"Why should I pay 10 cents for something to be included that I don't need because I have a free alternative?"
If you're satisfied with less than 'best', then you shouldn't. Why should those of us happy to pay ten cent for the best codec available to us be denied that opportunity because a small but vocal minority are unhappy with a very reasonable licensed product?
If you want to talk about not having software patents at all, fine. But that is a different topic. Until that happens, MPEG LA is just working within the system, and not badly at that.
Personally, I find Google a much more disturbing corporate entity than the MPEG LA folks.
"You had specialized viewers and clients for various data, then gradually the web became more mature and more and more data was simply put on a website"
Except that those websites are often slow, ad-ridden, and painful to use. My local Usenet client runs rings around any website forum software. Now get off my lawn.
"I've been hacking since 1974, and the concept and practice of open source was not new when I started."
This.
SHARE (www.share.org) was formed in 1955. It's goals were to share information among IT professionals. At least one of the subgroups, VMSHARE, had been sharing code (on tape) since 1973.
"Duplicate content on a site is note grounds for action on that site unless it appears that the intent of the duplicate content is to be deceptive and manipulate search engine results"
ie: the 'Average Joe' can scrape wikipedia all he wants and Google will not punish him unless his intent is to deceive. But thanks for the conspiracy theory attempt just the same.
Stop parroting the same old argument that Comcast is making. Comcast isn't a peer, it's a large endpoint. One could claim that Comcast isn't carrying *any* traffic for Level3 - it's all to the benefit of Comcast (and their customers). One conclusion is that Comcast should pay Level 3 for the privilege of connecting to Level 3.
(I'm aware there is danger in oversimplification, but come on)
In what (fantasy?) world of yours is this a new issue where someone expects to 'flip the switch tomorrow'?
Who in their right mind has been buying new IPv4-only gear in the past few years? All of my day-to-day machines, including my router, are waiting for my ISP to say "we're ready for IPv6". Aren't yours?
Facial recognition software came with the Ultraport camera for Thinkpads back in 2000 which would (fairly reliably) unlock your screensaver when you sat down in front of the machine. You could even require that you had to smile to prove you weren't a picture.
Microsoft, in it's heyday, managed to extort payments from computer manufacturers for copies of Windows that they didn't sell. e.g., if computer manufactures wanted to buy any copy of Windows, they had to buy copies for all the computers they sold - whether those computers came with Windows or not. *that's* evil.
Microsoft, when it could, adopted open standards and then quietly extended them - making them incompatible with any other OS. If you used Microsoft's spec for the standard, you'd find out when you wanted to port your program that the 'standard' was Windows-specific. *that's* evil.
The Apple page referenced by the article is a *Safari* demo. It's no surprise that it works only with Safari.
Over the past few hundred years, the solar cycle has regularly varied from as short as 9 years to as long as 14*. The tone of the summary (and the S.A. article) make this sound as if it is a new thing.
The two points seem to be 'OS X is slow in falling back to an IPv4 address' and 'OS X seems to prefer IPv6 to IPv4'. It's perfectly obvious that OS X needs to improve its handling of certain connectivity problems, but how is *either* of these a "block" to IPv6?
A. (who turns off IPv6 tunneling in his router because the gateways seem to go away a lot)
Slashdot Mirror
"Why should I pay 10 cents for something to be included that I don't need because I have a free alternative?"
If you're satisfied with less than 'best', then you shouldn't. Why should those of us happy to pay ten cent for the best codec available to us be denied that opportunity because a small but vocal minority are unhappy with a very reasonable licensed product?
If you want to talk about not having software patents at all, fine. But that is a different topic. Until that happens, MPEG LA is just working within the system, and not badly at that.
Personally, I find Google a much more disturbing corporate entity than the MPEG LA folks.
A.
"You had specialized viewers and clients for various data, then gradually the web became more mature and more and more data was simply put on a website"
Except that those websites are often slow, ad-ridden, and painful to use. My local Usenet client runs rings around any website forum software. Now get off my lawn.
A.
"If Chrome and Mozilla had support for H.264, and IE only supported H.264, then everyone would have to pay the licensing fee"
Yes, the ten cent licensing fee. The horror.
A.
"It amazes me how people can manage to find something to criticize even in the most altruistic actions of others"
It's only altruistic if those 'others' are paying for it.
A.
"You still have to pay for encoders and decoders."
