soup can) But in typographers case I kind of like them.:)
Thanks for the well thought out response. Sorry I referred to your argument as a conservative one. I really do have a lot of respect for the libertarian viewpoint. (at least it doesn't reek of religious hypocrisy as the Bush neo-cons do) I guess I have seen too much evil shit that people do to each other (and the environment) for me to have faith that a system without some economic government constraints wouldn't end up as some kind of Mad Max hell-future, with little fiefdoms run by the wealthy with the assets controlling their serfs (company towns with their own egregious "tax substitutes"), or that a system where the rich are not "soaked" would not eventually have money concentrated in the hands of so few that they eventually replace government as virtual "kings". Do you ever worry that 80% of America might eventually be a polluted wasteland with 20% resort communities for the lucky few? These are my liberal fears. If I could have a reasonable assurance that the poorest among us would be BETTER off than now, and that society would become less stratified, I'd be much more inclined to call myself libertarian. But I'm not going to scrap our social safety net so that Donald Trump can have twenty yachts instead of ten. If none of that matters to you, then we're just from different planets in our "moral values".
Are you trusting your faith that this will not happen, or do you have evidence to back it up? What do you think society would look like after 50 years of pure libertarian policy?
One analogy might be a nuclear reactor.. my belief (and it is a belief, nothing more) is that a capitalist economy behaves like a nuclear reactor. Taxes are like the water cooling the rods, too much water.. reaction is not optimal, not enough water, reaction goes critical. And to me the libertarian philosophy feels like a reactor with no water.
Not tying to bait.. I'm really more interested in opening up dialogues than having fact-twisting shouting matches, as conservatives & liberals seem to do exclusively now.
PS sorry if my reactor analogy is imprecise. I ain't no nuclear engineer.:)
That comment was not an attempt to "prove you wrong". (although I never saw you give any proof that you were "right") It was a genuine curiousity of how many people who rail against this mysterious "welfare state" really have any firsthand experience of how much it sucks to be poor. Its that empathy for fellow man that I feel is lacking in many conservative viewpoints. I cannot grasp the value system of conservatives, thats all.
My real point was that there is a substantial segment of the population that a) has not built up irresponsible debt (because thay have no credit) b) works hard c) truly has no headroom for savings and no perks at their job like pension or 401k. Social security is a social welfare program which is their (pitifully small) safety net. For some reason, you want to take that away which disgusts me.
And I was hypothesizing that you don't understand that point C is true because you have no firsthand experience with poverty. Perhaps I am wrong.
Semi-related rant: I can "prove" mathematically that the elderly should be ground up into dog food by comparing the productivity of a nonagenarian to the productivity of a good police dog. That doesnt mean its a good idea. At some point, social policy ceases to be about proving things right or wrong, and becomes about values. Such as I would be happy to pay more taxes, so that each person can have a minimum standard of healthcare, even though its not in my "immediate" best interest since I have insurance. Nothing there to be proved or disproved.
When I read people rambling about the "welfare state" I am always curious to know what their social class is/has been. Have they ever known a family who did not have enough income to save anything? Because theres millions of families in America who literally cash their paycheck for cash, and buy food and pay off utilities, then its gone. And many of these people have multiple part time jobs. Perhaps they just weren't blessed with great schools or academic prowess so they didnt get a great education.
Its not about charging big screen TVs on their credit cards.. they have no credit cards and there is no buffer to save from.
You sound like a man whose rational brain has been consumed by his own zealotry. You claim it is "impossible", but what you mean is "I dont want that to happen".. because its most definitely possible.
PS who exactly is the coward? The one who hides in his doomsday bunker with his firearms, that's who.:P
We have 10.2.8, and I wanted to get Safari 1.2 to test some stuff with. When we tried to update, Apple told us Safari 1.0.3 weas the latest version available for that OS.
I'm not trying to troll.. but that doesnt seem right. Its not exactly "keeping you up-to-date" if the most critical apps people use are not kept fresh. In fact it smacks of OS upgrade lock-in. I'm not a Mac guru, so I may just be missing something and please correct me.
Is this similar to the whole Linux glib thing where you needed the same version of the system libraries as the applications link to? That glib dll-Hell always aggravated me.
It's good that you are one of the responsible gun owners.
I do take issue with your argument however. I have heard so many variations on this "well since we already have outdated, flawed technology X in the field, so implementing new improved Y technology will not help things." Did the invention of seat belts in cars cause more accidents because people started relying on them to keep from catapulting out their windshield?
