Neither Tux nor this Windows 7 commercial come close to the shame that is the Martinettis bring home a computer infomercial that Apple made in the 90s.
Tux, nor the Martinettis, are high-points in product promotion, but that Windows 7 Party ad is truly horrific, somewhere around the same level of awful as the Songsmith ad.
I'm sort of curious what the point is of comparing an alpha to a release candidate.
Alpha is sort of a misnomer. Well, actually, it's extremely accurate for what the term really means, but for the way people think of beta and alpha, Ubuntu's "alpha" is more akin to other organizations' "beta".
Ubuntu 9.10 (for which Alpha 6 is the current version) is due out in a month.
Just saying "any normal geek" already excludes Mac users. It has nothing to do with when Apple stopped using CRTs.
Only for extreme definitions of "geek" (which is excluded by the term "normal geek").
Macs are very geek-friendly. Unix + a commercially-supported desktop system? Even Linus Torvals uses/used a Mac. He ran Linux on it (obviously), but still...
Now, had the term been "gamers" or "oss geeks" or something, you'd have a point.
/me dons asbestos undies
Or, paraphrased: I'm going to pre-label anyone who disagrees with me as a troll or fanatical fanboy.
The speed limit is the speed limit. By law, no one is allowed to drive faster than the posted speed limit, regardless of whether or not they are passing someone.
That's not true. People are allowed to do it all the time.
Speeding isn't a crime.
I will be happy to accelerate up to whatever speed you like, provided you set up an escrow fund to pay any fines and insurance fees should I get caught doing it.
Just stay in the right lane (or out of the left lane, or just out of the way of people who drive faster than you). Just because you can legally drive 65 in the left lane (on a 70mph freeway) doesn't make you not an asshole (and in many states, *that is* actually against the law).
We're not talking about people who go 15+ over the limit, nor people who do the zip-zag from lane to lane, nor people who cut into a gap that is barely a foot or so larger than their car. We're talking about left-lane etiquette, which is 5-10 over the limit.
Like I've already said, I don't mind, at all, if you want to drive 5-10 below the limit, just don't be a dick about it. I'm not a dick about preferring to drive faster. There's plenty of freeway for the both of us.
Correct. For context, I am not that guy that zips from lane to lane, nor do I *ever* cut into a gap that is barely large enough to fit.
and after even a minute or 2 of being forced to drive behind something traveling slower than you'd like
Hmm... you started out promising. It's not about the time. 10 seconds or 10 hours, it doesn't make a difference. And it's not about "slower than I'd like". I don't begrudge people who prefer to drive slow at all.
What it's about is people who are in the wrong damned lane. If, under normal circumstances, you are not going noticeably faster than the lane to your right, you are in the wrong lane. Period. I don't mind people driving slow, but I *do* mind them doing it in the wrong lane.
For an analogy, I don't mind people walking slow down the sidewalk, or in the shopping mall, etc. But when they walk side-by-side, covering the whole walkway, *I'm* not the one who's wrong for being annoyed by it.
Mr. Slowpoke Left-Lane Driver isn't getting anywhere any faster than were he to stay in the correct lane. By driving in the left lane, he's not gaining any significant benefit, while causing inconvenience to those behind him. You know those phantom slowdowns on the freeway where traffic jams up for no apparent reason? Mr. Slowpoke Left-Lane Driver is at the source of many of them.
you start to grind your teeth, grip the steering wheel tighter and start acting like an aggressive asshole.
Completely wrong on all accounts.
tl;dr: I don't mind if you drive slow, just don't slow the rest of us down when you have a perfectly good lane on the right that's going your chosen speed.
I have little concern for what becomes of people who decide to be aggressive assholes without provocation, to be honest with you. They invite any misfortune they receive.
Um, no.
First off, not all tailgating is the same. Not to entirely justify it, but sometimes a person will pull into the left lane and either maintain the same speed as the right lane (two-lane scenario, for simplification), or so minimally faster that it will take several miles before they pass the car on their right. All the while there is a good 1/8th mile of empty road before the two cars *and* they're both under the speed limit.
In those cases, it's the fucker in the left lane that's creating an unsafe circumstance.
However, in neither case does the two parties involved deserve to be deliberately put into danger. The slow-poke in the left lane doesn't deserve to be tailgated, but neither does the person behind him deserve to have his car disabled while driving in excess of 50mph.
