It was pretty clear by 2002 or 2003 that H.264 was going to win because there was nothing close quality wise and really nothing else on the horizon. YouTube was just following Adobe, who was doing what pretty much everyone else in the industry was doing.
If the problem is just the volume of data and not the lack of a good algorithm to do the detection wouldn't it be smart to go the folding@home/seti@home route and just throw massive numbers of donated CPU cycles at the problem?
Or your other population "TV Watchers" are more likely to be poor minorities which happen to be more likely to be obese. Had you properly controlled for demographics you may find that your data does support the "Computers cause fat" hypothesis.
At my last employer we had a couple of tech writers and the copyright notice on everything they produced was for the corporation and there were in general not writing credits. In my opinion this is a better analog than being "paid" by a publisher to write a book since in that case (I believe) your work is more likely to be licensed with royalty on the back end and an advance against those royalties and retained rights with regards to derivative works. None of these considerations are in place either with development or in-house writing.
I have no idea what the policy was at the time... but I'm not sure what relevance policy 2 years after the fact is to the case. If there was indeed a policy in place that said he could only turn the keys over to the Mayor at the time I'm sure they would have fixed it in response to this incident.
As an aside I will mention that I left a previous job amidst huge layoffs and refused to give passwords to anyone but the CEO (it was a little company) because I had no guarantee that any other individual or was the new "keeper of the passwords" and certainly couldn't take someones word for it. Granted, other people had the passwords but we were all in the same boat. My point here is that there are cases where this approach is the only one that makes sense, though I don't know enough of the details here to know to what degree that was true for Childs.
There is no credible alternative to H.264, which is patent encumbered and not freely (as in beer) available, as the HTML5 video codec which will make it difficult if not impossible for Firefox to support... ubiquitous HTML5/H.264 video is unlikely to materialize any time soon.
"Member of Grand Theft Auto programming team" looks pretty good on a resume.
More like toxic than good.
I know how the gaming industry works and what kind of developers that environment is likely to produce, unless I'm looking for something specific to game development (say a DirectX expert) its unlikely someone from the GTA team would even get an interview.
AVI was showing its age in 2000/2001 when streaming and large file support started to be important... it only lasted this long because it took ages for a relativity open container that wasn't even more broken than AVI to emerge.
I don't see how they can just radically redefine a word that is a common use with a generally well understood meaning. If this becomes the "real" definition than that would seem to make just about every NDA and non-compete (among other things) written to date worthless.
not so sure about that one. Most of the Linux users I know (including myself) are the go to guys for PC help in their social circles. Convincing them to come back to windows or to recommend windows based on the price that they see seems like it would be a big win for Microsoft... even if it only works 10% of the time.
1) keep local copies of e-mails.
2) If we are talking about something that parallels the Google incident the order would be directed to fastmail not to you. If you as a third party to (and possibly without knowledge of) the court order could be held in contempt for violating that order it is certainly non obvious.
p.s. IANAL
OK. Most players probe what monitor the video is on before they start pushing it to an overlay. The problem usually comes from changing monitors after the player start or (especially in the case of laptops) if the second monitor is mirroring the first. Because the video is not part of the same contiguous block of video memory it is often not mirrored.
In the first case it didn't work because you were attempting to play it back on both the laptop's display and on the projector. In the second the laptop's display was probably off (or was off when the player came up) either because video was switched by the user or because the laptop was closed. It could also be that the user opened the clip twice (most video cards only support one overlay surface) and the second instance, which couldn't get an overlay, played on both monitors.
BTW, Vista includes something MS calls "Enhanced Video Renderer(EVR)" which among other things handles most of these issues without involving the player application. Prior to the introduction of the EVR dealing with multi-display video issues was the player application's responsibility which is a big part of why different players behave inconsistently in multi-display scenarios.
Thats not because of DRM... its because the video was playing in "overlay" mode. If you can't turn it off in the player you can turn it off by lowering the "hardware acceleration" in the display control panel.
Can't speak to DSL but back in the day there was some flaky (X.25) CSUs out there that would start having problems and get fixed, temporarily anyway, by running a line test. The reason was that the test required putting them into loop back mode and then switching them back which reset the connection.
Slashdot Mirror
It was pretty clear by 2002 or 2003 that H.264 was going to win because there was nothing close quality wise and really nothing else on the horizon. YouTube was just following Adobe, who was doing what pretty much everyone else in the industry was doing.
Why would they do that? Its in Google's best interest to quietly do a deal with Facebook.
So what's wrong with forming a third party?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
Its supersonic... so active areo would work different if at all.
