If Theora can get within the ballpark in terms of quality, but beat H.264 in speed, that could be the edge it needs to hit the mainstream.
Except that a good number of the big industry players have their hands some how involved in the patent pool of H.264. If you think they are going to ditch H.264 for some no-name free codec then you are living in a dream world. http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-licensors.cfm
Except if that were really all that compelling to the commercial users of MPEG standards they would have come up with something like this on their own. To companies like Apple, Sony, Paramount, etc who are some of the biggest users of these standards the royalty fees are mere pittance to them. If none of these bigger players are going to switch to Theora (and pretty much none of them will) it has no viability.
Actually I would think that the typical couple of thousand dollars that are lost in the first year on your car is far worse than the 75 cents loss of value on a bus pass.
Why should I pay for your internet connection, or your car, or your house.
I didn't say you should. I have to wonder if you even read my post. Here I will post it again:
Then they don't have to buy the service. It can be run like that Greenlight, Inc company that is entirely funded through it's subscriptions and not by cross-subsidizing.
Notice how I specifically said it shouldn't be cross-subsidized (paid for by other parts of the government's budget) and it should be supported only through customer subscriptions. Which in turn means that it should only be run in the case of it being able to be a self-supporting business. So in light of what I actually said, I'm not sure what you are railing against in my post as I never once stated that anyone should have to pay for anyone else's internet service. I also have no clue from what orifice that you pulled out the nonsense where you try to claim that I was saying someone should pay for my (or anyone else's) house and car.
Since QT 4.5 is not LGPL...how about re-creating its interface using QT like folks at VideoLan did. This would go a great way in improving the user experience.
Actually most users don't bother to read the warning and just click through. The problem is that no matter how many warnings the OS throws up, the average user will still run programs they shouldn't.
You do realize it's trivially easy to change the icon of a.exe file to be anything you want, right? The common tactic is to have it use the same icon as a word document or whatever filetype it's attempting spoof.
So saying that NNN technology is X% better than bioethanol is like saying that doing X is less painful than scraping off your penile foreskin with a cheese grater.
What is scary about the energy level of a 60ghz signal? We're talking about energy levels in the 1/100,000 of an electronVolt range. For comparison visible light falls between around 2-3 electronvolts.
The boogeyman. You better not tell this guy that the light coming out of his light fixtures is coming at him at hundreds of terahertz. He might just have a heart attack.
Then they don't have to buy the service. It can be run like that Greenlight, Inc company that is entirely funded through it's subscriptions and not by cross-subsidizing.
When the government provides something, everyone pays.
Which is a good thing in many cases. I'd prefer my property to not have the potential to catch on fire and burn down because the person next to me didn't want to buy the services of the fire department.
There is no "right" to internet access, and any such attempt at asserting such a right must invariably violate actual individual rights - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness.
It's amusing to hear someone say that [arbitrary thing] is not a right but [insert list of other arbitrary things] are rights without any actual reasoning for saying so. Other than through agreement from the people being governed there is not some objective standard that says that something is a right or not.
Likewise, the only proper role of government is to uphold and protect these rights through the courts, police, and military.
Why can't they protect these rights through legislation?
The government should not be providing internet access.
Why not? If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.
Slashdot Mirror
If Theora can get within the ballpark in terms of quality, but beat H.264 in speed, that could be the edge it needs to hit the mainstream.
Except that a good number of the big industry players have their hands some how involved in the patent pool of H.264. If you think they are going to ditch H.264 for some no-name free codec then you are living in a dream world. http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-licensors.cfm
Except if that were really all that compelling to the commercial users of MPEG standards they would have come up with something like this on their own. To companies like Apple, Sony, Paramount, etc who are some of the biggest users of these standards the royalty fees are mere pittance to them. If none of these bigger players are going to switch to Theora (and pretty much none of them will) it has no viability.
Actually I would think that the typical couple of thousand dollars that are lost in the first year on your car is far worse than the 75 cents loss of value on a bus pass.
Why should I pay for your internet connection, or your car, or your house.
I didn't say you should. I have to wonder if you even read my post. Here I will post it again:
Then they don't have to buy the service. It can be run like that Greenlight, Inc company that is entirely funded through it's subscriptions and not by cross-subsidizing.
