No, it is not filtering. A television image is transmitted in black and white with the color information sent just before the vertical blanking interval in something called the color burst.


So you filter out the colour burst, et voila, B/W. QED.

The discussion is stupid because the question is too vague.


Yes apparently the audience was overestimated. The people here don't seem to be familiar with browsers and the producer/consumer concepts?

For the rest, you people are digging way too deep, and make statements without any relevance. As I say, each browser is different because it runs on a different computer.
Do you hate it that much that I'm right, that you have to dissect everything until it loses any meaning whatsoever?
Posted on 2004-05-21 17:36:45 by Scali
But you're not right Scali, you have been proven wrong in every single one of your assumptions, but instead of saying "I didn'tthink of that" you just say that doesn't apply or you are not allowed to include that in the argument. If you remember this argument started because you said that FireFox did not belong as an example of good OSS software as a browser does not count as software.

If you have a problem with losing then stop arguing or format the questions in a manner that will assure that everyone says "Oh thank you Scali you have opened our eyes, we are all so stupid compared to you". But you posted an extremely general question that you were sure everyone would side with you and now that you have found out that you are wrong you get pissed off and everybody but you must be stupid, well that is your right. A sad sad person IMHO.

BTW a JPG does not contain a separate B&W image, the system manipulates the data to generate one, unlike a television, if you want to argue over points at least pick ones that you have a little bit of knowledge in. I do understand televisions both PAL and NTSC and that is not an argument you can win with me.
Posted on 2004-05-21 17:52:13 by donkey
Was this just another poll or rather a means to carry out a personal crusade of yours?

I don't think anybody minds you being right, but I get the feeling you're the intellectual elitist type that really can't accept being wrong, or even slightly off. You exhibit many of the characteristics. People like that typically argue just to argue; a form of cerebral masturbation. Arguments involving these types tend to be counter-productive.

So instead of letting people get all emotionally wounded, let's try to have a nice and productive argument, establish common ground, and go from there. Everybody will benefit. Even if that means catering to us intellectually inferior folk for a bit. ;)
Posted on 2004-05-21 17:59:04 by iblis
Was this just another poll or rather a means to carry out a personal crusade of yours?


It was a personal crusade because I had the temerity to contradict him by saying that there were exceptions to the rule that all OSS software was sub-parr and used FireFox as an example. How stupid of me, it obviously isn't software it's a television, I'm trying to find my remote so I can watch Friends on FireFox.
Posted on 2004-05-21 18:03:56 by donkey
I don't like the notion that I hold a personal bias against Scali. Which is untrue, as I don't even know him.

I am well aware of the producer-consumer model, and the particulars involved, even if I forget everything else about economics class. However, I never learned how to apply these concepts to the world of computer programs and applications so perhaps I am a little ignorant to this end. Though I'm not sure bothering to do such a thing holds any merit.

At a very very fundamental level, Scali is correct. To qualify as a 'web browser' an application needs to do little more than be an HTML document viewer.

But, most web browsers are infinitely more complex than that, so in general I find it hard to declare all web browsers to be exclusively information consumers. So in the context of the question asked, I feel that Scali is incorrect.
Posted on 2004-05-21 18:44:18 by iblis
hum, yaddayadda.

Yes, the browser itself is certainly a consumer, and doesn't do any productive things. But isn't it more interesting to look at the appliances of the application, rather than the application itself? The browser itself is surely only a consumer, but it's being used by many people for producing data.

Tax reports is a common use of browser, that's a data producer. Donkey's work, as described earlier, is using browsers to produce data.

Yes, look at it pedantically - I certainly agree, browsers next to never produce data. But they can be used as data-gathering tools, or even to provide data to a backend.
Posted on 2004-05-21 21:26:01 by f0dder
Humans are certainly consumers, and don't do anything productive. But isn't it more interesting to look at what humans are doing rather than the human itself. The humans themselves are surely only consumers, but they are being used by many people to produce.

:)
Posted on 2004-05-21 21:33:49 by bitRAKE
But you're not right Scali, you have been proven wrong in every single one of your assumptions, but instead of saying "I didn'tthink of that" you just say that doesn't apply or you are not allowed to include that in the argument. If you remember this argument started because you said that FireFox did not belong as an example of good OSS software as a browser does not count as software.


I am right, by definition. You just don't know the definition.
And I never said a browser didn't count as software. I said it was a special case of software, since it was only consuming, not producing. It is not something that you create a product with, and therefore it is not directly the software that you are making money with.

But, most web browsers are infinitely more complex than that, so in general I find it hard to declare all web browsers to be exclusively information consumers. So in the context of the question asked, I feel that Scali is incorrect.