Best way to avoid such situations is to stay the fuck out of the left lane if you have more than about 75-100 ft of empty road ahead of you, you aren't moving appreciably faster than the lane to your right, and you have someone riding your tail. Problem averted, you haven't inconvenienced yourself, and you have diffused a dangerous situation that you are partly responsible for, all without escalating the situation.
Or, you could just do as you are envisioning, and out-asshole the asshole behind you by deliberately disabling, maybe even damaging his car, and putting those behind him and beside him in mortal danger.
In practice this is correct. OTOH, add an photocell and one could, at least in principle, power a device. Of course as others have mentioned running a wire as well as the fiber optic solves this problem.
Yeah, seriously. I mean, how much damage can a 10 watt laser really cause, anyway?
Yes, I'm aware that security through obscurity is no security at all
If it's, "no security at all", then please stop obscuring your usernames and passwords from us.
Please, post all the sites and machines you have logins for, IP address or DNS name, username and password.
Further, any social security (or similar) numbers, full name, birthdate, address, mother's maiden name, any secret questions you use, credit card numbers (with secret code and expiration date), bank info, a high-resolution photo of your house keys, a schedule of when you are at work and/or on vacation...
You get the idea.
Clearly, security through obscurity very much is security. What it isn't is absolute security. Security isn't binary, it isn't either "absolute" or "none at all".
If you *still* think it's binary, then why would you keep all that information secret? Because, clearly, while it doesn't keep you 100% secure, it does keep you dramatically more secure than you would be were that information public.
Have you heard of a patent? You may want to try googling for it. It's pretty annoying stuff.
Yet somehow, everyone can decode h.264. Maybe you should try googling that first.
Just because there's a patent, doesn't mean there's any problem.
And licensing this shit is not free.
Sometimes, it is.
Doesn't matter how many times you say it; it's not true.
Same goes for your old tired bullshit. h.264 *is* available for free. On Windows. On Mac OS X. On Linux. And on just about any OS that has the capability to run C programs.
Most browsers don't even have MP3 support built in; I don't know where you're getting that from, either.
I never said they had it built-in, I said they support it. Firefox can play mp3's inline if the OS supports it, and all OS's support it (or can support it) for free.
You also left out gif, which was "patent encumbered", yet still supported by every major browser, built-in. Even the free ones, like Firefox.
The fact of the matter is that while patents can muck things up, that doesn't mean they will muck things up. There's no excuse whatsoever for not supporting h.264 playback other than pure ideology, and this is one of those situation where ideology makes things worse for no actual benefit. If the Firefox guys get their way, the web will support a codec that is worse than the alternative, and is by no means certain of being "patent-free".
I highly doubt the President had any input into the operations other than (at most) telling his agencies to do what they saw best. I could be wrong, who knows? But he sure didn't do anything like this to the teabaggers.
Additionally, unless both the federal laws are severely more out of whack with the Constitution than I'm aware (and yes, I'm aware that the federal laws and the Constitution haven't seen eye-to-eye on many things for a rather long time), and the states and cities are far more spineless and corrupt than I imagined, any involvement by the Pittsburgh police beyond more or less a liaison role to facilitate the immediate logistical needs of the feds is completely voluntary.
To clarify, I can imagine the city of Pittsburgh may have an obligation to give the FBI, SS and DHS full access to the event venue, and provide a liaison to coordinate between the federal, state and city agencies, I don't believe the FBI or SS or DHS can order the Pittsburgh police to work overtime, gather at the event, and attack the protesters.
I'm pretty sure the local police have absolutely zero obligation to follow the demands of the feds other than to let the feds do what the law allows them to do.
For example, the FBI or SS can ask for the Pittsburgh police to assist by forming phalanxes of police officers with sound cannons and tear gas, but the Pittsburgh police can say no, they'd rather use their police force, money and resources fighting crime and keeping their citizens safe.
Not that I can imagine the police chief or mayor of any major city actually making that choice, but the choice is still theirs.
I can't wait to see what happens when they take over healthcare
Given that this isn't Obama in action, but the wealthy (the G20) in the process of doing whatever it takes to get wealthier, I imagine what will happen in healthcare will be similar when we take it out of the hands of the wealthy who are doing whatever it takes to get wealthier.
