The return path isn't omni-directional -- the TV antenna at each home will be focusing most the energy straight towards the tower. Also the bandwidth of the data signal will be much less than a TV signal, so it won't require nearly as much power. Such a link could be done with 10mw but it will be quite slow.
I feel a bit guilty myself now, I got a block of 16 IPv4 addresses last week when I changed ISP. Although they also give me real honest non-tunnelled IPv6 too.
C'mon Slashdot, start supporting IPv6! - even Youtube's on there now!
Re:For the patent FUDsters sure to follow....
on
H.264 and VP8 Compared
·
· Score: 3, Informative
EU, UK
Neither of these allow software patents (despite what the European Patent Office might tell you). Germany does unfornatually but they're not the EU in the same way the UK isn't.
Pretty quickly I bet -- even Theora now has decodes that take advantage of hardware acceleration on mobile devices. Except maybe the iPhone.. why Steve may have his knickers in a twist.
Camcorders?
Do they really need to? That's just stupid.
PCs?
Same as the mobile phones, it's likely just a matter of code. But here it's even less important - PCs can already play Theora and VP8 nicely!
HDTVs and the set-top box?
These don't need to either, this one is even more stupid.
As for editing tools, I'd like to think that any decent editing software would support any codec with the simple addition of a plugin.
I've thought about it, but I believe I would be doing the Pirate Party a disservice by standing in their name. They need people who can communicate well - that isn't me.
If I could vote for the UK Parliament (i'm not a UK or Commonwealth national, so I can't vote in those elections) they would have my vote.
I am and I still can't vote for the UK Pirate Party. I would if I could, but they don't have anyone standing for election in my area. It's like some kind of pseudo-democracy.
All of your arguments are irrelevant if the licensing issue can't be solved. Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing, no matter how good it looks. (And I agree with you, H.264 does looks good) Their choice is basically:
MPEG-1: ancient and horribly outdated. (And may yet be covered by patents?)
Theora is good enough and much easier on the CPU than Dirac or H.264.
Dirac is (for now) a poor performer at the typical resolutions and bitrates used on the net.
Theora is the best of these options. It doesn't matter how good H.264 looks, it's simply impossible for Mozilla to use it without dealing with the licensing issue.
None of this would matter if the sites provided both formats. Chrome and Safari could have their H.264, everyone else could have the Theora version. Everyone wins.
it's the BBC's way of placating the drooling media execs with as little direct impact on consumers as possible.
Unfortunately the people the BBC are trying to satisfy will never be satisfied. More and more little restrictions will be add, and this same argument will be made each time.
Let Sky handle the drooling media types, they'll feel right at home there.
Slashdot Mirror
The return path isn't omni-directional -- the TV antenna at each home will be focusing most the energy straight towards the tower. Also the bandwidth of the data signal will be much less than a TV signal, so it won't require nearly as much power. Such a link could be done with 10mw but it will be quite slow.
I feel a bit guilty myself now, I got a block of 16 IPv4 addresses last week when I changed ISP. Although they also give me real honest non-tunnelled IPv6 too.
C'mon Slashdot, start supporting IPv6! - even Youtube's on there now!
As far as the human body is concerned, it may as well be space.
Now that's really pushing the envelope.
Now that would make an awesome episode of Scrapheap Challenge!
It's still running.
Hi Steve!
"This isn't the extension you're looking for."
Which ironically uses Flash.
Neither of these allow software patents (despite what the European Patent Office might tell you). Germany does unfornatually but they're not the EU in the same way the UK isn't.
Fraunhofer said much the same thing about Vorbis shortly after it was developed. They later (and much less publicly) withdrew the claim.
Theora (or rather the VP3 codec) is older than H.264 by about 3 years.
Pretty quickly I bet -- even Theora now has decodes that take advantage of hardware acceleration on mobile devices. Except maybe the iPhone .. why Steve may have his knickers in a twist.
Do they really need to? That's just stupid.
Same as the mobile phones, it's likely just a matter of code. But here it's even less important - PCs can already play Theora and VP8 nicely!
These don't need to either, this one is even more stupid.
As for editing tools, I'd like to think that any decent editing software would support any codec with the simple addition of a plugin.
Pretty well so far.
This is what Quake Live should have been!
Are you planning to nuke the site from orbit?
Theora doesn't need anywhere near as many CPU cycles to decode as H.264. Hardware acceleration would be nice, but it's not as critical as you'd think.
I've thought about it, but I believe I would be doing the Pirate Party a disservice by standing in their name. They need people who can communicate well - that isn't me.
I am and I still can't vote for the UK Pirate Party. I would if I could, but they don't have anyone standing for election in my area. It's like some kind of pseudo-democracy.
Hmm.. I must be looking at the wrong Perl program, all I saw was a big beardie guy.
Wrong. On2's (soon to be Google's) patents on VP3 / Theora are totally harmless:
Which is exactly why Theora and Vorbis where in the original HTML5 spec. You can thank Nokia and Apple for that mess.
All of your arguments are irrelevant if the licensing issue can't be solved. Firefox can only use codecs that are not covered by restrictive licensing, no matter how good it looks. (And I agree with you, H.264 does looks good) Their choice is basically:
Theora is the best of these options. It doesn't matter how good H.264 looks, it's simply impossible for Mozilla to use it without dealing with the licensing issue.
None of this would matter if the sites provided both formats. Chrome and Safari could have their H.264, everyone else could have the Theora version. Everyone wins.
Unfortunately the people the BBC are trying to satisfy will never be satisfied. More and more little restrictions will be add, and this same argument will be made each time.
Let Sky handle the drooling media types, they'll feel right at home there.