What major PC web browser doesn't support HTML5? Chrome supports it, Safari supports it, Firefox supports it, Opera supports it, IE 9 supports most of it, and even IE 6 through 8 support it through the Chrome Frame plug-in.
Sadly, what you just said is that the major web browser does NOT support it. Which is sadly, Internet Explorer.
You forget that 80-90% of Internet users are not the "generally tech savvy" bunch of people that Slashdot readers tend to be. That means (a) still a big IE user base, or (b) most are not willing or unaware of or incapable of installing the Chrome Frame plugin under IE. Coupled with the fact that IE9, (which is not yet released), as you already admitted does not properly support HTML5 (and may never).
"The smart thing to do" is rarely what the "unwashed masses" choose. Thus the major web browser is not the answer and once again (as always) part of the problem), and thus as a replacement for anything, HTML5 is still largely useless. The term vaporware used by the previous poster may not be the most technically accurate one - but his intended meaning is still correct (sadly).
As much as I love Android there are other things that could be improved.
Until I have NoScript I don't want Flash anywhere near my Android! And even then I'd like to think sites will soon be moving away from Flash and it'll be unnecessary. For awhile there the lack of Flash on devices was a good reason not to use it. Now the nonsense can run wild again.
Seems like what you are asking for is Firefox for Android (already in testing for v2+ Android releases), NoScript for Firefox (already exists) and Flash.
So, it looks like you will get your wish. Assuming Firefox and Flash are both finished (out of alpha/beta and at GA) at about the same time.
Keep in mind... I'm not saying my situation is the situation everyone is in. I am saying it's not factored in. I'm also saying the current delivery methods dont yet support this for numerous people who like to watch a lot of TV or who want to watch shows as they come out.
For instance, while I watch Legend of the Seeker online, there are numerous other shows I cannot legally catch online. Yet. And even LotS cannot be watched as it comes out. I have to wait a week or two until ad revenue from the cable viewing is generated from it's first run and it's repeat or multiple repeat viewing. Then it goes online on the LotS site. That's fine for me. I usually watch LotS in a "few episodes at once" marathon, so I am content to wait. Others are not.
Also, while studios (and content delivers) are still making more money from 'over the "cable"' delivery, the situation is unlikely to change any time soon.
As it is, this is the situation a lot of cable internet providers are in (which is also why various of them "discourage" - or make difficult - or dont offer Internet only packages). They simply make more off advertising revenue via the cable subscription than they would the Internet only package (where they currently only get the Internet subscription cost as opposed to the alternative which is the cable subscription cost PLUS ad revenue).
For things to happen as discussed in the article, a number of factors would have to change. For instance, people in my situation would need alternatives for high speed Internet delivery. I for one would not want to watch a "YouTube normal quality" (used only as a quality example) show on a big screen because I had a shitty speed Internet connection. My other options (non cable Internet) are Verizon DSL at a small fortune, or finding a competitor who offered DSL (yet still through Verizon's lines) which in my area limits me to expensive and slow ADSL/SDLS at T1 speeds or fractional T1 speeds. Other options such as ATT DSL or other higher speed DSL is not available. ATT offers dial-up in my area and nothing else. Megapath, who does offer higher speed DSL in my area (DSL comparable to my current 30Mbs/7Mbs cable Internet) wants in the THOUSANDS a month. And while Verizon seems to have some attractive pricing, once they add all their taxes, it becomes decently more than the price I am currently paying for Internet and cable. Thus, not many real options available for me. And I live in a county with 3 million people - you'd expect many more options instead of virtually none (unless I want to pay something absurd).
Similar can be said about various of my friends in the "far upstate" New York region who are stuck with RoadRunner being their only viable option for cheap high speed Internet.
Yes, what the article says is possible - but not nearly as close as I think they are speculating for various of the reasons I cited (and numerous more I havent). We've seen similar things already discussed on/. - for instance the numerous small towns where Verizon or their equivalent dont offer decent speeds, and the cable companies are the only alternative - or there's no alternative at all... and the local governments have tried stepping in to fill the void (usually involving a big battle against the regional telco or cable company).
Yeah, many people forget to discontinue the "free HBO/Cinemax/SHO/etc" trials that come with those special pricing. The jump otherwise, I suspect would be an extra $10-15 - or so they claim.
Verizon has a near "monopoly" here on DSL - and where I used to live. Monopoly is in quotes because I was able to get DSL from another provider, but it took MONTHS (literally) for Verizon to provision the service. Oddly, it took less time (a few days) for them to provision their own service for neighbors who were willing to pay a lot more.
ATT only offers dialup in my area... at $23 a month (which brings us back to Verizon's near monopoly in the area).