Or are you *really* suggesting that state paid for (not *run*, just *paid for*) healthcare will result in militarized police shooting sick people with sound cannons and tear gas?
You teabaggers are amazing. You overlook actual existing tyranny, but fear the hell out of some imagined tyranny that doesn't even make any damned sense.
It's kind of hard to argue there are any good cops when the entire police force participates in something like this. I realize it's not as simple as that, but "just following orders" is not a defense. Neither is "just doing their job", or "they don't agree with it, but are doing as they're told" or any other rationalization.
I'm sure that many/most of them are great people, and when they're not out shooting innocent people with rubber bullets, tear gas, tasers and sonic cannons, they're saving lives, stopping bank robberies and helping kittens out of trees. But that doesn't change the fact that sometimes they *are* shooting innocent people with rubber bullets, tear gas, tasers and sonic cannons.
Is it unfair that a "sometimes" act can taint an otherwise stellar person's life? Perhaps. But do you think the cops give you the same consideration if they find a joint on you? They'll even lie and tell you that they'll search you anyway (they can't), it's better if you just come clean now (it's not), and maybe they'll even just give you a warning (they won't).
Now it's tanks and armored cars, military fatigues and terrifying weaponry for the sake of... what?
Your question contains the answer. Modern police uniforms are designed to incite fear. Similar to the uniforms of the storm troopers in Star Wars, only in black.
I saw no situation in which this weapon was "needed" at all. Was the mob dangerous?
just like the training they do for the Taser
The training is apparently, "this is safer than a gun, so fire away!"
Never, ever, ever should a taser be used when someone's safety isn't at risk. Ever. But you see it used as a compliance device all the time. We are not the police's slaves. But step out of line, boy, and you get the lash.
Obama and the Congress have nothing to do with this. To try to equate the Democrats and the Republicans is absurd, when you see cases of Bush protesters being arrested for wearing a t-shirt, or being harassed by police for a bumper sticker, but Obama protesters showing up with assault rifles and being left free to do so (and before anyone points out that it's their 2nd Amendment right, I agree, but it's also their 1st Amendment right to wear a t-shirt, and of the two, it interesting that Republicans fear words to a greater extent than Democrats fear guns!)
This G20 summit is not being defended by the President, or by Congress, but by the city, and by the wealthy. And if you want to make any equivalencies between Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, that equivalency should be that in either case, the rich are still going to use force and violence to get what they want, and the media is going to side with the rich.
How are those things harder to escape? A baton only requires you move about two feet away. The sound cannon's range, duration, ease of targeting and continual application (even on a moving target) vastly exceed that of rubber bullets.
Maybe now Google will use Theora instead of the patent-encumbered H.264 in their new HTML5 Youtube.
"Encumbered" implies some sort of difficulty. H.264 decoding is available, for free (and, if you must, for free as in freedom, as well), on every OS, including Linux.
So, where's the encumbering?
It seems to me that requiring only open standards, when *they* are not the norm and require going out of one's way is more encumbering than going with something like h.264. Not to mention being encumbered with a format that offers inferior quality.
Freedom is cool and all, and I'm supremely grateful for Theora's existence, but h.264 is the current king of codecs. Firefox (the fundamental source of requesting Google use Theora) needs to quit being a bunch of anti-user ninnies and support the codec their users are using. Support Theora in addition to h.264 if you want (in fact, I encourage it), but if a browser (or free OS or whatever) is going to support gif and mp3, you have no excuse for not support h.264 as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither Tux nor this Windows 7 commercial come close to the shame that is the Martinettis bring home a computer infomercial that Apple made in the 90s.
Tux, nor the Martinettis, are high-points in product promotion, but that Windows 7 Party ad is truly horrific, somewhere around the same level of awful as the Songsmith ad.
Y'know paraphrase should be shorter? Just sayin'
Paraphrase means to rephrase, generally for greater clarity, *not* necessarily for brevity.
My paraphrase would be... cheesy joke.
Paraphrased: I'm not wrong, I'm funny! :D
I'm sort of curious what the point is of comparing an alpha to a release candidate.
Alpha is sort of a misnomer. Well, actually, it's extremely accurate for what the term really means, but for the way people think of beta and alpha, Ubuntu's "alpha" is more akin to other organizations' "beta".
Ubuntu 9.10 (for which Alpha 6 is the current version) is due out in a month.