True, which costs me ~$0.10 per device that I purchase. That is nothing to pay for best video codec available to me.
A.
That link has been superseded, in that free H.264 on the Internet is free in perpetuity, not until 2014:
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/blogs/mpeg-la-announces-no-royalties-on-free-internet-videos---ever.html
A.
"I've been hacking since 1974, and the concept and practice of open source was not new when I started."
This.
SHARE (www.share.org) was formed in 1955. It's goals were to share information among IT professionals. At least one of the subgroups, VMSHARE, had been sharing code (on tape) since 1973.
A.
"Too often they are too young to know how to teach effectively, or are too old to be able to see things from the kids' perspectives."
What sad pre-conceived notions you have.
A.
"If only there was some government sponsored secure key system for passwords"
I don't know how to express my unhappiness that someone actually thinks like this.
A.
"The original iPhone warranty was 9 months"
The leaflet that came in the box with my original iPhone (Summer 2007) says one year.
A.
From Google:
"Duplicate content on a site is note grounds for action on that site unless it appears that the intent of the duplicate content is to be deceptive and manipulate search engine results"
ie: the 'Average Joe' can scrape wikipedia all he wants and Google will not punish him unless his intent is to deceive. But thanks for the conspiracy theory attempt just the same.
A.
Stop parroting the same old argument that Comcast is making. Comcast isn't a peer, it's a large endpoint. One could claim that Comcast isn't carrying *any* traffic for Level3 - it's all to the benefit of Comcast (and their customers). One conclusion is that Comcast should pay Level 3 for the privilege of connecting to Level 3.
(I'm aware there is danger in oversimplification, but come on)
A.
Comcast has already been paid for that service by their own customers who are requesting the Netflix traffic. That's where the lie resides.
This.
One wonders why Comcast doesn't have to pay Level 3.
A.
"You can sue anyone for anything"
Of course in this case, apparently nobody is suing anybody.
A.
One must mention Russian Ark (2002), which is an entire movie done in one 96-minute take.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ark
A.
(who didn't particularly like the movie)
"Spammers gather email addresses from the open internet. According to your argument it is ok to spam millions of email addresses."
Nope, Google didn't intend to collect this information, and didn't use it for anything.
"Also, I could stand across the street and watch you leave the house and take notes."
And it's perfectly legal for you to do so.
A.
In what (fantasy?) world of yours is this a new issue where someone expects to 'flip the switch tomorrow'?
Who in their right mind has been buying new IPv4-only gear in the past few years? All of my day-to-day machines, including my router, are waiting for my ISP to say "we're ready for IPv6". Aren't yours?
A.
Yes, it comes as no surprise:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
-- Lord Acton, 1887
"Even a 100 ft rouge wave (which would be completely unheard of in a harbor) would have trouble significantly damaging one of them."
It's the ones with eye shadow that you have to worry about.
A.
The samples landed safely just outside of a small town in Arizona...
A.
Facial recognition software came with the Ultraport camera for Thinkpads back in 2000 which would (fairly reliably) unlock your screensaver when you sat down in front of the machine. You could even require that you had to smile to prove you weren't a picture.
A.
"Apple is Microsoft 2.0"
Ridiculous.
Microsoft, in it's heyday, managed to extort payments from computer manufacturers for copies of Windows that they didn't sell. e.g., if computer manufactures wanted to buy any copy of Windows, they had to buy copies for all the computers they sold - whether those computers came with Windows or not. *that's* evil.
Microsoft, when it could, adopted open standards and then quietly extended them - making them incompatible with any other OS. If you used Microsoft's spec for the standard, you'd find out when you wanted to port your program that the 'standard' was Windows-specific. *that's* evil.
The Apple page referenced by the article is a *Safari* demo. It's no surprise that it works only with Safari.
A.
Over the past few hundred years, the solar cycle has regularly varied from as short as 9 years to as long as 14*. The tone of the summary (and the S.A. article) make this sound as if it is a new thing.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles
A.
I'm sorry, but having a delayed fallback to IPv4 still doesn't explain how this problem is a "block to IPv6".
A.
The two points seem to be 'OS X is slow in falling back to an IPv4 address' and 'OS X seems to prefer IPv6 to IPv4'. It's perfectly obvious that OS X needs to improve its handling of certain connectivity problems, but how is *either* of these a "block" to IPv6?
A.
(who turns off IPv6 tunneling in his router because the gateways seem to go away a lot)