They dont offer decent speed DSL in our area at $40 a month. I can get DSL... but it will be ridiculously slow in comparison to cable's minimum speed, and make watching TV shows online near impossible.
I was comparing high speed DSL and other high speed options in my earlier post. Perhaps you are lucky enough that in your area you can get $40 DSL and get a lot faster than a 512k or 768k or 1Mb connection available here at the lower price tiers, but comparable to cable DSL speeds cost around $60-100/mo (after all of Verizon's added taxes that dont come on the cable bill for similar service). Doesnt compare to (starting at) 6Mb cable here - or the cable/internet package at $60. For the extra $20, I'd get the 5-10 times faster Internet and keep the cable as a bonus. Paying an extra $20 for a connection that much faster is worth it alone (which is why cable becomes the extra bonus).
Wow, really? TWC is a LOT cheaper down here... $35/$35 for the package.
Oh wait... it's a lot cheaper in Albany too...
Their site says $99 a month for CABLE, INTERNET AND PHONE for the first year... then it becomes $119 a month for ALL THREE. And only $70 a month for Internet and Basic Cable.
It's $60 a month for just cable. Or $40-50 a month (which goes up in a year by another $10-20) for just Internet. For an extra $20, I'd keep the cable and make finding various TV shows a lot easier for myself.
...yet you claim you pay $112? I think you are getting ripped off or forgetting you have phone or better-than-basic cable as well.
And TWC does at least offer just Internet. Other cable companies do not. Some have already phased out the "just Internet" option because of things like what are speculated in this article. I suspect TWC would too if they kept losing cable customers for these reasons.
Regardless of how you feel about copyright, let's be honest here: The "right to privacy" is a bullshit excuse when you're involved in what is, more or less, a community activity.
I think we've lost sight of the bare metal workings of what the founding fathers meant them to be.
I am not saying I agree with either point, but there is a second point that follows your basis but is contradictory to your conclusion. the "right to privacy" is a valid excuse for all of those outside the community you believe you have an expectation of privacy within. Similar to how if you went to group therapy, you would expect (either legally (therapists) or "morally" (other group participants)) that you should have a right to privacy covering your interactions within that group/community.
Again, I'm not stating a stance on either. I am simply pointing out that there is a counter-argument - whichever turns out to become the prevalent "legal belief" will need to counter the other belief (or lobby it into unimportance or provide sufficient legal standing to make it less important).
I can see it being hard to prove that it was the student only if he had an open WiFi connection running at that time.
Or he was on a NAT device in his dorm room (like I suspect many dorms use), or a block of dorms on his floor were on a NAT device.
Lesson to be learned: if you're going to use P2P, make sure you have an open WiFi connection to throw a monkey wrench into "beyond a reasonable doubt."
That hasn't seemed relevant in any of these cases - possibly due to judges and juries not being familiar with how such things work. What one uneducated person thinks is "beyond reasonable doubt" can seem quite ridiculous to those of us here who are more tech savvy. We've seen that over the years as we've picked apart numerous fallacies in methods and/or proof in RIAA cases. Not to mention the times where the RIAA pushed forward even with overwhelming evidence that the "suspected infringer" was not the person they were suing.
Of course, once that defense is used commonly, there'll be a law passed that says you can't do that anymore... In fact, didn't I read something on/. about that in the past?
Probably... depends on where the RIAA's lobbying gets them. Though it's not too out of bounds with reality to expect people to secure their own wireless connections - especially since most routers suggest it or even ask the users to do it with an "opt out/cancel/disable security" option as the unselected choice. That'd make the more logical compromise being those who run open networks by choice, could be held liable for what they thusly allow to happen on their networks (unless they've got damn good reason to disable the security features on their wireless routers).
But any such law/ruling/etc would be ripe for abuse by the RIAA - just as the legal system currently is (or has been) by them.
"It looks like people are finally getting sick of overpriced, ad-infested cable and satellite TV. I had predicted that by 2005 we would mostly be using the net for video — seems like I was a few years off. From the article: 'A cutting-the-cord trend has been the subject of speculation for some time, as networks have increasingly made television programming available for free on the Internet.
So... why would I (or numerous others in similar situations) do this when we can get high speed Internet for $30 a month IF we spend another $30 on cable?
So, honestly, I could drop cable (and thus Internet) and then spend more than $60 a month to get Internet (of a similar speed) from someplace else? See why this article doesnt make sense? Nowadays with the cable/Internet bundling prices, people would simply revert to basic cable (ie: no HBO, SHO, etc) and keep their cheap-yet-decent-speed Internet.
After all, without that decent/high speed Internet connection, one cannot watch "online TV" - and for many that means keeping cable as well (and for a growing number, it means keeping Verizon's equivalent or paying a lot more for just Internet).