The article summary seems to agree with you:
"The case looks like a prop from 2001, rendered in black steel instead of white plastic".
*points to Cupertino* - the cute little toys are that-away, bub. I rather like the "ugly black behemoth".
He's talking about the movie, not the year. In 2001, Macs weren't white, they were colorful.
And present-day, they are almost all aluminum (there is *one* model that is encased in white plastic).
On the other hand, calling Macs "toys" is from the year 2001. So you got something right...
I live in Alaska, you insensitive clod! EVERYTHING costs more to ship than to build!
Sure, but most of that is all the overhead the post office has to deal with to make sure Putin isn't hiding in any of the packages.
Just saying "any normal geek" already excludes Mac users. It has nothing to do with when Apple stopped using CRTs.
Only for extreme definitions of "geek" (which is excluded by the term "normal geek").
Macs are very geek-friendly. Unix + a commercially-supported desktop system? Even Linus Torvals uses/used a Mac. He ran Linux on it (obviously), but still...
Now, had the term been "gamers" or "oss geeks" or something, you'd have a point.
/me dons asbestos undies
Or, paraphrased: I'm going to pre-label anyone who disagrees with me as a troll or fanatical fanboy.
The speed limit is the speed limit. By law, no one is allowed to drive faster than the posted speed limit, regardless of whether or not they are passing someone.
That's not true. People are allowed to do it all the time.
Speeding isn't a crime.
I will be happy to accelerate up to whatever speed you like, provided you set up an escrow fund to pay any fines and insurance fees should I get caught doing it.
Just stay in the right lane (or out of the left lane, or just out of the way of people who drive faster than you). Just because you can legally drive 65 in the left lane (on a 70mph freeway) doesn't make you not an asshole (and in many states, *that is* actually against the law).
We're not talking about people who go 15+ over the limit, nor people who do the zip-zag from lane to lane, nor people who cut into a gap that is barely a foot or so larger than their car. We're talking about left-lane etiquette, which is 5-10 over the limit.
Like I've already said, I don't mind, at all, if you want to drive 5-10 below the limit, just don't be a dick about it. I'm not a dick about preferring to drive faster. There's plenty of freeway for the both of us.
Come on, it wasn't a great joke,
Correct.
but surely you couldn't have missed it completely
Also correct.
The point of my post isn't about the joke, it's about the motives that it's predicated on.
If you're in the situation where you'd wish to, not-really-but-sure-would-feel-good, pull such a stunt, you're in the wrong lane.
Surely you couldn't have missed that completely, could you? Could you?
random guess
Let's see how on the mark your guesses are...
you like to drive fast
Correct. For context, I am not that guy that zips from lane to lane, nor do I *ever* cut into a gap that is barely large enough to fit.
and after even a minute or 2 of being forced to drive behind something traveling slower than you'd like
Hmm... you started out promising. It's not about the time. 10 seconds or 10 hours, it doesn't make a difference. And it's not about "slower than I'd like". I don't begrudge people who prefer to drive slow at all.
What it's about is people who are in the wrong damned lane. If, under normal circumstances, you are not going noticeably faster than the lane to your right, you are in the wrong lane. Period. I don't mind people driving slow, but I *do* mind them doing it in the wrong lane.
For an analogy, I don't mind people walking slow down the sidewalk, or in the shopping mall, etc. But when they walk side-by-side, covering the whole walkway, *I'm* not the one who's wrong for being annoyed by it.
Mr. Slowpoke Left-Lane Driver isn't getting anywhere any faster than were he to stay in the correct lane. By driving in the left lane, he's not gaining any significant benefit, while causing inconvenience to those behind him. You know those phantom slowdowns on the freeway where traffic jams up for no apparent reason? Mr. Slowpoke Left-Lane Driver is at the source of many of them.
you start to grind your teeth, grip the steering wheel tighter and start acting like an aggressive asshole.
Completely wrong on all accounts.
tl;dr: I don't mind if you drive slow, just don't slow the rest of us down when you have a perfectly good lane on the right that's going your chosen speed.
That is a risk I'd be willing to take*.
Manslaughter?
*okay, not really, but wouldn't you want to?
Ah, I see. Passive-aggresive imaginary manslaughter.
Ever consider maybe you're in the wrong lane?