Notice how I specifically said it shouldn't be cross-subsidized (paid for by other parts of the government's budget) and it should be supported only through customer subscriptions. Which in turn means that it should only be run in the case of it being able to be a self-supporting business. So in light of what I actually said, I'm not sure what you are railing against in my post as I never once stated that anyone should have to pay for anyone else's internet service. I also have no clue from what orifice that you pulled out the nonsense where you try to claim that I was saying someone should pay for my (or anyone else's) house and car.
Well of course there is no 100% guarantee, but it sure is a hell of a lot higher than if there was no service at all!
No. there was a predecesseor to Vista that never made it out the door. it too was called longhorn.
Sorry, but no. Longhorn was always the just the codename for the early versions of Vista prior to it being rebranded Vista in 2005.
Since QT 4.5 is not LGPL...how about re-creating its interface using QT like folks at VideoLan did. This would go a great way in improving the user experience.
Welcome to last year. http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/08/nokia-helps-port-firefox-to-qt.ars
I'm not so sure about that any more.
Then you haven't apparently been following much of the aftermath of UAC because most users are apparently just clicking allow blindly without caring.
Radio stations are in the MHz range, going from 100 MHz to 2.4 GHz is a 24 fold jump, going from 2.4 GHz to 60 GHz is about the same (25 fold)
And visible light starts at around 660 THz which is a 275000 fold jump from 2.4 GHz. Oh my god we better start panicking!
Actually most users don't bother to read the warning and just click through. The problem is that no matter how many warnings the OS throws up, the average user will still run programs they shouldn't.
You do realize it's trivially easy to change the icon of a .exe file to be anything you want, right? The common tactic is to have it use the same icon as a word document or whatever filetype it's attempting spoof.
How can this possibly be? I thought this was the most secure OS on the planet.
So saying that NNN technology is X% better than bioethanol is like saying that doing X is less painful than scraping off your penile foreskin with a cheese grater.
But I'm a masochist you insensitive clod!
What is scary about the energy level of a 60ghz signal? We're talking about energy levels in the 1/100,000 of an electronVolt range. For comparison visible light falls between around 2-3 electronvolts.
No; No; Extremely.
What are you worried about?
The boogeyman. You better not tell this guy that the light coming out of his light fixtures is coming at him at hundreds of terahertz. He might just have a heart attack.
Just add a few extra layers of foil to your tinfoil hat and you'll be fine.
This just in: Words in the English language can actually have more than 1 meaning! But the Stallmanesque rant was pretty funny.
Forgive me, but I am a bit ignorant on this, could someone tell me when and how it came to pass that Oracle now has relationship with Open Office?
You mean other than the fact that they own Sun and the OOo team is mostly Sun engineers? Yeah that was a pretty difficult one to solve.
Well duh, a spinner doesn't require 50,000 lines of code to write and that Sun engineer needs to eat somehow!
You really can't prove the negative of a proposition like, "Not (all triangles have three sides)." ?
You mean except for the fact that your proposition violates the very definition of a triangle?
What about people who don't want Internet access?
Then they don't have to buy the service. It can be run like that Greenlight, Inc company that is entirely funded through it's subscriptions and not by cross-subsidizing.
When the government provides something, everyone pays.
Which is a good thing in many cases. I'd prefer my property to not have the potential to catch on fire and burn down because the person next to me didn't want to buy the services of the fire department.
There is no "right" to internet access, and any such attempt at asserting such a right must invariably violate actual individual rights - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness.
It's amusing to hear someone say that [arbitrary thing] is not a right but [insert list of other arbitrary things] are rights without any actual reasoning for saying so. Other than through agreement from the people being governed there is not some objective standard that says that something is a right or not.
Likewise, the only proper role of government is to uphold and protect these rights through the courts, police, and military.
Why can't they protect these rights through legislation?
The government should not be providing internet access.
Why not? If they can provide it better and cheaper then they should very much do so.
What? That I don't have a panic attack over something being over 1 megabyte in size?
Wow, what's it like still running a computer with only a 1 megabyte hard drive?