Now, as far as satellite goes... sure... I could see a bunch dropping that. My brother got satellite for a while... but it meant he had to pay extra to get Internet from someplace else, so, even though satellite at least offered more channels and somewhat better quality on a bunch, overall it wasnt worth it when getting a comparable Internet connection to the previous cable one (28Mb/7Mb) would cost quite a bunch. So, out went the satellite, back in went the cable.
Paul's build is pretty old and IIRC he didn't enable threads. The main point of multiple threads with FFmpeg is to take advantage of multiple-cpus. You have to enable them on the command line.
I should upload an up to date build of FFmpeg to Hobbes, which other libraries are you using (FFmpeg should post them)? Or what exactly are you transposing from and to? I like to keep them to a minimum as it can be hard to keep track of them to meet the (L)GPL.
You should also mention on your website that you are using OS/2 (or eCS) and transcoding with FFmpeg (perhaps there already is and I missed it?). It would be a pointer the next time a FFmpeg developer says he doesn't believe there are any OS/2 users.
Hi, I just realized I missed replying to part of your comment.
I dont indicate what OS they are running on, but I probably should. You are correct. The error pages (404's anyway) on one of the server does indicate it... kinda: "Warp Server 00: LDGW4.6.2.8" - but of course, I'd hope most people never see one of those. Next time I revamp some of the sites, I'll add something someplace that indicates they are run on OS/2 and eComStation.
And finally, here's my original reply (that I posted as an anon, in case your/. settings are set to a level that doesnt show you them):
Not sure if Paul's is the latest build. A more recent one may be in Hobbes. If not, I know a buncha people would appreciate an updated build - myself included.
I transcode from various WMV or x264 formats to x264, AVI (MPEG Layer II/DVD), and DiVX. Much of it is size conversion (converting from HD to 480P DVD quality or lower) and sometimes framerate conversions as well (NTSC -> PAL).
I also do segment "assembly" (put all the acts together while transcoding to another format). And occassionally subtitle "hard rendering" (ie: render the subtitles into the video)
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd wager he's in the marketing department.
He works in a hospital, why would they have a marketing department?
(Even in the US, I assume it's the insurance and drug companies that do all the marketing, and the government that does the public awareness stuff.)
Many hospitals (at least where I live) have marketing departments. Not everyone goes to a hospital solely for a trip to the ER. If it were my heart, I would wanna go to JTMather. If it were my brain, then Brookhaven. If I were about to give birth (well, that one isnt possible, but it's just an example), then Stonybrook. Or some other combination of those... dont remember which is supposed to be the best at each, but you get the point. Each of those places (and various others in my area) run commercials touting how they are the premiere specialists in those and various other areas, and are in direct competition with each other in numerous specialized areas like those.
Er. As part of the IT staff at a hospital, I can tell you they certainly can't touch your machine if you don't want them to. But they don't have to let you touch their network with your machine if you won't submit to their requirements. That's that.
BINGO! But let's take it further.
Sorry CryoStasis, but with the massive amounts of problems keeping people's medical data secure, do you honestly think it is OK - or ever SMART to allow unprotected, unencrypted machines to connect to the hospital's network? Dont you understand that their network and data security is only as strong as their weakest link? In this case, that link being every hospital employee who wants to connect with their infected and insecure personal machines to that network, or wants to bring work home on their personal (infected and insecure) machine. I "fix" (remove viruses and spyware) hospital employees personal machines all the time... makes me worry about whatever patient information they have on these infected machines. When they bring it to me, at least we do other HIPAA compliant work and know what we are doing and need to do to safeguard such information... but what happens when other hospital employees run to Best Buy with their machines?
Either you dont regularly (or ever?) surf slashdot, or these "minor" things should have been self evident to you. Sorry Cryo, nothing personal, but such security risks have been covered on/. ad-infinitum.
How about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowing OZ Corp to perform their test in New York City (population 8 million)? You can do all sorts of wierd physics in a superhero movie, but don't tell me bureaucracy doesn't still exist.
Ummm... in what way does that seem odd with the current state of the government? Seems like something I'd expect to happen - because of how our bureaucracy works.;-)
So yes, I'd say bureaucracy still exists (in the movie) and works as it normally does...
Oh, I dunno... kinda like how the bureaucracy (the Feds in this case) let this disaster waiting to happen go online at all (even at 5%) and were pushing for a full power license against the will of New Yorkers who had to live near the thing. Substandard contracting, not following NRC engineering design safeguards and massive corruption (plus of course BILLIONS of dollars over budget)... but bureaucracy almost won.
From what I understand, the objection of the Indian tribes was that it might disturb ancient burial grounds that are on land that used to be above water but now isn't. I find it hard to believe they've kept track of where any of those burial grounds are since they've presumably been underwater for many decades, but I suppose we could find them by burying dead pets in the ocean floor and seeing which ones come back to life, then simply avoiding those areas.
CENTURIES... not decades. Which makes it even more interesting.
Yes, that wont boot in an i7... I dunno... something I saw someplace on the eComStation website about v2 supporting the i7 and the rather old v1.2 NOT supporting it, and about the DemoCD still being based off v1.2
I guess having read that online on the site I'd downloaded the Demo CD from, I for one wouldnt expect it to work. As for the VMWare part, a simple Google Search (maybe you use Bing?) for "OS/2 VMWare" brings up results with the answers in the first few of them. Pretty simple instructions to follow.
Basically, it seems VMWare does not emulate CPU Ring 2 instructions by default. The os2experimental flag (if memory serves - havent checked the links yet) enables experimental OS/2 support. Or there's also VirtualBox which will run eCS.
Give it a try that way... you will probably have success that way. Hope that helps.
You can get it here:
http://os2ports.smedley.info/
...along with a few dozen other Linux ports. Is it multithreaded? Not a clue. I usually spawn between 2-4 transcoding sessions at once and never bothered checking on thread usage (episodes are in 5 parts... I transcode more than one part at a time). I rarely concern myself with thread usage under OS/2. As it is, Lotus Domino GoWebserver on my Netfinity spawns 1000 threads (configurable to 4095 - limited to 1000 by me in the config file) on launch (and then "un-sleeps" the ones it needs and "re-sleeps" them when done) - and I've had situations where it's "un-slept" and used as many as 700 threads at a time... so a measly 1-4 (or even to 8) threads that FFMPEG may be using per transcode never seemed like a big enough issue to check into thread usage over.
Other Linux to OS/2 ports are on Netlabs, Hobbes (http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/), locatable via OS/2 World (www.os2world.com) (such as VLC Player) and elsewhere.
I am aware of all of that. Maybe what I should have said (which I thought was evident since we were talking about the SHELLS) was:
"symbolic links still suck and dont work properly (unlike shadows on OS/2 and their equivalent in MacOSX)"
Since they only work at the libc level they're limited mostly to *nix ports.
That of course is not entirely accurate - but I do see your point. There is no reason why such data cannot be written to the EAs without libc being used to make it compatible (heck, even OS/2 REXX can do that with one or two calls). And of course, it's amazingly simple using any tool. And there's no reason a WPS extension (subclass or superclass) cannot access and utilize them in the same fashion as any other WPS structure. Similarly to how the WPS was superclassed to be able to read, display and/or interact with ID3 info in "Media Folders"
Anyway, sorry for the confusion, but I was comparing the mangled, still not fully functional "shortcuts" of Windows to their far more functional equivalents in OS/2 and MacOSX (pointing out that in their attempts to duplicate functionality (not looks) of OS/2 and/or MacOSX, that Microsoft still has failed miserably - after 18 years of trying). Sorry I didnt make that clear enough.
To me Win95 looked like a ripoff of Warp v3, not v2.1. And symbolic links don't work very well on OS/2, being limited to things linked against klibc.
Other then that agree with you.
Symbolic links as such, dont exist in OS/2. They are object shadows. Regardless though, however you wish to term it, klibc is not involved in any way.
An object shadow is unbreakable by using the WPS unless the entire WPS itself breaks (including it's backup database of entries). In Windows, its more of a symbolic links thingy that of course breaks when things are moved.
Here's two references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_Shell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28OS/2%29
They are mostly accurate - with the exception of there being no "tool" to fix broken shadows. There is one - though it's not the most intuitive or easiest to use.
Admittedly, I scanned a lot and didn't look too hard.
Which still means I have some work to do... as watching the episodes is a key reason people come to the site, the links to such should be more prominent and easier to quickly grasp by those just flying through trying to watch an episode.
Ahh, looking back, I must have skipped the view at DNA because it said "view enhanced.." My internal spam filter expected that to be a premium download link, as popularised by other sites like rapidshare.
Ah... that explains it. I had a debate with the folks at DNA about that. I preferred using the technically incorrect term "streaming" because the majority of Internet users (who are not technically savvy) would understand it meant watching it online via a video window in a web page. Since the term is technically not correct (it's progressive download to a player - like most video players use) they opted for the "Enhanced" terminology.
I think I will revisit the terminology we are using with them.
Slashdot Mirror
for now, HTML5 is practically vaporware.
What major PC web browser doesn't support HTML5? Chrome supports it, Safari supports it, Firefox supports it, Opera supports it, IE 9 supports most of it, and even IE 6 through 8 support it through the Chrome Frame plug-in.
