Google has no power over WebM. The format has already been decided on, and anyone is free to use it however they please. You can even fork it and make a new closed codec based on WebM.
Isn't Qt becoming less and less relevant? I mean, everyone is using the web. More and more applications are moving to the web, even on PCs. And now the WAC is even using web standards to create a mobile "Apps" ecosystem. Why bother with Qt when you can crate apps faster, cheaper and easier with web tech?
Google removed H264 from Chrome because there's more in it for them if the web is free and open, and not closed by a closed codec like H264.
Google is bundling Flash because they still want to be able to play videos on the web, and 99.9999% of that uses Flash. It's a pragmatic choice, and not at all at odds with an open web (the HTML specification explicitly allows for plugins).
When it comes to the web, being royalty-free is more important than having slightly higher quality. Free and open access to standards is the cornerstone of the web. It would not exist without it.
Quality doesn't really matter. People don't care. VHS vs BetaMax, Wii vs. PS3, etc. Lower quality almost always wins. Because quality simply isn't that important, so those who focus on quality will frequently fail.
No, it is not an open standard. At least not in the context of the web, which is what's relevant here. It fails to meet the W3C requirements for an open web standard, as open web standards must be royalty-free. H264 can never become an open web standard (unless the royalty requirement is removed).
I think he's trying to say that democracy was not an option. The options were a dictator who would maintain order while keeping Muslim extremists at bay, or letting the country be taken over by Muslim extremists.
SCO was about non-existent copyright rights and claims. MPEG-LA has real patents on video formats and compression.
So you are saying that SCO had no patents or copyrights whatsoever? What utter nonsense. Of course they did. And so your logic dictates that "since SCO had real patents, any claim they make about patents must be true."
2) Google hasn't offered to indemnify anybody, as MPEG-LA has. That shows Google has little to no confidence in WebM's patent standing.
The MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify jack shit. So your logic dictatesd that the MPEG-LA has little to no confidence in H264's patent standing.
They should be discredited, as they're engaged in what is essentially a politically motivated fraud.
Not at all. I know that dishonest right-wing liars are making claims about fraud, but it's always just smoke and mirrors. As if thousands of independent scientists around the world who love to pick each other's reports apart would all cooperate in a massive conspiracy. LOL, right-wing lunatics are so funny.
No, that figure has been confirmed over and over and over again. In fact, it has been shown as 98% and more. And your link is to a right-wing propaganda rag, which can be safely ignored.
Never judge a J. J. Abrams project by a couple shows of the first season. This guy knows how to build a story.
The problem is that he does that by dumping a bunch of random crap in there which is never resolved. It's intriguing at the time, but then you realize that none of it will ever make sense, and will never be tied up. At least that's Lost in a nutshell.
Slashdot Mirror
Google has no power over WebM. The format has already been decided on, and anyone is free to use it however they please. You can even fork it and make a new closed codec based on WebM.
You Microsoft shills crack me up.
They can't because they need native codec support, and cross-platform browsers can't spend too much time hooking into the OS.
There you have it. Open web standards are "stifling." Truly a great comment showing a deep understanding of the issue.
Isn't Qt becoming less and less relevant? I mean, everyone is using the web. More and more applications are moving to the web, even on PCs. And now the WAC is even using web standards to create a mobile "Apps" ecosystem. Why bother with Qt when you can crate apps faster, cheaper and easier with web tech?
But that's the point. H264 is incompatible with an open web.
The public should indeed care about an open web, because it's the very foundation of what they are enjoying today.
Bottom line: Making decisions based on demonstrably false data is dangerous.
The W3C defines open web standards. H264 does not match the web defiition. And this is about video on the web.
Again, H264 is not an open standard. At least not in the context of the web, as it violates the W3C Patent Policy. And that's what matters.
Nope. H264 is not an open standard. At least not in the context of the web, as it violates the W3C Patent Policy. And that's what matters.
As I said, it fails the W3C's patent requirement. Therefore, it can never be or be part of an open web standard.
No, H264 is not an open standard. At least not in the context of the web, as it violates the W3C Patent Policy. And that's what matters.
Google removed H264 from Chrome because there's more in it for them if the web is free and open, and not closed by a closed codec like H264.
Google is bundling Flash because they still want to be able to play videos on the web, and 99.9999% of that uses Flash. It's a pragmatic choice, and not at all at odds with an open web (the HTML specification explicitly allows for plugins).
Anyone who cares about an open web should care that a closed codec is threatening the web.
Quality doesn't really matter. People don't care. VHS vs BetaMax, Wii vs. PS3, etc. Lower quality almost always wins. Because quality simply isn't that important, so those who focus on quality will frequently fail.
No, it is not an open standard. At least not in the context of the web, which is what's relevant here. It fails to meet the W3C requirements for an open web standard, as open web standards must be royalty-free. H264 can never become an open web standard (unless the royalty requirement is removed).
I think he's trying to say that democracy was not an option. The options were a dictator who would maintain order while keeping Muslim extremists at bay, or letting the country be taken over by Muslim extremists.
So you are saying that SCO had no patents or copyrights whatsoever? What utter nonsense. Of course they did. And so your logic dictates that "since SCO had real patents, any claim they make about patents must be true."
The MPEG-LA doesn't indemnify jack shit. So your logic dictatesd that the MPEG-LA has little to no confidence in H264's patent standing.
Why? Releasing something with an irrevocable royalty-free license is not a bad thing to do at all.
Not at all. I know that dishonest right-wing liars are making claims about fraud, but it's always just smoke and mirrors. As if thousands of independent scientists around the world who love to pick each other's reports apart would all cooperate in a massive conspiracy. LOL, right-wing lunatics are so funny.
No, that figure has been confirmed over and over and over again. In fact, it has been shown as 98% and more. And your link is to a right-wing propaganda rag, which can be safely ignored.
And there you have it. Can't argue with the science? Attack the people!
Um, no. The science was clear. It was the right-wing denialists who made it political by trying to bury the science to protect their ideology.
LOL.
The first season actually turns out to be a coherent whole once the overall story starts.
The problem is that he does that by dumping a bunch of random crap in there which is never resolved. It's intriguing at the time, but then you realize that none of it will ever make sense, and will never be tied up. At least that's Lost in a nutshell.
However, Fringe seems to be a bit better there.