You'd be pretty stupid to paint yourself in a corner like that, as a pirate. That's akin to the.xxx TLD that'd make porn sites way too easy to filter.
I don't think.music would be used for much pirating. Plus, even if it does, it would've happened WITHOUT it anyways... The RIAA is apparently trying to piss off everyone they can. I don't get it.
In traditional/. fashion, I didn't RTFA, but I'm seeing a gross inaccuracy in almost all posts around here: Blizzard did not send a cease & desist, the guy received a DMCA takedown notice. Those could've been issued by anybody, though Blizzard's response seems to indicate it was them (be it Activision or Blizzard) after all. A C&D is a much more heavy-handed response than a DMCA takedown.
What I am really curious about is whether Blizzard's decision to invite the guy for a tour of their office has anything to do with Riot Games' job offer.
Considering a large part of Google's strategy relies on Android, they will make sure your hardware codec works. Mobile phones would be far less viable for web video if they didn't have hardware support for video codecs.
Also, OOXML is a ISO standard. Being an ISO standard apparently doesn't mean much nowadays.
Like ActiveX support? What you say is true, but unfortunately even IE7, IE8 or the upcoming IE9, which will all have the specifications you're listing, aren't getting as much adoption as they should, mostly because business applications still rely on antiquated technologies that only run in IE6.
The biggest hurdle to a move forward are those internal web applications.
At a whopping 15 knots or so (don't expect the plant to outpace a heavy lift ship by any stretch of the imagination), it probably wouldn't make for a very exciting Michael Bay film.
If the assholes in the music industry actually offered me *any* service, I'd gladly pick one up. As it is, Pandora and Spotify aren't available here and Last.fm sucks. Thus, they're losing a potential customer for absolutely no reason.
Then again, a single physical sale is worth like ten app store sales. Furthermore, app store games tend to be much more simple and therefore have a shorter usable lifespan. While it's true you might purchase five games on your iWhatever, you'll often go through them in a matter of hours and then it's just repetition - think arcade games.
You don't get to see things like Bioshock or Starcraft 2 on the app store.
Now if we compared things with Steam, it might be different, but this isn't the case being made here.
We are talking about now, though. I agree that H.264 is an open standard and VP8 was a closed one, but WebM is an open standard now and this is what should really matter at this point.
The critical difference between the two formats now is that one is royalty free and one is temporarily royalty free - in other words, we have no idea how H.264 could evolve. Maybe it'll stay royalty free forever, which would make it an interesting alternative. Maybe it will not, though, and that could be a potential disaster for video on the web - or just a thorn in the side of Google and other big video sites.
The big debate therefore is: do we stay with a widely adopted, high performance format that may behave like a Damocles sword, or do we switch now for what is currently an inferior but safer alternative?
I think you're not getting what the OP is saying... Were the US not to care about public opinion or were they to have the support of the international community in a total war against Iraq, they would utterly annihilate any opposition, be it from Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, whatever. Israel would react swiftly to any attack from Iran (I think their performance is not up to question, with what the Six-Day War showed).
The thing is that this is not the kind of war the US is trying to lead.
Chances are you are allergic to something that's in the vaccine but is not the actual vaccine part - say, the adjuvant. Then, you can be sure those bug-induced "vaccines" would not elicit an allergic reaction, since no such thing would be present in the bite. You'd get the weakened/defective contaminant and what normally is in there (anti-coagulant, etc.). If you're not allergic to bugs normally, you shouldn't have any more of a reaction, from what I gather (though IANAP).
The more worrisome parts would be what would happen should the bug mutate or otherwise get out of our control and spawn something worse, or if the weakened disease isn't quite as weakened as we initially thought it would be.
You're the perfect example of the minority who appears to dislike the new changes. Let me guess, you also hate the Office 2007+ UI, assuming you've ever used it?
I'm not trying to be an ass, but really, the Firefox devs are going by the majority here. I love the new changes - give me as much space as possible for the website, let the browser get the hell out of the way. Tabs on top and no status bar shave off pixels that can be used for the website, the actual content. If they could find a way to combine the search bar without breaking functionality, I'd be happy with that too. You see, in my view it's streamlining the interface as much as possible. Having tabs on top is in fact a more logical layout since it encompasses the URL bar too, which is related to the tab you're on. I'm not even trying to make an analogy because sometimes, guess what, a UI doesn't have to reflect a real-world thing. It can just be the optimal solution to the problem.
The status bar, I don't really see the problem. Unless your URL is some sort of behemoth, you'll see it entirely. If it is in fact THAT long, then it'll cut off the middle section, giving you the really important information anyways: the site's domain and the page you're going to. It's also not there when there's nothing to be shown, which is good - less clutter is good. If you want to see more of the URL, just remove stuff in your main bar. I have the previous button auto-minimize when it's unavailable, I've moved the Home button to the tabs bar, I have the very minimum number of buttons and my search bar is very small, so my URL bar is basically maximized, thus allowing me to see all but the most cumbersome of URLs.