If the problem is just the volume of data and not the lack of a good algorithm to do the detection wouldn't it be smart to go the folding@home/seti@home route and just throw massive numbers of donated CPU cycles at the problem?
What WoW class obesity? Now that would be an interesting study.
Or your other population "TV Watchers" are more likely to be poor minorities which happen to be more likely to be obese. Had you properly controlled for demographics you may find that your data does support the "Computers cause fat" hypothesis.
At my last employer we had a couple of tech writers and the copyright notice on everything they produced was for the corporation and there were in general not writing credits. In my opinion this is a better analog than being "paid" by a publisher to write a book since in that case (I believe) your work is more likely to be licensed with royalty on the back end and an advance against those royalties and retained rights with regards to derivative works. None of these considerations are in place either with development or in-house writing.
I have no idea what the policy was at the time... but I'm not sure what relevance policy 2 years after the fact is to the case. If there was indeed a policy in place that said he could only turn the keys over to the Mayor at the time I'm sure they would have fixed it in response to this incident.
As an aside I will mention that I left a previous job amidst huge layoffs and refused to give passwords to anyone but the CEO (it was a little company) because I had no guarantee that any other individual or was the new "keeper of the passwords" and certainly couldn't take someones word for it. Granted, other people had the passwords but we were all in the same boat. My point here is that there are cases where this approach is the only one that makes sense, though I don't know enough of the details here to know to what degree that was true for Childs.
There is no credible alternative to H.264, which is patent encumbered and not freely (as in beer) available, as the HTML5 video codec which will make it difficult if not impossible for Firefox to support... ubiquitous HTML5/H.264 video is unlikely to materialize any time soon.
the subtext is, the internet is dangerous so you need to buy their product.
More likely they are generalizing the activity they are seeing on their fake/honey pot sites on the internet as a whole.
"Member of Grand Theft Auto programming team" looks pretty good on a resume.
More like toxic than good.
I know how the gaming industry works and what kind of developers that environment is likely to produce, unless I'm looking for something specific to game development (say a DirectX expert) its unlikely someone from the GTA team would even get an interview.
lost in TFS is that they are not dropping support for MPEG4 Part 2... they are just supporting ffmpeg instead of XviD and ffmpeg
AVI was showing its age in 2000/2001 when streaming and large file support started to be important... it only lasted this long because it took ages for a relativity open container that wasn't even more broken than AVI to emerge.
I don't see how they can just radically redefine a word that is a common use with a generally well understood meaning. If this becomes the "real" definition than that would seem to make just about every NDA and non-compete (among other things) written to date worthless.
not so sure about that one. Most of the Linux users I know (including myself) are the go to guys for PC help in their social circles. Convincing them to come back to windows or to recommend windows based on the price that they see seems like it would be a big win for Microsoft... even if it only works 10% of the time.
There is nothing stopping you from making an Open Source 6 pack of bonsai kittens...
sadly no. Its the copyright holder on the source. FSF for whatever has been assigned to them or the developer/project that originated the code.
1) keep local copies of e-mails.
2) If we are talking about something that parallels the Google incident the order would be directed to fastmail not to you. If you as a third party to (and possibly without knowledge of) the court order could be held in contempt for violating that order it is certainly non obvious.
p.s. IANAL
assuming its a @yourdomain.com address you could just update your MX record and it wouldn't matter if they froze your account.
OK. Most players probe what monitor the video is on before they start pushing it to an overlay. The problem usually comes from changing monitors after the player start or (especially in the case of laptops) if the second monitor is mirroring the first. Because the video is not part of the same contiguous block of video memory it is often not mirrored.
In the first case it didn't work because you were attempting to play it back on both the laptop's display and on the projector. In the second the laptop's display was probably off (or was off when the player came up) either because video was switched by the user or because the laptop was closed. It could also be that the user opened the clip twice (most video cards only support one overlay surface) and the second instance, which couldn't get an overlay, played on both monitors.
BTW, Vista includes something MS calls "Enhanced Video Renderer(EVR)" which among other things handles most of these issues without involving the player application. Prior to the introduction of the EVR dealing with multi-display video issues was the player application's responsibility which is a big part of why different players behave inconsistently in multi-display scenarios.
Thats not because of DRM... its because the video was playing in "overlay" mode. If you can't turn it off in the player you can turn it off by lowering the "hardware acceleration" in the display control panel.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is a way to bring the PLEX into existence without sending CCP money.
Can't speak to DSL but back in the day there was some flaky (X.25) CSUs out there that would start having problems and get fixed, temporarily anyway, by running a line test. The reason was that the test required putting them into loop back mode and then switching them back which reset the connection.