Sadly, what you just said is that the major web browser does NOT support it. Which is sadly, Internet Explorer.
You forget that 80-90% of Internet users are not the "generally tech savvy" bunch of people that Slashdot readers tend to be. That means (a) still a big IE user base, or (b) most are not willing or unaware of or incapable of installing the Chrome Frame plugin under IE. Coupled with the fact that IE9, (which is not yet released), as you already admitted does not properly support HTML5 (and may never).
"The smart thing to do" is rarely what the "unwashed masses" choose. Thus the major web browser is not the answer and once again (as always) part of the problem), and thus as a replacement for anything, HTML5 is still largely useless. The term vaporware used by the previous poster may not be the most technically accurate one - but his intended meaning is still correct (sadly).
As much as I love Android there are other things that could be improved. Until I have NoScript I don't want Flash anywhere near my Android! And even then I'd like to think sites will soon be moving away from Flash and it'll be unnecessary. For awhile there the lack of Flash on devices was a good reason not to use it. Now the nonsense can run wild again.
Seems like what you are asking for is Firefox for Android (already in testing for v2+ Android releases), NoScript for Firefox (already exists) and Flash.
So, it looks like you will get your wish. Assuming Firefox and Flash are both finished (out of alpha/beta and at GA) at about the same time.
Keep in mind... I'm not saying my situation is the situation everyone is in. I am saying it's not factored in. I'm also saying the current delivery methods dont yet support this for numerous people who like to watch a lot of TV or who want to watch shows as they come out.
For instance, while I watch Legend of the Seeker online, there are numerous other shows I cannot legally catch online. Yet. And even LotS cannot be watched as it comes out. I have to wait a week or two until ad revenue from the cable viewing is generated from it's first run and it's repeat or multiple repeat viewing. Then it goes online on the LotS site. That's fine for me. I usually watch LotS in a "few episodes at once" marathon, so I am content to wait. Others are not.
Also, while studios (and content delivers) are still making more money from 'over the "cable"' delivery, the situation is unlikely to change any time soon.
As it is, this is the situation a lot of cable internet providers are in (which is also why various of them "discourage" - or make difficult - or dont offer Internet only packages). They simply make more off advertising revenue via the cable subscription than they would the Internet only package (where they currently only get the Internet subscription cost as opposed to the alternative which is the cable subscription cost PLUS ad revenue).
For things to happen as discussed in the article, a number of factors would have to change. For instance, people in my situation would need alternatives for high speed Internet delivery. I for one would not want to watch a "YouTube normal quality" (used only as a quality example) show on a big screen because I had a shitty speed Internet connection. My other options (non cable Internet) are Verizon DSL at a small fortune, or finding a competitor who offered DSL (yet still through Verizon's lines) which in my area limits me to expensive and slow ADSL/SDLS at T1 speeds or fractional T1 speeds. Other options such as ATT DSL or other higher speed DSL is not available. ATT offers dial-up in my area and nothing else. Megapath, who does offer higher speed DSL in my area (DSL comparable to my current 30Mbs/7Mbs cable Internet) wants in the THOUSANDS a month. And while Verizon seems to have some attractive pricing, once they add all their taxes, it becomes decently more than the price I am currently paying for Internet and cable. Thus, not many real options available for me. And I live in a county with 3 million people - you'd expect many more options instead of virtually none (unless I want to pay something absurd).
Similar can be said about various of my friends in the "far upstate" New York region who are stuck with RoadRunner being their only viable option for cheap high speed Internet.
Yes, what the article says is possible - but not nearly as close as I think they are speculating for various of the reasons I cited (and numerous more I havent). We've seen similar things already discussed on /. - for instance the numerous small towns where Verizon or their equivalent dont offer decent speeds, and the cable companies are the only alternative - or there's no alternative at all... and the local governments have tried stepping in to fill the void (usually involving a big battle against the regional telco or cable company).
Yeah, many people forget to discontinue the "free HBO/Cinemax/SHO/etc" trials that come with those special pricing. The jump otherwise, I suspect would be an extra $10-15 - or so they claim.
Verizon has a near "monopoly" here on DSL - and where I used to live. Monopoly is in quotes because I was able to get DSL from another provider, but it took MONTHS (literally) for Verizon to provision the service. Oddly, it took less time (a few days) for them to provision their own service for neighbors who were willing to pay a lot more.
ATT only offers dialup in my area... at $23 a month (which brings us back to Verizon's near monopoly in the area).
They dont offer decent speed DSL in our area at $40 a month. I can get DSL... but it will be ridiculously slow in comparison to cable's minimum speed, and make watching TV shows online near impossible.
