That's correct. However, the odds of there being someone not in the patent pool, who holds patents that apply to H.264, who does not also hold patents to WebM, are vanishingly small. That's the whole point of the pool.
The odds of there being someone who isn't Google, who holds patents to WebM, are large enough that Google's not willing to warrant that such patents do not exist financially.
No, you could use the OS video decoding APIs, which use whichever codecs are installed at the OS level (just like printing uses the printer drivers installed at the OS level). And guess what? The vast majority of consumer OSs come with H.264 codecs (pretty damn good ones at that) preinstalled.
The alternative is WebM, which is owned by Google. Google also owns YouTube, Google Video Search, and Chrome, and is leveraging the fact that YouTube, Video Search, and Chrome are popular to try to force everyone to adopt their owned product WebM, without providing any kind of financial assurances to people who do that there are, in fact, no encumbering patents. See a problem here?
It was intended as a more generic comment, but taking it more seriously...
When a browser manufacturer (Google) who owns the most popular video source (YouTube) talks about changing both to move away from existing standards, and actively removes functionality used to view videos served in the most popular video codec on the web, I think that does impact neutrality, don't you? Especially when their "solution" is for everyone to reencode their videos in a codec that - surprise - is also owned by Google.
So now one company owns the player, the distribution mechanism, the codec, and the video search that reveals the content, all while saying its doing so "to be open.". What could possibly go wrong?
And they're so confident that WebM is now patent-unencumberd that they're willing to stake their own money on it.
Oh, wait - no, they're not, are they? They won't contribute to any sort of a defense fund for those folks who want to use WebM in case they're sued in the future. Not so confident after all. And considering how much like flipping a switch it was for the encoder/decoder guys to add WebM support to H.264 products, the odds of it not actually violating H.264 patents are very small indeed.
If they wanted to be bizarre, they could even support their internal codecs for things they provide, and fall back to platform codecs for everything else. The only reason for Chrome to refuse to play H.264 video is a political one.
A pot is generally a variant of an open cylinder, often as deep as it is wide, typically used for cooking soups, stews, and the like, with an optional lid. A kettle is typically the a dome with a wide base designed to catch a lot of heat from below relative to its volume in order to bring liquids inside (typically just water) to a boil as quickly as possible. It generally has a built-in "lid" with a small access area and a pouring spout.
Both were traditionally made from iron, hence the reference colo[u]r.
I'm talking about the real child molesters, not someone URINATING.
Really? That's not what the sex offender list is talking about - and that's the list that's being discussed here. Besides, how come by your argument the child molester gets on the list, but the child killer doesn't? And when/where does it stop?
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/09/11/us-sex-offender-laws-may-do-more-harm-good is a good example of some decent commentary, FWIW. Its sad to me when the threat of someone taking away our right to large-capacity rifle magazines after a political shooting gets a national outcry, but the idea of lifelong movement tracking of people who may have committed victimless misdemeanors decades ago is silently accepted. Probably because anyone who comes out against it is afraid that they'll be branded with the "pro-child-molestor" label... and put on the list.
Not true, I'm afraid. A very little googling show's that unfortunate fact. A charge of public urination is often accompanied by a charge of indecent exposure, which is enough to get you on the list in a lot of places... sometimes, even if the act took place before the list existed.
This is scary stuff. Maybe not now, but in how easily its become "accepted."
Eh, I know people are modding you down and whatever, but I have 2 kids, and yeah. I agree, mostly. I think they should have to wear a bracelet that beeps loudly so we'll know who they are. Or something identifyable. A big tatoo on their forhead?
But not everyone. Considering that being 18 and sleeping with your 17yo girlfriend can get you classified as a sex offender, I think this should be selective.
Rape, yes. Incest, yes. others? maybe.
Incest? Really? Just going with your statement (and hey, I've got a daughter too), why would you be more afraid for their safety from someone who committed the crime of incest? By its very definition, it'd be unlikely that your kids would be affected by that crime. And how can you justify that one, where multiple murders, or the rape of 18 year olds, wouldn't be similarly treated?
Even if the recidivism rate was inline with other serious crimes, that still wouldn't explain why we'd let a convicted child murderer or a serial rapist go free after his or her prison sentence was complete, but not a child molester (or, as is more frequently the case, a public urinator or an 18 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend).
