Mozilla would have to do it via a compile time switch too, so you'd have to get your H.264-enabled Firefox binaries from somewhere else. Most people will not, and those that do risk all sorts of other nasties being bundled along with it.
Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it's somehow Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't support H.264.
It is.
But why?
They should just use the video framework provided by the OS.
So instead of having one or two well supported codecs, you'd have a hundred and one that might work. You'd be back to the plugin-hell that online video was before Flash came along.
How do you respond to those who say that the Mozilla Foundation should pay for the h.264 license?
If the Mozilla Foundation got a license then it would be legal for me to download an H.264-enabled Firefox from mozilla.com, but illegal for me to give a copy of that Firefox to anyone else without buying a similar license or removing the H.264 decoder. So you're either being sued or back at square one.
Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it's somehow Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't support H.264.
Repeat after me: H.264 is NOT FREE, not by a long way. If Firefox included H.264 support then Firefox would also NOT BE FREE. It would be illegal for most of us to distribute a copy.
Unfortunately it won't. There are fundamental limits in the Theora spec that means it can never quite equal H.264 without breaking compatibility with current decoders. Also H.264 encoders have improved since that comparison too, but the gap was definitely closed in the push to Theora 1.1.
There's nothing stopping me creating "bob-smith.com" and putting a page there which says "I think people called bob smith are stupid". Nor should there be.
I wish you had too - it would be a huge improvement over what is currently on that site.
My own site stats showed a big spike in Bing referrals a few months ago - I thought it odd so I looked at the logs, and it turns out the vast majority of that traffic was coming from Microsoft's own IP addresses. Still haven't found an explanation.
I would have thought that the Bing result was right, since expressions of the same level are normally done from left to right. But I did a little reading and your right!
... when two operators have the same precedence, they are normally applied from left to right. The exception is exponentiation: if it is indicated by symbols places at different heights in a display, stacked exponents are evaluated from the top down, and if indicated by a caret, the operators are evaluated from right to left. Thus a typewritten string "4^3^2" and a display 432 are evaluated as equal to 4^(3^2), i.e. 4^9 or 262144.)
Slashdot Mirror
According to Wikipedia (not the best source I know...):
That's a fair point. There's also the GIF patent.
I'm not sure that's true, otherwise Fedora and Debian would have had MP3 supported out of the box years ago.
Who knows, maybe if the Javascript interpreter continues to improve... ;-)
Unfortunately the real world disagrees.
Mozilla would have to do it via a compile time switch too, so you'd have to get your H.264-enabled Firefox binaries from somewhere else. Most people will not, and those that do risk all sorts of other nasties being bundled along with it.
But why?
So instead of having one or two well supported codecs, you'd have a hundred and one that might work. You'd be back to the plugin-hell that online video was before Flash came along.
If the Mozilla Foundation got a license then it would be legal for me to download an H.264-enabled Firefox from mozilla.com, but illegal for me to give a copy of that Firefox to anyone else without buying a similar license or removing the H.264 decoder. So you're either being sued or back at square one.
And while politicians are fixing* the issue, what do we use in the meantime?
* HAHAHAHAHA!
Everytime this topic comes up I am amazed at how many people think that it's somehow Mozilla's fault that Firefox doesn't support H.264.
Repeat after me: H.264 is NOT FREE, not by a long way. If Firefox included H.264 support then Firefox would also NOT BE FREE. It would be illegal for most of us to distribute a copy.
Unfortunately it won't. There are fundamental limits in the Theora spec that means it can never quite equal H.264 without breaking compatibility with current decoders. Also H.264 encoders have improved since that comparison too, but the gap was definitely closed in the push to Theora 1.1.
That comparison is ancient. Theora has come a long way since then.
Why automatically "the other guy"? There are always more than two candidates.
Only if you ignore the significant improvements the Xiph guys have made to Theora recently.
Having live IP addresses is the way it should be done. NAT offers no more security than a simple firewall in this case.
The only thing I learned when we used PDF forms a few years ago was ... don't do it. Just no. Really, don't .
I wish you had too - it would be a huge improvement over what is currently on that site.
What should we replace it with? "I ninja'ed the latest copy of Photoshop" just doesn't sound right.
What's a good 4 channel card though? I've never seen one that can stream all four channels simultaneously without stability problems.
Pronounced Norn Irland.
My own site stats showed a big spike in Bing referrals a few months ago - I thought it odd so I looked at the logs, and it turns out the vast majority of that traffic was coming from Microsoft's own IP addresses. Still haven't found an explanation.
I would have thought that the Bing result was right, since expressions of the same level are normally done from left to right. But I did a little reading and your right!
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
I can do maths, Me ;-)
I typo'ed there, it's actually less at 3.4%. Still more than double our Safari users though.
Chrome should have been 3.4%, and the rest (Firefox/2 and Opera) are below 1% so I didn't include them.
Whoops, my bad. That was left over from the total count. Safari is the same.