If we both live in the same community and exchange similar goods and services with the members of the community, and I pay the required taxes, and you do not, you cannot figure out who is getting raped and pillaged?
The interesting thing about tax laws is that a lot of individuals who avoid paying taxes by using alternative legal methods are in fact... Legal and are working within the laws, thus any "required taxes" they need to pay have obviously been paid. I don't agree with the idea of tightening tax laws to the point that all methods become illegal. The last time Britain did this, their best and brightest moved out of the country and ran their businesses else where in other countries that had more liberal tax laws. This hurt the British economy significantly. Let's not forget that the rich in European countries often encounter various crazy tax laws where-by you could owe more than you earned (ie: 120% of what you earned due to increased taxes for the rich) because of politicians caving into pressure from the mass unhappy citizens.
(I'm not familiar with the US tax laws, so I don't know about the US circumstances)
If Cairo cannot use Direct2D, it should be extended, rather than modifying Firefox itself to support Direct2D.
Cairo isn't controlled by Firefox developers.
Why was that delayed?
Different priorities, a lot was done.
They're still not using it in Firefox, which makes it the ONLY modern web browser lacking a Javascript JIT engine.
Firefox has had a JIT for a few years now.
What's up with HTML5?
It's a draft and w3c urges against standardizing against the draft. The gap between HTML5 draft support and other browsers isn't really that significant from my observations.
I assumed most non video-heads wouldn't be familiar with Sorenson
If you knew it's roots...
Wm7-9
version 3 actually
whatever other crappy proprietary codecs were most commonly used in those containers.
Outside of Apple and flash a while back, the rest were using pretty well known codecs in their proprietary containers.
Also, I was under the impression that the tag would specify the container format as well?
H.264 is just a method for video compression, nothing more.
WebM is not an industry-defined standard.
Nor is a lot of Internet RFCs either.
it is open in all the ways that everyone who is *not* distributing open source software and wants to use it cares about.
It may come to a surprise to you, but some companies just want to avoid licensing fees all together as well. WebM does just that. It also provides full specifications for the whole shabang and won't require you to license further for various audio codecs and possibly containers out there. It also provides an actual reasonable software implementation of WebM to use, which H.264 does not even offer and you may have to go out of your way even further to license yet software on top of that for their specific purposes.
Then there is the fact that WebM is currently supported by Firefox, Chrome, Opera out of the box, Safari and IE can install 'addons' to fully support them. Meanwhile h.264 is supported by IE8, Safari and Chrome (for the moment) 'out of the box' while h.264 does not seem to have standardized licensed plugins for the non-supported browsers on every platform. However, when you look at web statistics, look which browsers are significant (sadly the IE browser stats are grouped together - but you can assume IE8 is not the largest chunk currently), you will find that WebM support is on a large consumer base already in browsers.
Getting the other half to install a properly licensed 'addon' (literally it's just QuickTime and Windows Media container, codec support being installed) to support WebM seems easier than the other way around, since there isn't a properly licensed h.264 'addon' for the other browsers across the all platforms involved.
I don't know about you, but WebM seems a lot less hassle in many circumstances.
Do you remember real media's proprietary standards?
They had their own containers that they published various specifications for, yes. But I don't know what you mean by proprietary standards, they used regular MPEG4, H.263 and even h.264 video content.
From a *use* standpoint and a consumer standpoint, h.264 is a great and "open" standard.
So is WebM on the software that supports it (just like h.264) and it's even better because it even defines a container format, subtitles, audio and video codecs etc. which h.264 does not. So for example, I have a "just works" h.264 movie file (as implied by your comment) in a "Audio Video Interleave" container that windows media player on windows 7 refuses to play, because for some reason it wants the video in a "Moving Pictures Experts Group Program Stream" container instead.
WebM doesn't run into these issues, because if something supports it, it supports everything from the container, audio, video, subtitles involved, it doesn't run into your proprietary problem because everything is defined. There is no missing part of the spec where you build a proprietary container, proprietary audio codec etc. that's tacked on the video codec like with h.264.
2. Buy Adobe, open up flash, push as a standard, make it free
The flash specification is open and Adobe is trying to push it as a standard (just not giving up control of what defines that standard) and flash is free.
Tell you what, removing support for H.264 renders a browser almost completely useless for me.