I have little concern for what becomes of people who decide to be aggressive assholes without provocation, to be honest with you. They invite any misfortune they receive.
Um, no.
First off, not all tailgating is the same. Not to entirely justify it, but sometimes a person will pull into the left lane and either maintain the same speed as the right lane (two-lane scenario, for simplification), or so minimally faster that it will take several miles before they pass the car on their right. All the while there is a good 1/8th mile of empty road before the two cars *and* they're both under the speed limit.
In those cases, it's the fucker in the left lane that's creating an unsafe circumstance.
However, in neither case does the two parties involved deserve to be deliberately put into danger. The slow-poke in the left lane doesn't deserve to be tailgated, but neither does the person behind him deserve to have his car disabled while driving in excess of 50mph.
Best way to avoid such situations is to stay the fuck out of the left lane if you have more than about 75-100 ft of empty road ahead of you, you aren't moving appreciably faster than the lane to your right, and you have someone riding your tail. Problem averted, you haven't inconvenienced yourself, and you have diffused a dangerous situation that you are partly responsible for, all without escalating the situation.
Or, you could just do as you are envisioning, and out-asshole the asshole behind you by deliberately disabling, maybe even damaging his car, and putting those behind him and beside him in mortal danger.
In practice this is correct. OTOH, add an photocell and one could, at least in principle, power a device. Of course as others have mentioned running a wire as well as the fiber optic solves this problem.
Yeah, seriously. I mean, how much damage can a 10 watt laser really cause, anyway?
Imagine, getting intel to go into competition with itself!
Considering that this is Intel we're talking about, that might actually work.
what you clearly meant to say was "bears repeating"
Well, yeah. That goes without saying.
Yes, I'm aware that security through obscurity is no security at all
If it's, "no security at all", then please stop obscuring your usernames and passwords from us.
Please, post all the sites and machines you have logins for, IP address or DNS name, username and password.
Further, any social security (or similar) numbers, full name, birthdate, address, mother's maiden name, any secret questions you use, credit card numbers (with secret code and expiration date), bank info, a high-resolution photo of your house keys, a schedule of when you are at work and/or on vacation...
You get the idea.
Clearly, security through obscurity very much is security. What it isn't is absolute security. Security isn't binary, it isn't either "absolute" or "none at all".
If you *still* think it's binary, then why would you keep all that information secret? Because, clearly, while it doesn't keep you 100% secure, it does keep you dramatically more secure than you would be were that information public.
Have you heard of a patent? You may want to try googling for it. It's pretty annoying stuff.
Yet somehow, everyone can decode h.264. Maybe you should try googling that first.
Just because there's a patent, doesn't mean there's any problem.
And licensing this shit is not free.
Sometimes, it is.
Doesn't matter how many times you say it; it's not true.
Same goes for your old tired bullshit. h.264 *is* available for free. On Windows. On Mac OS X. On Linux. And on just about any OS that has the capability to run C programs.
Most browsers don't even have MP3 support built in; I don't know where you're getting that from, either.
I never said they had it built-in, I said they support it. Firefox can play mp3's inline if the OS supports it, and all OS's support it (or can support it) for free.
You also left out gif, which was "patent encumbered", yet still supported by every major browser, built-in. Even the free ones, like Firefox.
The fact of the matter is that while patents can muck things up, that doesn't mean they will muck things up. There's no excuse whatsoever for not supporting h.264 playback other than pure ideology, and this is one of those situation where ideology makes things worse for no actual benefit. If the Firefox guys get their way, the web will support a codec that is worse than the alternative, and is by no means certain of being "patent-free".
I highly doubt the President had any input into the operations other than (at most) telling his agencies to do what they saw best. I could be wrong, who knows? But he sure didn't do anything like this to the teabaggers.
Additionally, unless both the federal laws are severely more out of whack with the Constitution than I'm aware (and yes, I'm aware that the federal laws and the Constitution haven't seen eye-to-eye on many things for a rather long time), and the states and cities are far more spineless and corrupt than I imagined, any involvement by the Pittsburgh police beyond more or less a liaison role to facilitate the immediate logistical needs of the feds is completely voluntary.
To clarify, I can imagine the city of Pittsburgh may have an obligation to give the FBI, SS and DHS full access to the event venue, and provide a liaison to coordinate between the federal, state and city agencies, I don't believe the FBI or SS or DHS can order the Pittsburgh police to work overtime, gather at the event, and attack the protesters.