And that's the thing, really: I like the changes. I'm sure I'm not alone. It's probably even that there's an overwhelming majority of people who like the changes. I'm sorry that you don't like the changes, but thankfully the developers are fully aware that there will always be people to whine on any and all change and they make sure an extension can always be built to address this. You can say they could build the extension themselves or incorporate it in the actual build, but I say they have better things to do than to cater to a minority and that building the option in would probably just cause more bloat. Ironically enough, those who complain of the changes also often complain of bloat.
What's more, what would it do to small start-ups if H.264 became ubiquitous and unchallenged? When MPEG decides to stop with the free licensing time extensions, it could mean the death knoll for a lot of small businesses. I'm sorry but if the choice is between having a Damocles sword hovering above constantly and not having one, I don't see it as a choice really. I don't even see what exactly we lose from Google's move, if anything.
You can fairly easily do a side-by-side comparison and notice that overall there is nothing but branding and data mining that's missing, really. I personally use Firefox but Chrome would be the only alternative I'd seriously consider, thanks to Chromium. If you want to go in some mad conspiracy theory whereby Google is hiding optimizations and features in a separate Chrome build, have fun.
Or, you know, you can't reinvent the wheel thirty times without eventually falling back on the same basic concepts and H.264 and WebM share unpatented portions? You can't seriously believe every single thing H.264 does is patented, can you?
Yes, quite possibly. The regulators and contractors should be jailed for criminal negligence. That doesn't mean BP shouldn't be sued into oblivion, though. Let them be a lesson for all others and all that.
Too bad it doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of happening. Despite being called Beyond now, I'm sure the British government would file them in the "too big to fail" category.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, even a massive reduction in clock speed would still result in something between 5 and 10 times higher than what we currently have.
Rumors say he attempted to get funding for a larger scale experiment, but surprisingly all his pleas were faced with refusal.
Science isn't what it used to be...
You'd be pretty stupid to paint yourself in a corner like that, as a pirate. That's akin to the .xxx TLD that'd make porn sites way too easy to filter.
I don't think .music would be used for much pirating. Plus, even if it does, it would've happened WITHOUT it anyways... The RIAA is apparently trying to piss off everyone they can. I don't get it.
In traditional /. fashion, I didn't RTFA, but I'm seeing a gross inaccuracy in almost all posts around here: Blizzard did not send a cease & desist, the guy received a DMCA takedown notice. Those could've been issued by anybody, though Blizzard's response seems to indicate it was them (be it Activision or Blizzard) after all. A C&D is a much more heavy-handed response than a DMCA takedown.
What I am really curious about is whether Blizzard's decision to invite the guy for a tour of their office has anything to do with Riot Games' job offer.
And yet there probably will be a leak anyways. Makes you wonder whether all that trouble is actually worth it...
Considering a large part of Google's strategy relies on Android, they will make sure your hardware codec works. Mobile phones would be far less viable for web video if they didn't have hardware support for video codecs.
Also, OOXML is a ISO standard. Being an ISO standard apparently doesn't mean much nowadays.
Google won't act on those patents, though. They've said it time and time again and, most importantly, they have no interest in doing so.
The MPEG-LA? Well...
Like ActiveX support? What you say is true, but unfortunately even IE7, IE8 or the upcoming IE9, which will all have the specifications you're listing, aren't getting as much adoption as they should, mostly because business applications still rely on antiquated technologies that only run in IE6.
The biggest hurdle to a move forward are those internal web applications.
At a whopping 15 knots or so (don't expect the plant to outpace a heavy lift ship by any stretch of the imagination), it probably wouldn't make for a very exciting Michael Bay film.
If the assholes in the music industry actually offered me *any* service, I'd gladly pick one up. As it is, Pandora and Spotify aren't available here and Last.fm sucks. Thus, they're losing a potential customer for absolutely no reason.
IT is like the cogs of a machine. It's only when a cog breaks that you notice it.
Then again, a single physical sale is worth like ten app store sales. Furthermore, app store games tend to be much more simple and therefore have a shorter usable lifespan. While it's true you might purchase five games on your iWhatever, you'll often go through them in a matter of hours and then it's just repetition - think arcade games.
You don't get to see things like Bioshock or Starcraft 2 on the app store.
Now if we compared things with Steam, it might be different, but this isn't the case being made here.
We are talking about now, though. I agree that H.264 is an open standard and VP8 was a closed one, but WebM is an open standard now and this is what should really matter at this point.
