Attempts with less exotic materials have had very limited success.
The biggest problem there is, the user has no clue what he's doing. Large swords are never used as swords (swinging/slashing). That's a complete misconception. Large swords are actually used as a pole arm (thus the typical handhold north of the hilt) and frequently used from horseback where the extra reach is desired. Furthermore, should one actually desire to use it standing and not as a pole arm, you would do so in a spinning/slicing fashion rather than a swinging manner - but that would be a move or pure desperation.
Remember, not all swords are used the same. For example, the classic Roman sword, central to the phalanx, was almost never used in a swinging fashion; despite being bladed. It was almost exclusively used in a shielded, stabbing technique.
In fact, contrary to pop culture, the sword was pretty far down on the list of preferred weapons. Universally, weapons such as spears, pikes, flails, mace, pole arms, axes and hammers of various sizes were, by far, the preferred weapons. Swords, if in fact they were used at all, were considered a weapon of last resort. And in fact, long daggers/short swords where typically preferred over that of what is typically depicted as a sword in pop culture. Which in turn, is precisely what inspired the creation of weapons such as bastard (sword and a half)/long sword, and two handed swords (example, claymore).
Actually, I did. Thusly the stupidity comments were born. The fact you have no clue why your comments are stupidity is sad. Your posts are on troll after another. I seriously can't figure out if you really are that stupid or are purposely trolling. Either way, its been answered.
Rolling eyes is literally impossible. As for the unfounded, sorry, but that's the facts. Its the pro-pirates who want to displace the current economic status quo. Accordingly, its completely on your shoulders to prove conventional wisdom and hundreds of years of economic theory is completely wrong. So glad to know you consider the world economy to be "voodoo." That really showed me. Ouch.
Ugh...and the stupidity of the China comment - they've literally grown (by graft and theft) on the shoulders of everyone who does have a copyright system.
Any other stupidity to offer.
Seriously, its so annoying to have such completely stupid and factually wrong arguments offered up as the pro-pirate debate.
And worse yet, you offered up nothing but stupidity and still didn't even address the issue which was originally raise. Why is it pro-pirates can never offer any real answers but do everything they can to dance around the real issues? Guess propaganda and lies only go so far - but completely fall flat when explored.
To date, never once had a pro-pirate actually answer anything about how destroying the world economy helps everyone. Not once. They typically just provide stupidity, such as yours, which tries to pretend the entire system they are fighting suddenly does exist - as least for the duration of attempting to address the real issues are heart. That's why pirates are thought to be stupid - because they act stupid and are constantly and consistently hypocritical.
Just got to love the pro-pirate stupidity. Seriously, does anyone actually think about the stupidity that comes out of their mouth? Seriously, think about what you're saying. Now then, offer up for discussion details on how you plan on fixing the world economy you destroyed. Is it really so obviously the stupidity the pro-pirate argument that your only answer is to troll moderate and censor? On slashdot, the answer is almost universally yes.
At some point in time, you really need to have some answers beyond the lies and propaganda. Isn't now as good a time as any? Oh wait, that bring to light you're full of shit. Very clearly, the pro-pirate propaganda so weak, it stand any critical evaluation. Without fail, it always fails to withstand even modest review. Sad.
No, its not their opinion either. China has clearly signaled they would only use nukes if they were land invaded and to simply use them as MAD deterrence. Politics would play a huge role in any engagement with China because of the world economy implications, their nuclear capabilities, and the simple fact, no one wants to try to deal with the power vacuum of a toppled Chinese government.
Morons on slashdot constantly make that assertion but never actually say why or how things would work without it. And even worse, the stupidity of such statements completely destroys massive segments of the world economy and brings a halt to innovation in the technology communities.
So please, explain in detail how destroying the world economy and creating massive unemployment is an excellent idea.
The problem is, far too many stupid people say stuff but never stop to actually think what it really means. In this case, beyond meaning you're really stupid, you massive damage the world economy and instantly increase the unemployment, destroying some of the most critical to the economy (small and medium sized businesses).
Even worse, all too often, the people who make you assertion, are so stupid they don't even realize they are arguing the world should move to socialism. After all, you're arguing everyone should work for free. Either that, or you're first in line to pay $1000.00 to see your next movie. Oh, that's right, you won't want to pay anyone for their work - we should all live in socialist communes.