Firefox would violate the GPL if they provided actual h.264 support in any manner other than a user-addable plugin for it. Simply put, they're going to HAVE to find some other way- because that quote you're referring to is not in perpetuity, places restrictions on the code using it that the GPL doesn't allow, and quite simply can change at any time. Not a good answer to rely upon there.
You mean like installing the codecs already on my machine and exposed by my OS's graphics subsystem? Nah... that'd never work. Next thing you know, they'd be using the OS to print documents, too.
Serious question - why not just use the OS libraries, available on all major platforms, supporting every single codec the users already have installed and not supporting the ones that they don't have installed? Using a subsystem is not quite the same as seeing if a random shared library is on the machine somewhere, after all.
Basically, a formal statement of the Not Invented Here attitude problem. Never mind the fact that, say, the H.264 codec installed in all modern OSs is probably substantially better (and properly licensed, if needed) than the one included as an afterthought by your browser...
Still waiting for them to start shipping their own printer drivers, too. You know, in case there's an inconsistency. Because at least as many people print from their browser as watch video in it, so I don't see why the same reasoning doesn't apply - other than the fact that the Mozilla Foundation would rather lock everyone into their walled garden of Correctness, that is.
You seem to be confusing "slow" with "slower". 0-60 in seven seconds is faster than a large number of drivers ever accelerate in their lives. Some enthusiasts prefer to accelerate faster, this is true, and 7 seconds is slower than 5 seconds, but its still not slow.
Android is getting better. iphone is already there but has zero freedom associated with it.
Well, if by "zero freedom" you mean "99.99% freedom" I'd agree with you. iPhone development is really, actually, not bad, and even the appstore rules make sense if you look at them from the perspective of the consumer (and the people who have to support the apps they put up on the store with each iOS release). Seriously, how much harm did Charles Petzold's Undocumented Windows book do for that ecosystem?
What about them? Seriously, what? Most people don't get to keep getting paid after they died, after all.
How about this. Someonewrites a killer song. They license it to a record label for, oh, 10 years, at $xx per year payable for each of the 10 years. Maybe (probably) they live, and the song stays under copyright, and the label has exclusivity. Maybe they don't, and after 8 years someone else can put out the same song. They (or in this case their estate) still get paid for 10 years, because they have a contract saying that they do. That's how business works, there's no reason to necessarily tie it to life expectancy.
Besides, the family still gets to keep whatever money was made during the original holder's lifetime!
Yeah, the whole movement towards 300HP V6s showing up in everything, and 0-60 in 7 seconds being considered "slow", really sucks for the performance enthusiast out there.
Never. Common sense (listen for sounds, go to them, and if it's water, go downstream, if it's not water, it's probably a person or machinery) goes much much further than having a compass. Sure, a compass could help, but it's less useful than a GPS and almost never required to increase the chance of survival.
And when you're in mid-air, trying to find a runway, and running out of fuel? Flying low and slow over a forest to check for moss is probably not one of your preferred options.
And you sound like the Amish. They are allowed to use horse-powered vehicles, but not engine-powered ones. You assert that the tech of a map and compass is acceptable but GPS isn't. Nice arbitrary line to draw. Whatever tech you like, and no more. That's so hypocritical...
When's the last time you had a traditional compass break? When's the last time you were in a situation when you desperately needed to navigate properly to increase the survival chances of others, and a compass wouldn't have helped? How often have you left all compasses behind because they were too big/heavy for your vehicle? Considering the relative inexpensiveness of compasses, requiring them seems like a no-brainer to me.
That calculation, applied to GPS devices, in situations when you already have a compass, is far from as compelling.
Huh, I have a military fighter aircraft grade INS with a 2 hour battery backup packed into a 3U rackmount box right next to me that indicates it weighs 17lbs. Yea, it was expensive (low 5-figures). So are aircraft.
Many aircraft cost in the mid-to-high 5-figures. Adding 10-20% to a private plane's cost, or double that if you want redundancy, seems excessive when the only benefit is some geek's sense of correctness. Adding 6U worth of rack equipment isn't exactly easy either - space can be quite tight up there as it is.
Why not a decent laptop, for when you need 32 xterms running at once (if you ever do), and an adequate phone for the very few times that you need one or two xterms but don't have your laptop/netbook/whatever with you?
Slashdot Mirror
That's correct. However, the odds of there being someone not in the patent pool, who holds patents that apply to H.264, who does not also hold patents to WebM, are vanishingly small. That's the whole point of the pool.