The critical difference between the two formats now is that one is royalty free and one is temporarily royalty free - in other words, we have no idea how H.264 could evolve. Maybe it'll stay royalty free forever, which would make it an interesting alternative. Maybe it will not, though, and that could be a potential disaster for video on the web - or just a thorn in the side of Google and other big video sites.
The big debate therefore is: do we stay with a widely adopted, high performance format that may behave like a Damocles sword, or do we switch now for what is currently an inferior but safer alternative?
That oh so reminds me of the Cow Clicker game. I think Facebook users have been shown in the past to be, in masses, very, very dumb.
I couldn't not link to this xkcd comic.
I think you're not getting what the OP is saying... Were the US not to care about public opinion or were they to have the support of the international community in a total war against Iraq, they would utterly annihilate any opposition, be it from Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, whatever. Israel would react swiftly to any attack from Iran (I think their performance is not up to question, with what the Six-Day War showed).
The thing is that this is not the kind of war the US is trying to lead.
Chances are you are allergic to something that's in the vaccine but is not the actual vaccine part - say, the adjuvant. Then, you can be sure those bug-induced "vaccines" would not elicit an allergic reaction, since no such thing would be present in the bite. You'd get the weakened/defective contaminant and what normally is in there (anti-coagulant, etc.). If you're not allergic to bugs normally, you shouldn't have any more of a reaction, from what I gather (though IANAP).
The more worrisome parts would be what would happen should the bug mutate or otherwise get out of our control and spawn something worse, or if the weakened disease isn't quite as weakened as we initially thought it would be.
You're the perfect example of the minority who appears to dislike the new changes. Let me guess, you also hate the Office 2007+ UI, assuming you've ever used it?
I'm not trying to be an ass, but really, the Firefox devs are going by the majority here. I love the new changes - give me as much space as possible for the website, let the browser get the hell out of the way. Tabs on top and no status bar shave off pixels that can be used for the website, the actual content. If they could find a way to combine the search bar without breaking functionality, I'd be happy with that too. You see, in my view it's streamlining the interface as much as possible. Having tabs on top is in fact a more logical layout since it encompasses the URL bar too, which is related to the tab you're on. I'm not even trying to make an analogy because sometimes, guess what, a UI doesn't have to reflect a real-world thing. It can just be the optimal solution to the problem.
The status bar, I don't really see the problem. Unless your URL is some sort of behemoth, you'll see it entirely. If it is in fact THAT long, then it'll cut off the middle section, giving you the really important information anyways: the site's domain and the page you're going to. It's also not there when there's nothing to be shown, which is good - less clutter is good. If you want to see more of the URL, just remove stuff in your main bar. I have the previous button auto-minimize when it's unavailable, I've moved the Home button to the tabs bar, I have the very minimum number of buttons and my search bar is very small, so my URL bar is basically maximized, thus allowing me to see all but the most cumbersome of URLs.
And that's the thing, really: I like the changes. I'm sure I'm not alone. It's probably even that there's an overwhelming majority of people who like the changes. I'm sorry that you don't like the changes, but thankfully the developers are fully aware that there will always be people to whine on any and all change and they make sure an extension can always be built to address this. You can say they could build the extension themselves or incorporate it in the actual build, but I say they have better things to do than to cater to a minority and that building the option in would probably just cause more bloat. Ironically enough, those who complain of the changes also often complain of bloat.
Additional advantage is that it squeezes even more space out of the UI, thus giving you more screen space for what really matters: the website.
What's more, what would it do to small start-ups if H.264 became ubiquitous and unchallenged? When MPEG decides to stop with the free licensing time extensions, it could mean the death knoll for a lot of small businesses. I'm sorry but if the choice is between having a Damocles sword hovering above constantly and not having one, I don't see it as a choice really. I don't even see what exactly we lose from Google's move, if anything.
You can fairly easily do a side-by-side comparison and notice that overall there is nothing but branding and data mining that's missing, really. I personally use Firefox but Chrome would be the only alternative I'd seriously consider, thanks to Chromium. If you want to go in some mad conspiracy theory whereby Google is hiding optimizations and features in a separate Chrome build, have fun.
Or, you know, you can't reinvent the wheel thirty times without eventually falling back on the same basic concepts and H.264 and WebM share unpatented portions? You can't seriously believe every single thing H.264 does is patented, can you?
Opera doesn't use H.264 either?
Yes, quite possibly. The regulators and contractors should be jailed for criminal negligence. That doesn't mean BP shouldn't be sued into oblivion, though. Let them be a lesson for all others and all that.
Too bad it doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of happening. Despite being called Beyond now, I'm sure the British government would file them in the "too big to fail" category.
Similar arguments are being used about IE6. Doesn't stop ActiveX from being any less horrid and IE6 the bane of web development.