Personally I believe that every person should have the right to own a gun, provided:
a) that gun cannot be fired by anyone else (dongle, sensor, magic word, whatever)
b) if that gun is fired, the bullet will be easily traceable back to the gun and its owner. (perhaps making all bullets have serial numbers and making people register themselves to the bullets when purchasing)
Until that's happening, then 2nd amendment is outdated, dangerous garbage. It will take time yes, to get the old crappy guns off the street. But it will happen over time.
If we can splice a human with a mouse, or fit millions of circuits into postage stamp sized area.. we can figure this gun safety stuff out. We're smart like that.:)
PS 2nd amendment purists, remember that our white, wigged founders also thought of black people as similar to their horse or dog. They had some F**d up ideas that we needed to remedy!
Slashdot Mirror
No one here knows anything about the technologies they bash, that's why.
Of course the OP didn't bother to actually link to the real product announcement, instead just to some site slagging Flash. If any of you are under the impression that Flash is going away just because it wont be used for banner ads or video.. Just take a look at the type of 3D games that are currently being developed in Flash: http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplatform/ Tell me with a straight face that people will be doing games like that in html the near future. I just don't get the hate.. each technology has its place. Once intrusive banner ads are done in html 5 and crappy javascript code is slowing your browser down, will you start hating HTML and Javascript just as much?
In a world where all content is housed at repositories controlled by the content providers, as soon as someone decides that such content needs "editing" for artistic, financial or political reasons.. then there's NO recourse, or even a source of proof that the previous version ever "existed" at all. Sounds like 1984 really just arrived. So who DID shoot first, Han or Greedo? I SWEAR I remembered it otherwise.. but nope, I guess not.
I just learned that around 800 pedestrians per year are hit in San Francisco alone. Forgetting jokes about bums and jaywalkers, I'm guessing a significant percentage of those people were doing exactly what they were supposed to and the car just didn't stop for the red light, or didn't yield, or they didn't see that car coming from behind in the six-way intersection. If there were no audio cues I am sure these unfortunate rates would just go up. If you're thinking in binary and believe we ONLY need one sense (sight) to protect us from accidents... give me some of what you're smoking, please...
My first game of D&D was played during school recess, using a ROCK as the die.
Please, let this horrid buzzword die. Right now. All we have to do is convince the Slashdot editors to stop injecting it into articles. Last time I turned around, "mashup" meant some kind of Frankenstein DJ set. Now it means the same thing as connecting software packages together by end users? WTF.
Oh man... thats the best sig ever!
Good job, citizen! I'll stake out the pages on giraffes and naked mole rats. Anyone want to take the night watch?
This is possible. But my personal guess is that most large companies will just bite the bullet and pay the protection money to keep thir bits a'flowin. They will raise prices/fees to compensate. Your $$$ -> Telcos. Also smaller and medium sized ISPs who depend on tier 1 providers will also have to pay protection money to keep their customers web services from suffering. ISP charges customers more. More of your $$$ -> Telcos. So I bet things will remain basically as they are, except we'll all be giving more cash directly or indirectly to the telcos. Links to foreign sites or non-corporate approved sites however may suffer. :P
Like most of you, I am disgusted and disheartended by the state of the software industry. I feel as if its not worth trying to create my own product because of the dangers of stepping on someone's latent patent landmines.
But I'm wondering if the idea of dumping software patents can have any traction with the general public? The politicians are in the pockets of the big companies, and they're plenty happy to keep their entrenched positions with their armies of lawyers. Until the GENREAL public cries out for a change, it won't happen.
So far I have not heard anything about this matter outside of the geek community. (even some of my less geeky computer freinds have not heard/thought about this issue)
Could this be what the biznezpeeple think is a useful way to take in information? Or do they really just look at the perty pictures?
The worst of it is that this seems to be the standard for articles at Forbes. I've seen several other Forbes links that all work this way over the last few months.
Well the FAQ says the exact opposite:
3. Can I use Google Web Accelerator with a dial-up connection?
Dial-up users may not see much improvement, as Google Web Accelerator is currently optimized to speed up web page loading for broadband connections.
You're certainly in the minority on Slashdot. But probly not the minority of the general populace. Most people like "flashy" things. And I've rarely seen a non-flash web site that can have as much bling bling as a Flash site.
Slashdot has its own very peculiar politics and tastes.
So sorry that Slashdot has become such a complete Apple fan-boy site. Its utterly predictable. How much do they get paid by Apple I wonder?