The question is clearly 'a browser', not 'some weird browser with everything but the kitchen sink'. The browser itself, as a HTML viewer, the one thing that all browsers have in common.
And to conclude... They consume HTML, and do not produce a product, so they are not making you money directly, unless you are just paid to view HTML pages, without doing anything with them.
Posted on 2004-05-22 05:03:51 by Scali
Tax reports is a common use of browser, that's a data producer. Donkey's work, as described earlier, is using browsers to produce data


Tax reports use external software, just like this forum.
And I am sure that Donkey doesn't produce anything with his browser, since no browser can produce anything.
He will use external software, or perhaps jot down the info on a notepad. But it is the information that he is using, not the browser, to make money. The browser is dispensable. Any other browser would display the same information, meaning you can do the same work. At best you can have a preference for the way a certain browser displays the information.

Yes, look at it pedantically - I certainly agree, browsers next to never produce data. But they can be used as data-gathering tools, or even to provide data to a backend.


Data-gathering is clearly a consumer-task.
Providing data to a backend requires external software for a browser.
However you look at it, the browser itself can NOT produce anything.
It requires Java applets, ActiveX plugins, server-side scripts, or whatever, to do anything remotely resembling data production.
Posted on 2004-05-22 05:07:05 by Scali
BTW a JPG does not contain a separate B&W image, the system manipulates the data to generate one


Not really, the JPG is stored in YUV-space, and the Y-channel is basically the luminance-channel, so B/W.
if you want to argue over points at least pick ones that you have a little bit of knowledge in.
Posted on 2004-05-22 05:12:39 by Scali
When you say 'a browser' most people will think of the browsing software, in its entirety, not just the HTML consuming component of it. Everybody can agree that web browsing by itself, without any regard to the unique visual information created, is a wholly consumer endeavor. But that's not what you asked. This is why everybody is disagreeing with you. Everybody is stating their opinions based on a different base assumption than yours.

However instead of ensuring that everybody is on the same level, you would rather keep arguing, and you get emotionally bent out of shape. That shows that you aren't a very skilled debator.
Posted on 2004-05-22 10:25:05 by iblis
you would rather keep arguing, and you get emotionally bent out of shape. That shows that you aren't a very skilled debator.


I do not get emotionally bent out of shape. I have no idea where you get that impression.
You have no right to insult my debating skills, especially since you just admitted that you do not even know me.
I am just tired of repeating myself, and restating the obvious.
Your point is very silly, you agree with what I say, but go through great pains to find an interpretation in where you could possibly disagree. This shows that YOU would rather keep arguing.

My 'arguing' was obviously trying to make people understand what I meant, so we would be on the same level, but they refused to, because either they couldn't, or they were reluctant to admit that I am right (at the level at which I am, I am right ofcourse).
Also, you admitted that I am right, then you said that people misinterpret the question, and then you conclude that I am wrong. I am not. I am right, but people misinterpret what I mean. From that you cannot conclude that I am wrong, but merely that their false interpretation of what I said is wrong. Oh, and you paired that with rude false psycho-analytic junk and personal stabs. Let me return the favour: you are projecting your feelings on me.
So much for your debating skills.

And I handled this skillfully, don't you agree?
Posted on 2004-05-22 10:29:24 by Scali

This is why everybody is disagreeing with you.


But according to the poll most people agree with Scali (53.85% as i write)
Posted on 2004-05-22 10:42:46 by stormix
Earlier you accused everybody for holding a personal grudge against you. Rather than taking the time to listen to the other side and figure out where the miscommunication is coming from, you would rather chalk it all up to "Wah, I'm right, they're wrong. They just all hate me so that's why they're disagreeing." It's childish.

And I do not agree with what you say, because you keep changing what you are saying. I make it clear on what I agree with based on which base assumption I am standing upon. The entire browser? Or the browsing component? Both will produce different answers.

I have explained to you how the misconstruing of ideas has lead to the circular argument you see before you, but you have ignored it in favor of arguing further without re-asking the question in a more explicit manner. Instead you would rather accuse everybody of being stupid.

And no, I do not know you but it did not take long for me to get a clear picture of your intentions, temperament, and disposition. It is already to the point where I can accurately predict how you will react to a post, which by the way differs greatly from how a normal person would react.
Posted on 2004-05-22 10:46:27 by iblis

But according to the poll most people agree with Scali (53.85% as i write)



I was referring to the active posters. I have yet to check the poll results.

The poll is inaccurate because the prime assumption has consistently changed throughout the entire life of the thread. Not only that, but the poll options themselves have also changed. I would suggest posting a new poll and you will see results closer to 100%.
Posted on 2004-05-22 10:48:02 by iblis
Earlier you accused everybody for holding a personal grudge against you.


This is easy to verify. When I used a different nickname here, people responded to me very differently, until they found out who I was. I am sure that people such as f0dder or Hiroshimator support this view.
Not an accusation, it's a perception of fact.

And I do not agree with what you say, because you keep changing what you are saying.


A few posts back, you said you agreed. Who is changing what he's saying? You apparently. I never changed my statement, which is still: "A (generic) browser is an information-consumer".

The poll is inaccurate because the prime assumption has consistently changed throughout the entire life of the thread.


Not at all. I never changed a single thing.