I was comparing high speed DSL and other high speed options in my earlier post. Perhaps you are lucky enough that in your area you can get $40 DSL and get a lot faster than a 512k or 768k or 1Mb connection available here at the lower price tiers, but comparable to cable DSL speeds cost around $60-100/mo (after all of Verizon's added taxes that dont come on the cable bill for similar service). Doesnt compare to (starting at) 6Mb cable here - or the cable/internet package at $60. For the extra $20, I'd get the 5-10 times faster Internet and keep the cable as a bonus. Paying an extra $20 for a connection that much faster is worth it alone (which is why cable becomes the extra bonus).
Wow, really? TWC is a LOT cheaper down here... $35/$35 for the package.
Oh wait... it's a lot cheaper in Albany too...
Their site says $99 a month for CABLE, INTERNET AND PHONE for the first year... then it becomes $119 a month for ALL THREE. And only $70 a month for Internet and Basic Cable.
It's $60 a month for just cable. Or $40-50 a month (which goes up in a year by another $10-20) for just Internet. For an extra $20, I'd keep the cable and make finding various TV shows a lot easier for myself.
...yet you claim you pay $112? I think you are getting ripped off or forgetting you have phone or better-than-basic cable as well.
And TWC does at least offer just Internet. Other cable companies do not. Some have already phased out the "just Internet" option because of things like what are speculated in this article. I suspect TWC would too if they kept losing cable customers for these reasons.
Regardless of how you feel about copyright, let's be honest here: The "right to privacy" is a bullshit excuse when you're involved in what is, more or less, a community activity.
I think we've lost sight of the bare metal workings of what the founding fathers meant them to be.
I am not saying I agree with either point, but there is a second point that follows your basis but is contradictory to your conclusion. the "right to privacy" is a valid excuse for all of those outside the community you believe you have an expectation of privacy within. Similar to how if you went to group therapy, you would expect (either legally (therapists) or "morally" (other group participants)) that you should have a right to privacy covering your interactions within that group/community.
Again, I'm not stating a stance on either. I am simply pointing out that there is a counter-argument - whichever turns out to become the prevalent "legal belief" will need to counter the other belief (or lobby it into unimportance or provide sufficient legal standing to make it less important).
#include "IANAL.h"
Dude, I love that! I think I may haveta borrow that... :-)
LoL, I think countertrolling's post was an attempt at humor and/or a pun. As such, I found it humorous.
I can see it being hard to prove that it was the student only if he had an open WiFi connection running at that time.
Or he was on a NAT device in his dorm room (like I suspect many dorms use), or a block of dorms on his floor were on a NAT device.
Lesson to be learned: if you're going to use P2P, make sure you have an open WiFi connection to throw a monkey wrench into "beyond a reasonable doubt."
That hasn't seemed relevant in any of these cases - possibly due to judges and juries not being familiar with how such things work. What one uneducated person thinks is "beyond reasonable doubt" can seem quite ridiculous to those of us here who are more tech savvy. We've seen that over the years as we've picked apart numerous fallacies in methods and/or proof in RIAA cases. Not to mention the times where the RIAA pushed forward even with overwhelming evidence that the "suspected infringer" was not the person they were suing.
Of course, once that defense is used commonly, there'll be a law passed that says you can't do that anymore... In fact, didn't I read something on /. about that in the past?
Probably... depends on where the RIAA's lobbying gets them. Though it's not too out of bounds with reality to expect people to secure their own wireless connections - especially since most routers suggest it or even ask the users to do it with an "opt out/cancel/disable security" option as the unselected choice. That'd make the more logical compromise being those who run open networks by choice, could be held liable for what they thusly allow to happen on their networks (unless they've got damn good reason to disable the security features on their wireless routers).
But any such law/ruling/etc would be ripe for abuse by the RIAA - just as the legal system currently is (or has been) by them.
"It looks like people are finally getting sick of overpriced, ad-infested cable and satellite TV. I had predicted that by 2005 we would mostly be using the net for video — seems like I was a few years off. From the article: 'A cutting-the-cord trend has been the subject of speculation for some time, as networks have increasingly made television programming available for free on the Internet.
So... why would I (or numerous others in similar situations) do this when we can get high speed Internet for $30 a month IF we spend another $30 on cable?
So, honestly, I could drop cable (and thus Internet) and then spend more than $60 a month to get Internet (of a similar speed) from someplace else? See why this article doesnt make sense? Nowadays with the cable/Internet bundling prices, people would simply revert to basic cable (ie: no HBO, SHO, etc) and keep their cheap-yet-decent-speed Internet.
After all, without that decent/high speed Internet connection, one cannot watch "online TV" - and for many that means keeping cable as well (and for a growing number, it means keeping Verizon's equivalent or paying a lot more for just Internet).