:)
I have used both Macs and PCs, and I really prefer XP, the much wider variety of games and applications, and the cheaper, more varied and open hardware of the PC. And at least I have a freakin wheel on my (stock) mouse.
bogosity #1: XP is unstable. Not true. I never crash on my XP at work.. and only at home because I install so much junk to play with it. I'm sure an inept Macintosh application can cause problems too.
bogosity #2: Mac cant get viruses. Most likely not true. You wait until you have a sizeable marketshare Mr Apple-head, and you'll see virus writers turning the same attention to Mac as they do to PC. Its about critical mass. (OK the whole Outlook thing was a huge blunder for MS)
bogosity #3: Mac definitively "looks" better. Maybe to Apple fanboys, but I have always thought the iPod was ugly, the G3 design was ugly, the stalk was ass ugly.. only the powerbook looks decent to my eyes. And there are some really awesome looking PC cases out there. Those that cant find one with the variety available must be blind. And about that powerbook.. theres probly a hundred PC powerbook-look clones coming out. No problem there.
bogosity #4: Apple is faster. Give me a freakin break. AMD Athlon 64, hello? Not even talkin about dual or quad processor motherboards.
bogosity #5: Apple hardware is made well. Our Macintoshes burn out WAY faster than our PCs, even though they are used less. Its overpriced crappy hardware, I tell ya.
Go ahead, troll me. I needed to get this off my chest!
I know that you're jesting, but animal cruelty jokes always disturb me.. it just reminds me how many sick people actually get their kicks from animal torture. (which is an early predictor of sociopathic cruelty to humans)
I also hope that guy doesnt keep his hamsters in there for too long, theres no food or water available.
Oh what a moronic move this man has made, now he's almost assured his company of a Chapter 11 future.
I actually can understand his initial predicament.. all these eBay scam artists promoting their wares by using MAME's name. But why did he not just cooperate with the MAME team, by allocating resources to THEM to notify these people not to use the trademark, instead of doing an extremely rude and underhanded end-run? The MAME team is very clear that MAME is not about pirating roms, or making a buck and Im sure they would be happy to have help in preventing their name and logo from being slandered.
It was plain wrong of him to try to "steal" their name himself.
The way I see it, we have a Pascal's wager here.. if we believe we might be causing global warming.. and we're not.. then what do we lose? Not Much. In fact we will probably have gained by increasing global efficiency. The railing of conservatives saying jobs will be lost is nonsense; jobs always come in to fill any economic space. Like new jobs in installing efficiency systems, etc.
;)
If we DONT believe we have caused global warming.. and we keep on dumping our pollution into the air, and OOOOPS we did cause it.. then we've just doomed ourselves to some VERY ugly changes in civilization. Goodbye coastal cities, goodbye species etc.
Which would the prudent man choose, even if the evidence is not all in yet?
Haha of course I'm not the prudent man according to Pascal's wager, because I'm truly on the path to Hell but I'm wagering it doesnt exist
From the report is seems they wanted each frame to be able to stand on its own as a freezeframe.. dancers need to analyze a single frame for poses etc.
And another bonus would be that since JPEG-2000 is a technology for encoding still bitmaps, one could grab a single frame of the movie and use it separately without any transcoding to another format.
Good point but your eyes must be sharp to spot the engagement of the artist. The artist (and we'll stick to human artists) would have to be the programmer of typographer. They engaged to create a machine to make art. That makes them an artist in an artistic endeavor. Typographer is just a tool of the artist.
:)
Anyway, you certainly CAN formally analyze the compositions for balance,color, blah blah.. Depending on the algorithms the programmer chooses, these elements will have different distributions.
In some cases, intention is 90% of the art, as the results "on canvas" are quite pedestrian. (Warhol's soup can) But in typographers case I kind of like them.
Thanks for the well thought out response. Sorry I referred to your argument as a conservative one. I really do have a lot of respect for the libertarian viewpoint. (at least it doesn't reek of religious hypocrisy as the Bush neo-cons do) I guess I have seen too much evil shit that people do to each other (and the environment) for me to have faith that a system without some economic government constraints wouldn't end up as some kind of Mad Max hell-future, with little fiefdoms run by the wealthy with the assets controlling their serfs (company towns with their own egregious "tax substitutes"), or that a system where the rich are not "soaked" would not eventually have money concentrated in the hands of so few that they eventually replace government as virtual "kings". Do you ever worry that 80% of America might eventually be a polluted wasteland with 20% resort communities for the lucky few? These are my liberal fears. If I could have a reasonable assurance that the poorest among us would be BETTER off than now, and that society would become less stratified, I'd be much more inclined to call myself libertarian. But I'm not going to scrap our social safety net so that Donald Trump can have twenty yachts instead of ten. If none of that matters to you, then we're just from different planets in our "moral values".