Not only that, but the poll options themselves have also changed. I would suggest posting a new poll and you will see results closer to 100%.


I had already said that I did not like people to edit the poll without consulting me first. I think they were in error to do so (and anyway, the 'Neither'-option is completely silly).
You wanted "Both" yourself though. And you did not even bother to explain why. Very bad debating skills?

At any rate, you have constantly been annoying, and arguing beside the point. I don't want a new poll. I prefer this thread to be closed, and no new thread/poll to be opened on the topic, because it is no use with people like you around. People who like to argue about every pixel that a browser draws. People who insult other people for no apparent reason. People who blame others because they themselves don't interpret something properly. People who project their own personality on others (you did exactly all the things that you accused me of) and go for passive-aggressive attacks.
Posted on 2004-05-22 11:05:25 by Scali
information consumer
it presents information, not produces it

ban iblis, he is enemy of the people!
Posted on 2004-05-22 11:36:47 by comrade
I continue saying that the browswer can be a generator, like stated above, the separation between the diferent points is not by the application itself, but more for the aimed target internet.

Ok, you say that I can not produce information directly with the browser for gain money, I know some forums where you can generate new data ofering x product.

I think you say that the browser itself is not a producer, is more a front-end to other applications that generate it, like I say the existence of the other applications is my the medium (net) is a nesesity.

When is used a text-edit, you say that is an active control or x other object, hey, all applications use controls for get data internall controls, ie aimed to be used specifically be the app or more general ones like a button, label, etc.

The information is obtained with a control of the browser and is sended trought internet by the broswer, that is new data, this text is new data and like I say, dosent matter that you have php or MySQL or other database or other interpreted language at server side, if the application in the client side dont know how to interact with them.


If that is not clear... the separation of the functional levels that is necesary for the broswer and internet, not only for security reasons, but for keep data in a central place.

Let consider an app with the same capacity of this browser for display a incoming stream, that is: can interpret html, now you whant a like a forum for personal use (with porpuose for example maintain a diary local diary, manage the personal of a project locally, or other), you have a variety of ways for do it, but in fact, you need a database for store data (or a file in a more crude way) and a way for interact with the database. Supose that in the code of the app that can interpret a stream of html you put the code of open the database, send x content (save) and close the database, then you can start doing your diary or manage your group.

I think this application is a information generator, and can be used in a lot of diferent ways. Maybe at this moment you can see more how near is a browser of that, the only "problem", like was stated before is that be the aimed target for this application (internet, a whole diferent PC... not only one PC working on the same data) it need be separated in diferent levels, yes the application in fact have a granular representation over the net, but the fact, is that for the final user (exept for the retard in store and retrieve data) is clean and is almost exactly the same that the application locally used for save and display data in a database.

Yes, it use external controls, some more developed, others general controls, but hey, all the applications do use of at least the general controls .....



Then for me is a broswer is both, also Internet still a work in progress, who say that some day you like it or noth will use a broswer for develop a image with other people at the other side of the planet (with support directly of the browser).

When only is a information-consumer is when by the object type opened (yes externally, the data is sended by the server.. a external hd), this is html or other, but when the broswer send the information for oen a object that will let have 3 of the anterior points, like php, and have a form, that form with the combination of php give the broswer all the characteristic of a information-producer.


Also the see that in the local app is not used the connection to internet, but the direct connection to the store, like I say the "granularity" or let that other application (functional part) do x work, not mean that the application dont generate info.

For resume, I think 3 points are important for an application can be called content-generator, if the application relegate one of this 3 points to others instances, but can be called from the application itself, it continue being a content-generator, is only modularized, or break the problem in parts.


Taking that the applicatin previously sayed for the diary or organization of group, can choose do all the work in a raw file, but was chosed use a dtabase for save a little the work of write the application. the granularity... or separation of the browser is ok by the purpouse and data handled, also the communications over the net, and the diferent types of computers and OS all around the world.


Have a nice day or night.
Posted on 2004-05-22 16:08:46 by rea
Most browsers can print and save web pages. :)

Not all browsers render in the same way. :(
Posted on 2004-05-22 17:10:33 by bitRAKE
Come on guys, this whole thread is silly. Of course when you when you use a browser to send data to or manipulate data in a database then something is being produced. This thread itself for example is being created out of nothing by a collaborative effort of many people, but its crazy to say the browser created it, the forum code is what creates it. The browser is a front end to that software; similarly Windows GDI is a front end to most programs we use. Now I really hope no one here would claim that when I, say draw a picture in Paint Shop Pro that Windows is the producer of that image. The paint program is clearly the producer there, likewise the forum software is the producer of this thread. While Windows/browser were used, its hardly fair to consider them the active producers of what is created.

Anyway I for one would like to see this thread not only closed, but deleted. Even if either of the two sides actually manages to convince the other and/or us that they?re right nothing of any worth will have been achieved so why keep continuing it? (And why did I also feel the need to throw in my two cents? Questions, Posted on 2004-05-22 17:31:32 by Eóin