You forgot to mention a major website that does only the html5 video tag and doesn't provide any other method. Don't forget that Chrome comes with flash support out of the box, and flash has h264, so any site that falls back on to flash would still work.
they have to support the industry standard formats in use
Flash is the industry standard for players, not built in h.264 support in browsers for the video tag, what are you talking about?
Most of the pros I know that are still in the business are frankly a little peeved at seeing yet another format war, and as far as their concerned, for no good reason.
We'll have to agree to disagree then, because for me, it is a very good reason.
I find it hilarious that Google is dropping support for it in their own web browser for a video format that is also sponsored by Google
I don't recall Google ever claiming to be a sponsor of H.264. I do recall them licensing the technology, that's about it.
currently run an anime and manga website and I have no plans on converting my video content.
You're not anyone major like youtube, hulu, netflix or iplayer, right?
I don't have worries about Google switching to WebM and I just don't trust the new format, especially from a company who's making a blatant attempt to monopolize everyone's online experience.
Who are you again?
The members on my site and my forums continue to support my site and while I do still use the current video formats
k?
I won't be wasting my time with WebM.
Do you want a cookie?
It's a new format and it's not supported on my DVD and Blu-ray player.
Holy shit, a new format came out doesn't work with your legacy hardware and it doesn't work!? How did you ever handle blu-ray if you couldn't play it in your DVD player!?
Perhaps they are on your plan, but not on the pay-as-you-go one I have on my antique Nokia.
I have free unlimited Skype usage on a pay as you go card that hasn't been recharged since I got it (over a year ago) on Three's network.
(*) I know that the cost is probably negligible to the operators, but they're not going to give it to *you* for nothing if you're not buying anything else off them!
Virtualization. Virtualization will give those ancient systems another stay on life, and you will be able to "phase them out" (not really) over the following decade, as other products start to get used.
That wasn't an option for one of the systems I maintained that relied on some very specific ISA hardware. Even tried a ISA to PCI adapter at one point but the software freaked out over it and virtual machine software wasn't really helping either.
forums were moderated and any time a flame was posted the user was warned that they could be banned then maybe less flames would be posted.
You then get the anal retentive people who just sit there, waiting to report anyone who goes slightly out of line. Even moderation should be moderated.
When put "aside" (using the original poster's wording) my choice of Linux distribution, yes.
you can't switch from your "HobbyOS"
I don't switch, I'm platform agnostic, I was poking fun at the original post's 'just works' comment. From the way your post is written, it seems you didn't grasp the joke, where people tend to complain a lot about Linux installations when Windows doesn't even come close when it's put aside Linux.
Err... Aren't you conveniently forgetting that just last year we had the issue of Microsoft's unpatched DLL load hijacking issue that could not resolved without changing stable APIs and recompiling software?
Slashdot Mirror
No, of course not. I'd call him a proper Asian name, which would be determined by the sound of various pots and pans I throw down the stars.
Nah, I see plenty of tards from Google groups. It hasn't ended.
The interesting thing about tax laws is that a lot of individuals who avoid paying taxes by using alternative legal methods are in fact... Legal and are working within the laws, thus any "required taxes" they need to pay have obviously been paid. I don't agree with the idea of tightening tax laws to the point that all methods become illegal. The last time Britain did this, their best and brightest moved out of the country and ran their businesses else where in other countries that had more liberal tax laws. This hurt the British economy significantly. Let's not forget that the rich in European countries often encounter various crazy tax laws where-by you could owe more than you earned (ie: 120% of what you earned due to increased taxes for the rich) because of politicians caving into pressure from the mass unhappy citizens.
(I'm not familiar with the US tax laws, so I don't know about the US circumstances)
Cairo isn't controlled by Firefox developers.
Different priorities, a lot was done.
Firefox has had a JIT for a few years now.
It's a draft and w3c urges against standardizing against the draft. The gap between HTML5 draft support and other browsers isn't really that significant from my observations.
What's wrong with Google checkout?
But Windows XP is broken.
If you knew it's roots...
version 3 actually
Outside of Apple and flash a while back, the rest were using pretty well known codecs in their proprietary containers.
H.264 is just a method for video compression, nothing more.
Nor is a lot of Internet RFCs either.
