Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | anaran's commentslogin



Likely to have been conceived by George Clinton himself, whose taste is clearly impenetrable by us less funky souls: https://goo.gl/YZJDi5


They Live


Love that movie. I would almost wish they would make a remake of it , but Hollywood would ruin it with their myopic political views.


It's kinda funny that this comment could equally apply to the original - there's nothing apolitical or anti-contemporary about it either.


We Sleep


Any evidence to support this allegation?

Mozilla could just as well be a victim of badmouthing.


What has that got to do with Hacker News?

Wonder why you haven't mentioned ETFs which are much safer than investing in individual stocks which may realize a 100% loss should the company file for chapter 11.


Encryption password entry in the clear in a dialog!

That should at least be <input type="password">


I think it is on purpose, as you are only asked to type it once. Type the wrong thing, and no way to decrypt the file.


divx, seriously?


> 2002/ 2003 HIPPIES FROM HELL

What codec should they have used back in 2003?


Yes, but why are they still using it?

This is an industrial problem in the film world. Celluloid film keeps remarkably well in moderately good conditions (cool and dry), and more importantly it's so standardized that you can load a decades-old film into a new projector and it will just play back correctly. The Academy standard for 35mm film has been in place since 1932 for example, and specifies everything down to the shape of the little holes on the side: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_perforations

Digital video archival is a nightmare. Although the physical storage media problems are now going away thanks to cloud services and suchlike, there isn't yet an established standard for picture storage - the main contenders are MXF and Adobe's Cinema DNG.


"still"

They haven't updated that page, presumably since it was created over 10 years ago. That's why.


Yes, but why are they still using it?

Because it works, and transcoding would lose even more quality?

Digital video archival is a nightmare. Although the physical storage media problems are now going away thanks to cloud services and suchlike, there isn't yet an established standard for picture storage

MPEG, H.264, etc. are not standards?


MPEG, H.264, etc. are not standards?

Sure. Are they still going to be the relevant useful standards 40-50 years from now? Will software/hardware for working with them still be readily available? Will the storage media be in as good condition as film would be?

Most "classic" movies are at least that old, and many are decades older than that. Archiving and preserving them requires something other than the flavor-of-the-decade codec.


Sure. Are they still going to be the relevant useful standards 40-50 years from now? Will software/hardware for working with them still be readily available?

Well, my computer can still decode wav files, and that format is close to 25 years old now. What does it matter if the standards now aren't "useful" standards in the future? Why would projects such as VLC (which plays pretty much every format that has ever been created), etc. go away?


Are they still going to be the relevant useful standards 40-50 years from now? Will software/hardware for working with them still be readily available?

In 40-50 years from now we might not be creating new content in those formats, but the fact that they're official standards and there's plenty of source code around for decoding/encoding them means that they'll remain usable as long as general purpose computers continue to exist. (This is an actual real concern now, given the proliferation of DRM'd formats and proprietary restricted systems.)

Will the storage media be in as good condition as film would be?

Longevity of storage media is a slightly different and independent issue from file format, and one that could be applied to many other things; but as long as the original bits survive in some form or other, either through storage on long-term media or repeated copying, it won't vanish.


Did you seriously call MPEG "flavor-of-the-decade"?

Are you aware that probably 1 billion TV's can decode it? If there is ever a codec that can be called a "forever codec" it's MPEG. (MPEG-2 to be specific.)

H.264 support is not far behind.

It's only getting easier, not harder, to support every video format ever made.


Are you aware that probably 1 billion TV's can decode it? If there is ever a codec that can be called a "forever codec" it's MPEG.

And what is the expected lifetime of those billion TVs?

Let's talk again in 30 years and see if MPEG-2 and H.264 are "forever codecs" with widespread easy support then.


I have a 40 year old TV, works fine (except for a Y2K bug), a little dim but good enough for what I use it for.

The point is that the codec is so widespread, used in so many places, there is zero chance it will ever not be supported.


h.264 is a lossy codec and thus unsuitable for archival.


Is that example in the screenshot a good one?

This works fine in a Content Scratchpad of nightly Firefox for me:

  // See also
  // https://github.com/richgilbank/ES6-Repl-Chrome-Extension/issues/12
  function add(a, b) {
    return a + b;
  }
  let nums = [5, 4];
  console.log("foobar" + add(...nums));


Which versions of Chrome and Firefox did you compare to come to these conclusions?

Firefox has an Addon Debugger.

Also https://addons.mozilla.org (AMO) has much more accountable guidelines than https://chrome.google.com/webstore/ (cws).

cws has a lot of issues with lengthy reviews as well https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!searchin/ch...

Over at AMO you can monitor the review queue position of your addon, and there is even IRC channels #amo-editors and #amo to talk to.

Review mails have specific feedback about issues they find.

Google extension reviews, bug reports (e.g. Chrome or Android bugs[1]), googlecode site support[2], are an ever growing super massive black hole.

[1] e.g. https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/list?can=2&q=blueto... [2] https://code.google.com/p/support/issues/list


Which tools and which versions of browsers are you comparing? I guess as a developer you would be using Canary Chrome vs. Nightly Firefox, to get the latest features, right?

I find Firefox less resource-hungry and with the WebIDE and Code Snippets that don't need to import/export to devtools source snippets it might even be ahead of Chrome.


> I guess as a developer you would be using Canary Chrome vs. Nightly Firefox, to get the latest

Not always. As a developer I use the latest stable Firefox, since that's what I can recommend to my users.


you have to do testing in released browsers, of course, but you wouldn't get the latest devtools features that way, neither in firefox nor in chrome.


Paul already pointed you to nodejs based jpm, which will fully replace cfx soon.

Another great thing with the addon-sdk is it works with Firefox for Android as well (with some limitations).

Does Chrome for Android even have extensions yet?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: