No, your post is consistent with GodfatherofSoul's. Most people will only pay for stuff they can understand—ergo, comparative junk. Remember that Avatar was the highest-grossing film of all time, followed by Titanic.
I know that grammar trolling isn't cool, but I'd like you to know that the possessive of "Linux" is "Linux's". You can't have an apostrophe after an X just dangling like that. (wikipedia) Please tell all your friends.
The answer is that if that was done, then the next version, 3.14159265, would have a lower number. The whole point of the irrational number thing is that it's still technically increasing—thus the truncation.
Job automation has been a major concern for politicians and workers since the industrial revolution, with a noteworthy resurgence in manufacturing with the introduction of automobile-building robots. Humans can out-do machines when they're underpaid (see China) but the choice to invest in a machine and all of its highly-skilled repair labour comes in response to rising wages—and by the way, did you know you're grossly off-topic?
Lung capacity plays a pretty big role in determining the pitch of one's comfortable speaking range. If we were indeed to give you Vin Diesel's larynx, it would come out sounding higher-pitched.
If Ogg Theora and WebM have enough momentum in the web browser market, their inclusion in video editing products is inevitable for compatibility reasons. Everyone wins for both business and ideology because there are no royalties to pay.
Office 2007 and 2010 don't actually conform to the standard. ECMA-376 was written as an attempt to describe 2007's behaviour, and it's (a) frequently inadequate (the standard doesn't explain some options and features) and (b) wrong in some places, because Office is so woefully complex. As a result, one cannot implement the standard and expect compatibility with Office. This is not the case for ODF. Despite the standard, OOXML is effectively proprietary. Perhaps you've forgotten the fiasco of Microsoft paying off meetings and representatives that was necessary to make it an ISO standard?
Sure, maybe this is just a bureaucratic bungle—in a world of incompetence and malice, there's plenty of room for both—but by standardizing on OOXML they're harming the future accessibility of their documents, and that's a big deal. When one is aware of all of the facts in the situation, as no doubt the poor bureaucrat "without a clue" now is, it's obvious that OOXML is a bad choice.
Google wants to kill Flash—whether it's as quickly as possible or when they feel the time is right I can't really say, but consider a few things:
1. They've made Chrome users eat HTML5 video on YouTube in the past. If their objective is to get people to use Chrome (it is! my dear, cynical friend, it is! they want to advertise to your brain cells!) then this is strong evidence that they believe HTML5 is the right way to go.
2. Google likes Chrome being clean and minimal. They don't like Flash getting in the way—it's hideously unstable, Adobe has never been on good terms with the rest of the industry (see the origin of TrueType for one example), and, once again, my dear, cynical friend, it obstructs their ability to know what the user is doing because it is an externality.
I think if there's any reason Google delays in making motions to kill Flash, it's because they're waiting for everyone else to be ready for it. A huge (HUGE) number of companies support WebM, both hardware and software—in fact, at this point, Apple and Microsoft are sticking out like sore thumbs by being absent from the list. The writing's on the wall that WebM is going to be the de facto video currency in the next few years, because Google is such an aggressive player—and because the format isn't proprietary, contrary to what you said.
Chill out. We're all on the same side here. Wouldn't you, as a video host, much rather have to worry about supporting two open, royalty-free formats than several closed ones?
Mate, it's not biased because of one platform versus another, it's biased because OOXML isn't a widely-supported (or well-supported) standard, and they're picking it on the false premise that it is. Office 2010 supports ODF natively, and 2007 and 2003 support it with a plugin—those are the same suites that support OOXML (2003 needs a plugin). The fact that they chose to go with the Microsoft-only format tips the hand.
I'm too busy to look up the details exactly, but two possibilities:
1. The container, as well as the codecs, are potentially patent-encumbered, so it's easier to steer clear.
2. The container isn't part of the patent concern, but there are companies who aren't sure of that (see #1). So it's easier to get adoption if they steer clear.
Slashdot Mirror
No, your post is consistent with GodfatherofSoul's. Most people will only pay for stuff they can understand—ergo, comparative junk. Remember that Avatar was the highest-grossing film of all time, followed by Titanic.
I know that grammar trolling isn't cool, but I'd like you to know that the possessive of "Linux" is "Linux's". You can't have an apostrophe after an X just dangling like that. (wikipedia) Please tell all your friends.
IceWeasel was renamed to IceCat in 2007. I think your problem is really an ancient version of Firefox.
What? Read the post I'm replying to. The guy's talking about rounding up!
The answer is that if that was done, then the next version, 3.14159265, would have a lower number. The whole point of the irrational number thing is that it's still technically increasing—thus the truncation.
You might be amused by a few facts regarding the word unobta(i)nium, and an explanation of its behaviour in said film.
No? Not even an armband?
Job automation has been a major concern for politicians and workers since the industrial revolution, with a noteworthy resurgence in manufacturing with the introduction of automobile-building robots. Humans can out-do machines when they're underpaid (see China) but the choice to invest in a machine and all of its highly-skilled repair labour comes in response to rising wages—and by the way, did you know you're grossly off-topic?
Slashdot is like Playboy: you don't read it for the bits advertised on the front page, but for the large amounts of text in between.
(Also, both are trademarks comprised of two words where the space has been removed and people who capitalise the second word look hella uniformed.)
Whoops—looks like I'm totally wrong. If you want to know more, this Wikipedia article looks like the most topical.
Lung capacity plays a pretty big role in determining the pitch of one's comfortable speaking range. If we were indeed to give you Vin Diesel's larynx, it would come out sounding higher-pitched.
Theora's all BSD licensed. Encoder/decoder download (BSD licensed), FAQ describing the licensing status of the codec itself (BSD again!)
WebM is the same story.
Are you happy yet?
Beats me. But it sure looks promising, don't you think?
If Ogg Theora and WebM have enough momentum in the web browser market, their inclusion in video editing products is inevitable for compatibility reasons. Everyone wins for both business and ideology because there are no royalties to pay.
Office 2007 and 2010 don't actually conform to the standard. ECMA-376 was written as an attempt to describe 2007's behaviour, and it's (a) frequently inadequate (the standard doesn't explain some options and features) and (b) wrong in some places, because Office is so woefully complex. As a result, one cannot implement the standard and expect compatibility with Office. This is not the case for ODF. Despite the standard, OOXML is effectively proprietary. Perhaps you've forgotten the fiasco of Microsoft paying off meetings and representatives that was necessary to make it an ISO standard?
Sure, maybe this is just a bureaucratic bungle—in a world of incompetence and malice, there's plenty of room for both—but by standardizing on OOXML they're harming the future accessibility of their documents, and that's a big deal. When one is aware of all of the facts in the situation, as no doubt the poor bureaucrat "without a clue" now is, it's obvious that OOXML is a bad choice.
Your hardware woes are over, or will be in the near future.
Ogg Theora and WebM—the two being discussed.
Google wants to kill Flash—whether it's as quickly as possible or when they feel the time is right I can't really say, but consider a few things:
1. They've made Chrome users eat HTML5 video on YouTube in the past. If their objective is to get people to use Chrome (it is! my dear, cynical friend, it is! they want to advertise to your brain cells!) then this is strong evidence that they believe HTML5 is the right way to go.
2. Google likes Chrome being clean and minimal. They don't like Flash getting in the way—it's hideously unstable, Adobe has never been on good terms with the rest of the industry (see the origin of TrueType for one example), and, once again, my dear, cynical friend, it obstructs their ability to know what the user is doing because it is an externality.
I think if there's any reason Google delays in making motions to kill Flash, it's because they're waiting for everyone else to be ready for it. A huge (HUGE) number of companies support WebM, both hardware and software—in fact, at this point, Apple and Microsoft are sticking out like sore thumbs by being absent from the list. The writing's on the wall that WebM is going to be the de facto video currency in the next few years, because Google is such an aggressive player—and because the format isn't proprietary , contrary to what you said.
You lying, thieving, cheating, scum-sucking, dog-licking, spit-swimming, spider-eating, goat-hugging, dung-smearing, pig-kissing, frog-swallowing, mud-biting, cow-tipping, toilet-swabbing, cud-chewing, window-washing, half-warped, apple-polishing, worm-witted, chicken-hearted, lamb-lusting, nefarious, untrustworthy nasty person!
Chill out. We're all on the same side here. Wouldn't you, as a video host, much rather have to worry about supporting two open, royalty-free formats than several closed ones?
Mate, it's not biased because of one platform versus another, it's biased because OOXML isn't a widely-supported (or well-supported) standard, and they're picking it on the false premise that it is. Office 2010 supports ODF natively, and 2007 and 2003 support it with a plugin—those are the same suites that support OOXML (2003 needs a plugin). The fact that they chose to go with the Microsoft-only format tips the hand.
"They" = "samzenpus". Weirdness = minimal. Tragedy = great.
Well, if you had -e^(i*pi) real posts, they'd work just fine.
You have won 5i mod points.
On the contrary: just look at the size of the discussion page.
I'm too busy to look up the details exactly, but two possibilities:
1. The container, as well as the codecs, are potentially patent-encumbered, so it's easier to steer clear.
2. The container isn't part of the patent concern, but there are companies who aren't sure of that (see #1). So it's easier to get adoption if they steer clear.