Your post is far tl;dr. All I get out of the first half of it is that you like H.264. Good for you, you're entitled to your opinion. So is Google, so is MS, so is Apple, so is FF. Every browser maker has chosen a side - may the best codec/browser win.
It is a double standard, but it looks like they took a dose of pragmatism with their idealism on Flash. They support and promote open standards where it is practical (not necessarily not controversial), and use proprietary work when it isn't.
You are the dumbest commented ever. I find it hilarious that you are dropping support for WebM in your own website for a video format that isn't free, which you are trying to favor over other formats. You currently run an anime and manga website, but probably won't for long because you have no plans on getting off your ass and converting your video content. You are taking a big risk because you're risking your website visitors completely abandoning your piece of shit site. I don't have worries about Google switching to WebM and I trust the new format, especially from a company who has done more to push open standards and open source than any other company. The members on your site and forums will not continue to support your site, and while you loaf around in your parent's basement, you'll have no idea why you're losing traffic. It's a new format and since it's not supported on your DVD and Blu-ray player, so it baffles your tiny brain and you don't understand it.
Every other browser picked a single standard. Up until now, Chrome was the only one that had both (AFAIK). They've decided to put their foot down, put their money where their mouth its, and finally back WebM exclusively like they should have done from the start.
Chrome has 13.5%, which is more than Safari, Opera and all mobile browsers combined.
The big 3 browsers are IE, FF, and Chrome, so yes, this is significant.
The move is an attempt to force other browsers to adopt WebM. If you want to complain about "Less choice", than you would have the same complaints against MS and Apple browsers.
The thing is, if Google doesn't do this, and allows both formats, they are contributing to the success of H.264, and detracting from the possibilities of success of their WebM.
You, the consumer are caught in yet another standards-war. Which side will you be on?
Showing my ignorance here, but how does x264 get around the patent scheme of H.264? Would it be possible to do the same to write a decoder that isn't patent in-cumbered?
You do NOT go on the sex offender's list just for being accused. You need to be convicted. Also, the extradition in question at the moment is to Sweeden for rape changes, and his lawyers are worried about the potential for extradition to the U.S. for changes relating to Wikileaks. He would never be facing sex-crime charges in the U.S.
Please get your facts straight... also, Get Off My Lawn!
It's also been so frequently misused that Halfhill was forced to define Moron's Law, which states that "the number of ignorant references to Moore's Law doubles every 12 months."
I think the only Republican that actually gets this is Ron Paul. Too bad FOX News actually controls the Republican party and fucked him over in the primaries.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post is far tl;dr. All I get out of the first half of it is that you like H.264. Good for you, you're entitled to your opinion. So is Google, so is MS, so is Apple, so is FF. Every browser maker has chosen a side - may the best codec/browser win.
It is a double standard, but it looks like they took a dose of pragmatism with their idealism on Flash. They support and promote open standards where it is practical (not necessarily not controversial), and use proprietary work when it isn't.
You are the dumbest commented ever. I find it hilarious that you are dropping support for WebM in your own website for a video format that isn't free, which you are trying to favor over other formats. You currently run an anime and manga website, but probably won't for long because you have no plans on getting off your ass and converting your video content. You are taking a big risk because you're risking your website visitors completely abandoning your piece of shit site. I don't have worries about Google switching to WebM and I trust the new format, especially from a company who has done more to push open standards and open source than any other company. The members on your site and forums will not continue to support your site, and while you loaf around in your parent's basement, you'll have no idea why you're losing traffic. It's a new format and since it's not supported on your DVD and Blu-ray player, so it baffles your tiny brain and you don't understand it.
Every other browser picked a single standard. Up until now, Chrome was the only one that had both (AFAIK). They've decided to put their foot down, put their money where their mouth its, and finally back WebM exclusively like they should have done from the start.
I applaud this move.
Either you're trolling, or just ignorant.
Browser market share
Chrome has 13.5%, which is more than Safari, Opera and all mobile browsers combined.
The big 3 browsers are IE, FF, and Chrome, so yes, this is significant.
The move is an attempt to force other browsers to adopt WebM. If you want to complain about "Less choice", than you would have the same complaints against MS and Apple browsers.
The thing is, if Google doesn't do this, and allows both formats, they are contributing to the success of H.264, and detracting from the possibilities of success of their WebM.
You, the consumer are caught in yet another standards-war. Which side will you be on?
Showing my ignorance here, but how does x264 get around the patent scheme of H.264? Would it be possible to do the same to write a decoder that isn't patent in-cumbered?
You do NOT go on the sex offender's list just for being accused. You need to be convicted. Also, the extradition in question at the moment is to Sweeden for rape changes, and his lawyers are worried about the potential for extradition to the U.S. for changes relating to Wikileaks. He would never be facing sex-crime charges in the U.S.
Please get your facts straight... also, Get Off My Lawn!
+1 Insightful
I originally meant it as a tongue-in-cheek joke.
Lighten up.
But if you give them "personhood", will they be forced to buy health insurance?
FYI: NCIS is fiction
From the article:
It's also been so frequently misused that Halfhill was forced to define Moron's Law, which states that "the number of ignorant references to Moore's Law doubles every 12 months."
As a Canadian, please don't. I never want to have to decide between "Democrat" and "Bat Shit Crazy Republicans".
With the american voting system, you might as well not vote as vote 3rd party.
Please see:
First past the post - Wasted votes
and
Duverger's law
I think the only Republican that actually gets this is Ron Paul. Too bad FOX News actually controls the Republican party and fucked him over in the primaries.
Because the only station that dirt farmer watches is FOX News, in which Dems are constantly portrayed as evil homosexual commie atheists.
They'd probably line up to vote for Satan himself, as long as FOX News told them to
FTFY
Okay no more eating amygdalas for you, sorry to say.
For those of us in countries that actually care about their telecommunications infrastructure, 3mb/s is slow as molasses.
This just in: Sarah Palin doesn't know how to use a computer, let alone know what GNU/Linux is
Actually it would seem they mean "MATHEMATICALLY, You Are Likely NOT In the FASTEST Line."
THAT is quite a major error.
For reasons why the "single-queue" isn't as efficient, see this comment
I had the very same thoughts in my comment.... this article is just a giant logical fallacy masquerading as "science".
Doesn't everyone know that?
You are assuming the average person actually has something on their mind other than what's for dinner and who's on American Idol tonight.