You are trying to be ironic, but actually, you can. WebRTC isn't Web-only.
There are (or will be, I keep forgetting) libraries which will allow you to use an API to do the same things you can do from within the browser. So it will be easy for people to build video- and audio-chat into desktop applications and mobile apps.
It can call anywhere, it will just not receive a response if the server does not have any CORS-headers set up.
But anyway, you don't need something as fancy like that. You can do a lot of stuff with just a simple form-POST or loading of an image or sourcing a javascript file from a different domain (there is even a protocol for that).
You can not turn it off on ARM devices running Windows 8 (if the OEM wants to participate in the Windows Logo Program, which they obviouosly want to do because it makes it cheaper).
You are wrong: 1. the video codecs haven't even been decided yet for WebRTC, it could still have H.264 on the list, they were planned for the previous IETF meeting, but I guess that will now be in March 2. there are no restrictions in standards like WebRTC for applications to support additional codecs. If both parties suppot the same codec they can use that.
Microsofts' Windows logo program for OEMs says: x86 devices should be have secure boot enabled by default and have a way to disable secure boot and a way to add keys.
Slashdot Mirror
The WebRTC protocol supports NAT-traversal based on existing protocols. It works as well (or bad) as things like Skype and so on in that regard.
You are trying to be ironic, but actually, you can. WebRTC isn't Web-only.
There are (or will be, I keep forgetting) libraries which will allow you to use an API to do the same things you can do from within the browser. So it will be easy for people to build video- and audio-chat into desktop applications and mobile apps.
That is not true.
It can call anywhere, it will just not receive a response if the server does not have any CORS-headers set up.
But anyway, you don't need something as fancy like that. You can do a lot of stuff with just a simple form-POST or loading of an image or sourcing a javascript file from a different domain (there is even a protocol for that).
You can not turn it off on ARM devices running Windows 8 (if the OEM wants to participate in the Windows Logo Program, which they obviouosly want to do because it makes it cheaper).
I know one that can comment on quality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2aq5M3Q76U
It obviously sucks
I'm sure Facebook is eager to solve that problem.
In short yes:
http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/streaming/screenshare/
It is a protocol and API developed at the IETF and W3C for real time communications (RTC) by companies like Google, Mozilla, but also Microsoft.
It's called WebRTC, but it isn't specific to the web. There are also or will be libraries for people who want create desktop or mobile app(lication)s.
You can use it to easily build applications that need some kind of realtime communication like audio- or video-chat.
It uses a peer2peer protocol like VoIP or Skype and encrypted by default.
The peer2peer protocol can also be used for other data and supports NAT-traversal and going through relays.
There is nothing Dark Side about Debian, it is one of the most enlighted operating systems ever created.
What I mean is: there is no reason you need a different (possibly incomppatible) standard if you only want to use other codecs.
You are wrong:
1. the video codecs haven't even been decided yet for WebRTC, it could still have H.264 on the list, they were planned for the previous IETF meeting, but I guess that will now be in March
2. there are no restrictions in standards like WebRTC for applications to support additional codecs. If both parties suppot the same codec they can use that.
So how many people run Minecraft in the browser ? I thought most run it outside of the browser, right ?
Just put a date on your site to show when you think he'll arrive. Or make a small Javascript.
Getting closer, the daughterboard will have a SoC. ARM has been doing SoC for a long time. Remember there are Intel Atom SoC too. AMD I don't know.
70% of pages do not use Java ? Make that 99.9999999999999% or something like that.
Exactly.
Actually, the default lists (because of sub-CAs) trusts about 1200 organisations. At least that is what the EFF SSL Observatory found out.
Then why do I see reports like:
'The part that checks signed modules was written by Microsoft and all functions begin with "win_".'
I think Intel wasn't the only one working on it.
Not only that, but ZTE in China is the fourth largest smartphone manufacturer in worldwide sales in Q3 of 2012
html5 solved that ? :-)
The BIOS, euh, UEFI isn't provided by Microsoft, it was Intel.
It was used first on Itanium I believe,
The Intel Mac was the first product with UEFI which was sold to the general public.
Secure Boot is very Microsoft centric though.
Didn't PC platform getting more and more locked down start with the original xbox was also x86 ?
You can also install normal Linux, that is the best part.
I ordered one a couple of days ago and this is exactly what I'm gonna do.
The Chromebook can also run normal Linux (for example ChrUbuntu ).
Microsofts' Windows logo program for OEMs says: x86 devices should be have secure boot enabled by default and have a way to disable secure boot and a way to add keys.