Now, as far as satellite goes... sure... I could see a bunch dropping that. My brother got satellite for a while... but it meant he had to pay extra to get Internet from someplace else, so, even though satellite at least offered more channels and somewhat better quality on a bunch, overall it wasnt worth it when getting a comparable Internet connection to the previous cable one (28Mb/7Mb) would cost quite a bunch. So, out went the satellite, back in went the cable.
Paul's build is pretty old and IIRC he didn't enable threads. The main point of multiple threads with FFmpeg is to take advantage of multiple-cpus. You have to enable them on the command line. I should upload an up to date build of FFmpeg to Hobbes, which other libraries are you using (FFmpeg should post them)? Or what exactly are you transposing from and to? I like to keep them to a minimum as it can be hard to keep track of them to meet the (L)GPL. You should also mention on your website that you are using OS/2 (or eCS) and transcoding with FFmpeg (perhaps there already is and I missed it?). It would be a pointer the next time a FFmpeg developer says he doesn't believe there are any OS/2 users.
Hi, I just realized I missed replying to part of your comment.
I dont indicate what OS they are running on, but I probably should. You are correct. The error pages (404's anyway) on one of the server does indicate it... kinda: "Warp Server 00: LDGW4.6.2.8" - but of course, I'd hope most people never see one of those. Next time I revamp some of the sites, I'll add something someplace that indicates they are run on OS/2 and eComStation.
And finally, here's my original reply (that I posted as an anon, in case your /. settings are set to a level that doesnt show you them):
Not sure if Paul's is the latest build. A more recent one may be in Hobbes. If not, I know a buncha people would appreciate an updated build - myself included.
I transcode from various WMV or x264 formats to x264, AVI (MPEG Layer II/DVD), and DiVX. Much of it is size conversion (converting from HD to 480P DVD quality or lower) and sometimes framerate conversions as well (NTSC -> PAL).
I also do segment "assembly" (put all the acts together while transcoding to another format). And occassionally subtitle "hard rendering" (ie: render the subtitles into the video)
Best,
RobertM1968 / RobertM (OS/2 World Forums)
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd wager he's in the marketing department.
He works in a hospital, why would they have a marketing department?
(Even in the US, I assume it's the insurance and drug companies that do all the marketing, and the government that does the public awareness stuff.)
Many hospitals (at least where I live) have marketing departments. Not everyone goes to a hospital solely for a trip to the ER. If it were my heart, I would wanna go to JTMather. If it were my brain, then Brookhaven. If I were about to give birth (well, that one isnt possible, but it's just an example), then Stonybrook. Or some other combination of those... dont remember which is supposed to be the best at each, but you get the point. Each of those places (and various others in my area) run commercials touting how they are the premiere specialists in those and various other areas, and are in direct competition with each other in numerous specialized areas like those.
So... yeah... they have marketing departments...
Er. As part of the IT staff at a hospital, I can tell you they certainly can't touch your machine if you don't want them to. But they don't have to let you touch their network with your machine if you won't submit to their requirements. That's that.
BINGO! But let's take it further.
Sorry CryoStasis, but with the massive amounts of problems keeping people's medical data secure, do you honestly think it is OK - or ever SMART to allow unprotected, unencrypted machines to connect to the hospital's network? Dont you understand that their network and data security is only as strong as their weakest link? In this case, that link being every hospital employee who wants to connect with their infected and insecure personal machines to that network, or wants to bring work home on their personal (infected and insecure) machine. I "fix" (remove viruses and spyware) hospital employees personal machines all the time... makes me worry about whatever patient information they have on these infected machines. When they bring it to me, at least we do other HIPAA compliant work and know what we are doing and need to do to safeguard such information... but what happens when other hospital employees run to Best Buy with their machines?
Either you dont regularly (or ever?) surf slashdot, or these "minor" things should have been self evident to you. Sorry Cryo, nothing personal, but such security risks have been covered on /. ad-infinitum.
How about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowing OZ Corp to perform their test in New York City (population 8 million)? You can do all sorts of wierd physics in a superhero movie, but don't tell me bureaucracy doesn't still exist.
Ummm... in what way does that seem odd with the current state of the government? Seems like something I'd expect to happen - because of how our bureaucracy works. ;-)
So yes, I'd say bureaucracy still exists (in the movie) and works as it normally does...
Oh, I dunno... kinda like how the bureaucracy (the Feds in this case) let this disaster waiting to happen go online at all (even at 5%) and were pushing for a full power license against the will of New Yorkers who had to live near the thing. Substandard contracting, not following NRC engineering design safeguards and massive corruption (plus of course BILLIONS of dollars over budget)... but bureaucracy almost won.