I'm pretty sure the local police have absolutely zero obligation to follow the demands of the feds other than to let the feds do what the law allows them to do.
For example, the FBI or SS can ask for the Pittsburgh police to assist by forming phalanxes of police officers with sound cannons and tear gas, but the Pittsburgh police can say no, they'd rather use their police force, money and resources fighting crime and keeping their citizens safe.
Not that I can imagine the police chief or mayor of any major city actually making that choice, but the choice is still theirs.
I can't wait to see what happens when they take over healthcare
Given that this isn't Obama in action, but the wealthy (the G20) in the process of doing whatever it takes to get wealthier, I imagine what will happen in healthcare will be similar when we take it out of the hands of the wealthy who are doing whatever it takes to get wealthier.
Or are you *really* suggesting that state paid for (not *run*, just *paid for*) healthcare will result in militarized police shooting sick people with sound cannons and tear gas?
You teabaggers are amazing. You overlook actual existing tyranny, but fear the hell out of some imagined tyranny that doesn't even make any damned sense.
It's kind of hard to argue there are any good cops when the entire police force participates in something like this. I realize it's not as simple as that, but "just following orders" is not a defense. Neither is "just doing their job", or "they don't agree with it, but are doing as they're told" or any other rationalization.
I'm sure that many/most of them are great people, and when they're not out shooting innocent people with rubber bullets, tear gas, tasers and sonic cannons, they're saving lives, stopping bank robberies and helping kittens out of trees. But that doesn't change the fact that sometimes they *are* shooting innocent people with rubber bullets, tear gas, tasers and sonic cannons.
Is it unfair that a "sometimes" act can taint an otherwise stellar person's life? Perhaps. But do you think the cops give you the same consideration if they find a joint on you? They'll even lie and tell you that they'll search you anyway (they can't), it's better if you just come clean now (it's not), and maybe they'll even just give you a warning (they won't).
Now it's tanks and armored cars, military fatigues and terrifying weaponry for the sake of... what?
Your question contains the answer. Modern police uniforms are designed to incite fear. Similar to the uniforms of the storm troopers in Star Wars, only in black.
They only use it as needed
I saw no situation in which this weapon was "needed" at all. Was the mob dangerous?
just like the training they do for the Taser
The training is apparently, "this is safer than a gun, so fire away!"
Never, ever, ever should a taser be used when someone's safety isn't at risk. Ever. But you see it used as a compliance device all the time. We are not the police's slaves. But step out of line, boy, and you get the lash.
Obama and the Congress have nothing to do with this. To try to equate the Democrats and the Republicans is absurd, when you see cases of Bush protesters being arrested for wearing a t-shirt, or being harassed by police for a bumper sticker, but Obama protesters showing up with assault rifles and being left free to do so (and before anyone points out that it's their 2nd Amendment right, I agree, but it's also their 1st Amendment right to wear a t-shirt, and of the two, it interesting that Republicans fear words to a greater extent than Democrats fear guns!)
This G20 summit is not being defended by the President, or by Congress, but by the city, and by the wealthy. And if you want to make any equivalencies between Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, that equivalency should be that in either case, the rich are still going to use force and violence to get what they want, and the media is going to side with the rich.
How are those things harder to escape? A baton only requires you move about two feet away. The sound cannon's range, duration, ease of targeting and continual application (even on a moving target) vastly exceed that of rubber bullets.
Maybe now Google will use Theora instead of the patent-encumbered H.264 in their new HTML5 Youtube.
"Encumbered" implies some sort of difficulty. H.264 decoding is available, for free (and, if you must, for free as in freedom, as well), on every OS, including Linux.
So, where's the encumbering?
It seems to me that requiring only open standards, when *they* are not the norm and require going out of one's way is more encumbering than going with something like h.264. Not to mention being encumbered with a format that offers inferior quality.
Freedom is cool and all, and I'm supremely grateful for Theora's existence, but h.264 is the current king of codecs. Firefox (the fundamental source of requesting Google use Theora) needs to quit being a bunch of anti-user ninnies and support the codec their users are using. Support Theora in addition to h.264 if you want (in fact, I encourage it), but if a browser (or free OS or whatever) is going to support gif and mp3, you have no excuse for not support h.264 as well.