The odds of there being someone who isn't Google, who holds patents to WebM, are large enough that Google's not willing to warrant that such patents do not exist financially.
You do the math.
No, you could use the OS video decoding APIs, which use whichever codecs are installed at the OS level (just like printing uses the printer drivers installed at the OS level). And guess what? The vast majority of consumer OSs come with H.264 codecs (pretty damn good ones at that) preinstalled.
The alternative is WebM, which is owned by Google. Google also owns YouTube, Google Video Search, and Chrome, and is leveraging the fact that YouTube, Video Search, and Chrome are popular to try to force everyone to adopt their owned product WebM, without providing any kind of financial assurances to people who do that there are, in fact, no encumbering patents. See a problem here?
It was intended as a more generic comment, but taking it more seriously...
When a browser manufacturer (Google) who owns the most popular video source (YouTube) talks about changing both to move away from existing standards, and actively removes functionality used to view videos served in the most popular video codec on the web, I think that does impact neutrality, don't you? Especially when their "solution" is for everyone to reencode their videos in a codec that - surprise - is also owned by Google.
So now one company owns the player, the distribution mechanism, the codec, and the video search that reveals the content, all while saying its doing so "to be open.". What could possibly go wrong?
Actually it doesn't. Encoding free video is free (as in beer) in perpetuity. Nice FUD, though.
And they're so confident that WebM is now patent-unencumberd that they're willing to stake their own money on it.
Oh, wait - no, they're not, are they? They won't contribute to any sort of a defense fund for those folks who want to use WebM in case they're sued in the future. Not so confident after all. And considering how much like flipping a switch it was for the encoder/decoder guys to add WebM support to H.264 products, the odds of it not actually violating H.264 patents are very small indeed.
If they wanted to be bizarre, they could even support their internal codecs for things they provide, and fall back to platform codecs for everything else. The only reason for Chrome to refuse to play H.264 video is a political one.
So much for net neutrality, eh?
Cook much?
A pot is generally a variant of an open cylinder, often as deep as it is wide, typically used for cooking soups, stews, and the like, with an optional lid. A kettle is typically the a dome with a wide base designed to catch a lot of heat from below relative to its volume in order to bring liquids inside (typically just water) to a boil as quickly as possible. It generally has a built-in "lid" with a small access area and a pouring spout.
Both were traditionally made from iron, hence the reference colo[u]r.
I'm talking about the real child molesters, not someone URINATING.
Really? That's not what the sex offender list is talking about - and that's the list that's being discussed here. Besides, how come by your argument the child molester gets on the list, but the child killer doesn't? And when/where does it stop?
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/09/11/us-sex-offender-laws-may-do-more-harm-good is a good example of some decent commentary, FWIW. Its sad to me when the threat of someone taking away our right to large-capacity rifle magazines after a political shooting gets a national outcry, but the idea of lifelong movement tracking of people who may have committed victimless misdemeanors decades ago is silently accepted. Probably because anyone who comes out against it is afraid that they'll be branded with the "pro-child-molestor" label... and put on the list.
Not true, I'm afraid. A very little googling show's that unfortunate fact. A charge of public urination is often accompanied by a charge of indecent exposure, which is enough to get you on the list in a lot of places... sometimes, even if the act took place before the list existed.
This is scary stuff. Maybe not now, but in how easily its become "accepted."
Eh, I know people are modding you down and whatever, but I have 2 kids, and yeah. I agree, mostly. I think they should have to wear a bracelet that beeps loudly so we'll know who they are. Or something identifyable. A big tatoo on their forhead?
But not everyone. Considering that being 18 and sleeping with your 17yo girlfriend can get you classified as a sex offender, I think this should be selective.
Rape, yes.
Incest, yes.
others? maybe.
Incest? Really? Just going with your statement (and hey, I've got a daughter too), why would you be more afraid for their safety from someone who committed the crime of incest? By its very definition, it'd be unlikely that your kids would be affected by that crime. And how can you justify that one, where multiple murders, or the rape of 18 year olds, wouldn't be similarly treated?
Even if the recidivism rate was inline with other serious crimes, that still wouldn't explain why we'd let a convicted child murderer or a serial rapist go free after his or her prison sentence was complete, but not a child molester (or, as is more frequently the case, a public urinator or an 18 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend).
