Comment Re:I'm shocked. (Score 0) 589
Look up the etymology of "Television".
Comment Re:Misinterpretation (Score 0) 242
A number of inaccuracies here.
No, the OSNews article does not want people to download the video instead. It merely summaries my letter, which asks that Mozilla do not advocate JavaScript to do video fallbacks, but instead use my code (Video for Everybody) that does the same thing even better and without any JavaScript.
I'm thinking of the user's experience first by creating a solution that doesn't require JavaScript.
Submission + - Open Letter to Mozilla Regarding Their Use of HTML (osnews.com)
AberBeta writes: We're on the verge of a serious evolution on the web. Right now, the common way to include video on the web is by use of Flash, a closed-source technology. The answer to this is the HTML5 video tag, which allows you to embed video into HTML pages without the use of Flash or any other non-HTML technology; combined with open video codecs, this could provide the perfect opportunity to further open up and standardise the web. Sadly, not even Mozilla itself really seems to understand what it is supposed to do with the video tag, and actually advocates the use of JavaScript to implement it. Kroc Camen, OSNews editor, is very involved in making/keeping the web open, and has written an open letter to Mozilla in which he urges them to not use JavaScript for HTML video. Coincidentally, this comes on the first day of the Open Video Conference, an event meant to espouse the virtues of using the video tag, which is hypocritically using Flash to live stream the event on their homepage!
Comment RE (Score 5, Funny) 536
Asking Linux users to accept DRM is like asking them if it's alright to take a shit in their kitchen.
There is *no* cool way you can word it.
There is *no* cool way you can word it.
Diebold Voting Machines Vulnerable to Virus Attack 122
mcgrew writes "PC world is reporting that Diebold's super-popular voting machines are coming under even more scrutiny. A security review has revealed that they are simply 'not secure enough to guarantee a trustworthy election.' This is according to a report from the University of California Berkley, who did a two-month top-to-bottom review of all California e-voting systems. That's a subject we've discussed before, but Diebold's setup is truly unsettling. An attacker with access to a single machine could disrupt or change the outcome of an entire election using viruses. From the article: 'The report warned that a paper trail of votes cast is not sufficient to guarantee the integrity of an election using the machines. "Malicious code might be able to subtly influence close elections, and it could disrupt elections by causing widespread equipment failure on election day," it said. The source-code review went on to warn that commercial antivirus scanners do not offer adequate protection for the voting machines. "They are not designed to detect virally propagating malicious code that targets voting equipment and voting software," it said.' Oddly, my state of Illinois, long known for election fraud, has paper trails (at least in my county) and according to Black Box Voting doesn't use Diebold anywhere."
Slashdot Top Deals
"A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears." -- The League of Sadistic Telepaths