:)
Are you trusting your faith that this will not happen, or do you have evidence to back it up? What do you think society would look like after 50 years of pure libertarian policy?
One analogy might be a nuclear reactor.. my belief (and it is a belief, nothing more) is that a capitalist economy behaves like a nuclear reactor. Taxes are like the water cooling the rods, too much water.. reaction is not optimal, not enough water, reaction goes critical. And to me the libertarian philosophy feels like a reactor with no water.
Not tying to bait.. I'm really more interested in opening up dialogues than having fact-twisting shouting matches, as conservatives & liberals seem to do exclusively now.
PS sorry if my reactor analogy is imprecise. I ain't no nuclear engineer.
That comment was not an attempt to "prove you wrong". (although I never saw you give any proof that you were "right") It was a genuine curiousity of how many people who rail against this mysterious "welfare state" really have any firsthand experience of how much it sucks to be poor. Its that empathy for fellow man that I feel is lacking in many conservative viewpoints. I cannot grasp the value system of conservatives, thats all.
My real point was that there is a substantial segment of the population that a) has not built up irresponsible debt (because thay have no credit) b) works hard c) truly has no headroom for savings and no perks at their job like pension or 401k. Social security is a social welfare program which is their (pitifully small) safety net. For some reason, you want to take that away which disgusts me.
And I was hypothesizing that you don't understand that point C is true because you have no firsthand experience with poverty. Perhaps I am wrong.
Semi-related rant: I can "prove" mathematically that the elderly should be ground up into dog food by comparing the productivity of a nonagenarian to the productivity of a good police dog. That doesnt mean its a good idea. At some point, social policy ceases to be about proving things right or wrong, and becomes about values. Such as I would be happy to pay more taxes, so that each person can have a minimum standard of healthcare, even though its not in my "immediate" best interest since I have insurance. Nothing there to be proved or disproved.
blah bah welfare state blah blah blah..
When I read people rambling about the "welfare state" I am always curious to know what their social class is/has been. Have they ever known a family who did not have enough income to save anything? Because theres millions of families in America who literally cash their paycheck for cash, and buy food and pay off utilities, then its gone. And many of these people have multiple part time jobs. Perhaps they just weren't blessed with great schools or academic prowess so they didnt get a great education.
Its not about charging big screen TVs on their credit cards.. they have no credit cards and there is no buffer to save from.
You sound like a man whose rational brain has been consumed by his own zealotry. You claim it is "impossible", but what you mean is "I dont want that to happen".. because its most definitely possible.
:P
PS who exactly is the coward? The one who hides in his doomsday bunker with his firearms, that's who.
We have 10.2.8, and I wanted to get Safari 1.2 to test some stuff with. When we tried to update, Apple told us Safari 1.0.3 weas the latest version available for that OS.
I'm not trying to troll.. but that doesnt seem right. Its not exactly "keeping you up-to-date" if the most critical apps people use are not kept fresh. In fact it smacks of OS upgrade lock-in. I'm not a Mac guru, so I may just be missing something and please correct me.
Is this similar to the whole Linux glib thing where you needed the same version of the system libraries as the applications link to? That glib dll-Hell always aggravated me.
It's good that you are one of the responsible gun owners.
:)
I do take issue with your argument however. I have heard so many variations on this "well since we already have outdated, flawed technology X in the field, so implementing new improved Y technology will not help things." Did the invention of seat belts in cars cause more accidents because people started relying on them to keep from catapulting out their windshield?
Personally I believe that every person should have the right to own a gun, provided:
a) that gun cannot be fired by anyone else (dongle, sensor, magic word, whatever)
b) if that gun is fired, the bullet will be easily traceable back to the gun and its owner. (perhaps making all bullets have serial numbers and making people register themselves to the bullets when purchasing)
Until that's happening, then 2nd amendment is outdated, dangerous garbage. It will take time yes, to get the old crappy guns off the street. But it will happen over time.
If we can splice a human with a mouse, or fit millions of circuits into postage stamp sized area.. we can figure this gun safety stuff out. We're smart like that.
PS 2nd amendment purists, remember that our white, wigged founders also thought of black people as similar to their horse or dog. They had some F**d up ideas that we needed to remedy!