It may come to a surprise to you, but some companies just want to avoid licensing fees all together as well. WebM does just that. It also provides full specifications for the whole shabang and won't require you to license further for various audio codecs and possibly containers out there. It also provides an actual reasonable software implementation of WebM to use, which H.264 does not even offer and you may have to go out of your way even further to license yet software on top of that for their specific purposes.
Then there is the fact that WebM is currently supported by Firefox, Chrome, Opera out of the box, Safari and IE can install 'addons' to fully support them. Meanwhile h.264 is supported by IE8, Safari and Chrome (for the moment) 'out of the box' while h.264 does not seem to have standardized licensed plugins for the non-supported browsers on every platform. However, when you look at web statistics, look which browsers are significant (sadly the IE browser stats are grouped together - but you can assume IE8 is not the largest chunk currently), you will find that WebM support is on a large consumer base already in browsers.
Getting the other half to install a properly licensed 'addon' (literally it's just QuickTime and Windows Media container, codec support being installed) to support WebM seems easier than the other way around, since there isn't a properly licensed h.264 'addon' for the other browsers across the all platforms involved.
I don't know about you, but WebM seems a lot less hassle in many circumstances.
Yes, those are containers, not codecs.
They had their own containers that they published various specifications for, yes. But I don't know what you mean by proprietary standards, they used regular MPEG4, H.263 and even h.264 video content.
So is WebM on the software that supports it (just like h.264) and it's even better because it even defines a container format, subtitles, audio and video codecs etc. which h.264 does not. So for example, I have a "just works" h.264 movie file (as implied by your comment) in a "Audio Video Interleave" container that windows media player on windows 7 refuses to play, because for some reason it wants the video in a "Moving Pictures Experts Group Program Stream" container instead.
WebM doesn't run into these issues, because if something supports it, it supports everything from the container, audio, video, subtitles involved, it doesn't run into your proprietary problem because everything is defined. There is no missing part of the spec where you build a proprietary container, proprietary audio codec etc. that's tacked on the video codec like with h.264.
The flash specification is open and Adobe is trying to push it as a standard (just not giving up control of what defines that standard) and flash is free.
You forgot to mention a major website that does only the html5 video tag and doesn't provide any other method. Don't forget that Chrome comes with flash support out of the box, and flash has h264, so any site that falls back on to flash would still work.
Flash is the industry standard for players, not built in h.264 support in browsers for the video tag, what are you talking about?
Why not tweak the Chromium source?
We'll have to agree to disagree then, because for me, it is a very good reason.
Care to explain this?
I don't recall Google ever claiming to be a sponsor of H.264. I do recall them licensing the technology, that's about it.
You're not anyone major like youtube, hulu, netflix or iplayer, right?
Who are you again?
k?
Do you want a cookie?
Holy shit, a new format came out doesn't work with your legacy hardware and it doesn't work!? How did you ever handle blu-ray if you couldn't play it in your DVD player!?
Seriously, who are you?
I have free unlimited Skype usage on a pay as you go card that hasn't been recharged since I got it (over a year ago) on Three's network.
So how am I getting this service?
That wasn't an option for one of the systems I maintained that relied on some very specific ISA hardware. Even tried a ISA to PCI adapter at one point but the software freaked out over it and virtual machine software wasn't really helping either.
Can you link me to forums that do that? They sound like an amusing read.
You then get the anal retentive people who just sit there, waiting to report anyone who goes slightly out of line. Even moderation should be moderated.
Your homepage is an example of why.
MySpace improved.
I've ranted about the topic a lot previously on IRC, but no, I did not write with that wording.
When put "aside" (using the original poster's wording) my choice of Linux distribution, yes.
I don't switch, I'm platform agnostic, I was poking fun at the original post's 'just works' comment. From the way your post is written, it seems you didn't grasp the joke, where people tend to complain a lot about Linux installations when Windows doesn't even come close when it's put aside Linux.
It's your assumptions on my logic, not my logic.
Oh God, I hope not.
Err... Aren't you conveniently forgetting that just last year we had the issue of Microsoft's unpatched DLL load hijacking issue that could not resolved without changing stable APIs and recompiling software?
I find sourcecode practical. Thus a philosophical choice that makes doing sourcecode releases more practical is a practical consideration for me.