LoL!!! True enough!!! :-)
From what I understand, the objection of the Indian tribes was that it might disturb ancient burial grounds that are on land that used to be above water but now isn't. I find it hard to believe they've kept track of where any of those burial grounds are since they've presumably been underwater for many decades, but I suppose we could find them by burying dead pets in the ocean floor and seeing which ones come back to life, then simply avoiding those areas.
CENTURIES... not decades. Which makes it even more interesting.
Yes, that wont boot in an i7... I dunno... something I saw someplace on the eComStation website about v2 supporting the i7 and the rather old v1.2 NOT supporting it, and about the DemoCD still being based off v1.2
I guess having read that online on the site I'd downloaded the Demo CD from, I for one wouldnt expect it to work. As for the VMWare part, a simple Google Search (maybe you use Bing?) for "OS/2 VMWare" brings up results with the answers in the first few of them. Pretty simple instructions to follow.
Basically, it seems VMWare does not emulate CPU Ring 2 instructions by default. The os2experimental flag (if memory serves - havent checked the links yet) enables experimental OS/2 support. Or there's also VirtualBox which will run eCS.
Give it a try that way... you will probably have success that way. Hope that helps.
Sorry, you are probably correct... Warp 3, not OS/2 v2.x - apologies.
You can get it here:
http://os2ports.smedley.info/
...along with a few dozen other Linux ports. Is it multithreaded? Not a clue. I usually spawn between 2-4 transcoding sessions at once and never bothered checking on thread usage (episodes are in 5 parts... I transcode more than one part at a time). I rarely concern myself with thread usage under OS/2. As it is, Lotus Domino GoWebserver on my Netfinity spawns 1000 threads (configurable to 4095 - limited to 1000 by me in the config file) on launch (and then "un-sleeps" the ones it needs and "re-sleeps" them when done) - and I've had situations where it's "un-slept" and used as many as 700 threads at a time... so a measly 1-4 (or even to 8) threads that FFMPEG may be using per transcode never seemed like a big enough issue to check into thread usage over.
Other Linux to OS/2 ports are on Netlabs, Hobbes (http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/), locatable via OS/2 World (www.os2world.com) (such as VLC Player) and elsewhere.
Best,
Robert
I am aware of all of that. Maybe what I should have said (which I thought was evident since we were talking about the SHELLS) was:
"symbolic links still suck and dont work properly (unlike shadows on OS/2 and their equivalent in MacOSX)"
Since they only work at the libc level they're limited mostly to *nix ports.
That of course is not entirely accurate - but I do see your point. There is no reason why such data cannot be written to the EAs without libc being used to make it compatible (heck, even OS/2 REXX can do that with one or two calls). And of course, it's amazingly simple using any tool. And there's no reason a WPS extension (subclass or superclass) cannot access and utilize them in the same fashion as any other WPS structure. Similarly to how the WPS was superclassed to be able to read, display and/or interact with ID3 info in "Media Folders"
Anyway, sorry for the confusion, but I was comparing the mangled, still not fully functional "shortcuts" of Windows to their far more functional equivalents in OS/2 and MacOSX (pointing out that in their attempts to duplicate functionality (not looks) of OS/2 and/or MacOSX, that Microsoft still has failed miserably - after 18 years of trying). Sorry I didnt make that clear enough.
To me Win95 looked like a ripoff of Warp v3, not v2.1. And symbolic links don't work very well on OS/2, being limited to things linked against klibc. Other then that agree with you.
Symbolic links as such, dont exist in OS/2. They are object shadows. Regardless though, however you wish to term it, klibc is not involved in any way.
An object shadow is unbreakable by using the WPS unless the entire WPS itself breaks (including it's backup database of entries). In Windows, its more of a symbolic links thingy that of course breaks when things are moved.
Here's two references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_Shell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28OS/2%29
They are mostly accurate - with the exception of there being no "tool" to fix broken shadows. There is one - though it's not the most intuitive or easiest to use.
Admittedly, I scanned a lot and didn't look too hard.
Which still means I have some work to do... as watching the episodes is a key reason people come to the site, the links to such should be more prominent and easier to quickly grasp by those just flying through trying to watch an episode.
Thanks again
Ahh, looking back, I must have skipped the view at DNA because it said "view enhanced.." My internal spam filter expected that to be a premium download link, as popularised by other sites like rapidshare.
Ah... that explains it. I had a debate with the folks at DNA about that. I preferred using the technically incorrect term "streaming" because the majority of Internet users (who are not technically savvy) would understand it meant watching it online via a video window in a web page. Since the term is technically not correct (it's progressive download to a player - like most video players use) they opted for the "Enhanced" terminology.
I think I will revisit the terminology we are using with them.
Thanks much for your response on this.
Best,
Robert