Firefox would violate the GPL if they provided actual h.264 support in any manner other than a user-addable plugin for it. Simply put, they're going to HAVE to find some other way- because that quote you're referring to is not in perpetuity, places restrictions on the code using it that the GPL doesn't allow, and quite simply can change at any time. Not a good answer to rely upon there.
You mean like installing the codecs already on my machine and exposed by my OS's graphics subsystem? Nah... that'd never work. Next thing you know, they'd be using the OS to print documents, too.
Serious question - why not just use the OS libraries, available on all major platforms, supporting every single codec the users already have installed and not supporting the ones that they don't have installed? Using a subsystem is not quite the same as seeing if a random shared library is on the machine somewhere, after all.
Basically, a formal statement of the Not Invented Here attitude problem. Never mind the fact that, say, the H.264 codec installed in all modern OSs is probably substantially better (and properly licensed, if needed) than the one included as an afterthought by your browser...
Still waiting for them to start shipping their own printer drivers, too. You know, in case there's an inconsistency. Because at least as many people print from their browser as watch video in it, so I don't see why the same reasoning doesn't apply - other than the fact that the Mozilla Foundation would rather lock everyone into their walled garden of Correctness, that is.
You seem to be confusing "slow" with "slower". 0-60 in seven seconds is faster than a large number of drivers ever accelerate in their lives. Some enthusiasts prefer to accelerate faster, this is true, and 7 seconds is slower than 5 seconds, but its still not slow.
Android is getting better. iphone is already there but has zero freedom associated with it.
Well, if by "zero freedom" you mean "99.99% freedom" I'd agree with you. iPhone development is really, actually, not bad, and even the appstore rules make sense if you look at them from the perspective of the consumer (and the people who have to support the apps they put up on the store with each iOS release). Seriously, how much harm did Charles Petzold's Undocumented Windows book do for that ecosystem?
What about them? Seriously, what? Most people don't get to keep getting paid after they died, after all.
How about this. Someonewrites a killer song. They license it to a record label for, oh, 10 years, at $xx per year payable for each of the 10 years. Maybe (probably) they live, and the song stays under copyright, and the label has exclusivity. Maybe they don't, and after 8 years someone else can put out the same song. They (or in this case their estate) still get paid for 10 years, because they have a contract saying that they do. That's how business works, there's no reason to necessarily tie it to life expectancy.
Besides, the family still gets to keep whatever money was made during the original holder's lifetime!
Yeah, the whole movement towards 300HP V6s showing up in everything, and 0-60 in 7 seconds being considered "slow", really sucks for the performance enthusiast out there.
Never. Common sense (listen for sounds, go to them, and if it's water, go downstream, if it's not water, it's probably a person or machinery) goes much much further than having a compass. Sure, a compass could help, but it's less useful than a GPS and almost never required to increase the chance of survival.
And when you're in mid-air, trying to find a runway, and running out of fuel? Flying low and slow over a forest to check for moss is probably not one of your preferred options.
And you sound like the Amish. They are allowed to use horse-powered vehicles, but not engine-powered ones. You assert that the tech of a map and compass is acceptable but GPS isn't. Nice arbitrary line to draw. Whatever tech you like, and no more. That's so hypocritical...
When's the last time you had a traditional compass break? When's the last time you were in a situation when you desperately needed to navigate properly to increase the survival chances of others, and a compass wouldn't have helped? How often have you left all compasses behind because they were too big/heavy for your vehicle? Considering the relative inexpensiveness of compasses, requiring them seems like a no-brainer to me.
That calculation, applied to GPS devices, in situations when you already have a compass, is far from as compelling.
Huh, I have a military fighter aircraft grade INS with a 2 hour battery backup packed into a 3U rackmount box right next to me that indicates it weighs 17lbs. Yea, it was expensive (low 5-figures). So are aircraft.
Many aircraft cost in the mid-to-high 5-figures. Adding 10-20% to a private plane's cost, or double that if you want redundancy, seems excessive when the only benefit is some geek's sense of correctness. Adding 6U worth of rack equipment isn't exactly easy either - space can be quite tight up there as it is.
Costco.
Why not a decent laptop, for when you need 32 xterms running at once (if you ever do), and an adequate phone for the very few times that you need one or two xterms but don't have your laptop/netbook/whatever with you?