In one ignorant wave of the hand you destroyed countless chunks of the world economy, including businesses of all sizes, ranging from one man shops to multi-billion dollar corporations. Any other idiocy you want to share?
Why not? That's generally how things function? Why does this suddenly justify a deviation from the norm? The simple fact is, its not fair for companies to have to defend themselves against millions of criminals. And in fact, its all but impossible for small to medium sized companies to hope to do anything. Its a socioeconomic issue in which the public at large has generally been complacent if not outright conspirators. Why shouldn't the public, in turn, foot the bill for the problem they directly or indirectly help create?
Likely, they wouldn't use their nukes unless there was a land invasion. The US wouldn't want to invade China for an endless list of reasons; almost none of which have anything to do with nuclear weapons.
Besides, you're trying to play out scenarios which predicate an insane Chinese leader with generals willing to destroy their entire country. Not likely to happen.
Ah - no! I'm not a moving goalpost and the fact you provided a link underscores your lacking intelligence and general disregard for polite discourse. Its insulting. The simple fact is, its all but impossible there was a nuclear explosion. Period.
You're confusing polite brushoff of your rediculas assertion for a concession. The simple fact is YOU are the moving goalpost - and now a hypocrite, while asserting what is basically impossible, while half-ass acknowledging the likely explanation is in fact, THE explanation.
Very likely what happened is there was some form of reaction FROM the secondary explosion which created the isotopes in question. That is not the same thing as an explosion. Such cases are well known to occur and is in fact, why some bomb designs use explosives to set off the nuclear reaction. This stuff is literally so complex, they use some of the world's most powerful supercomputers to actually understand the physics involved. Which brings me full circle; unless they simulated the explosion, the report is question is baseless, useless, and completely full of shit.
Basically, the chances of a nuclear explosion, while not zero, are so close to zero so as to make the discussion literally rediculas. Its extremely improbable and likely beyond impossible. Unless they were using some bizarre fuel well outside of established norms, it didn't happen.
Actually, I said a single plane with a single bomb - but I screwed up. Go back up to my original post and find the follow up post I made in reply to another's comment. That post details my correction and provides links. Sorry for the misrepresentation.
You need to understand, the US' power multipliers literally allow a single plane with a single bomb to completely destroy an entire armored brigade. That's no hyperbole and no exaguration.
To which you replied:
Out of interest, what single bomb can kill 3-5.000 people?
I screwed that up. I didn't mean to mislead there; though clearly I did. I meant to say, "...destroy an entire armored battalion." Brain fart on my part. But, you're also taking it too literally. From a military perspective, they are dead if their primary fighting units have been destroyed. So saying, "completely destroy..." does mean down to every last trigger finger. It means they are no longer a unit capable of effective fighting. When someone says something like, "That armored division is destroyed", they don't mean every last man; down to the mechanics well behind friendly lines. Rather, they mean all the armored units are destroyed or non-combat worthy. What's left would be absorbed into other units or it would be entirely re-constituted if re-enforcements allowed.
I know many have been dropped in Iraq. In fact, I read an account of one being used during the early days of the Iraq invasion. One bomb destroyed some 20+ armored vehicles, including four or so heavy tanks plus a couple dozen infantry. The rest immediately surrendered. Before that single bomb was dropped, it was shaping up to be one of the larger armored engagements of the war. That didn't happen for obvious reasons.
The main catch with this weapon now is conventional cluster bombs have been internationally outlawed. But, given the specific nature of this weapon, I don't believe it has been outlawed. I did some quick checking and couldn't find anything definitively, but easily find laymen arguing both sides of the coin. So who knows.
Before the creation of this type of weapon, you were generally looking at 1-500lbs bomb per tank, an air-to-ground missile per tank, or direct fire from something like an A-10. The force multiplier here is extremely profound - especially given that its delivered via a 1000-lbs bomb, which means it can be carried by a variety of aircraft - unlike the MOAB.
Think again. In the real world, the Chinese would fight a war of attrition and the US would kill them in mass from the air and sea. Unlike an assault, you don't need feet on the ground to defend a country because the indigenous population is fully capable of doing the shit work the US wouldn't want to do in the first place - as should be - its their nation. Which means, the US would have the luxury of shooting fish in a barrel finally being able to unleash its full military arsenal and potential.
And contrary to popular hype, over all, the Chinese technology is many, many decades behind the US; save only for tiny groups of premiere forces. The bulk of their military is equipped with Korean era weapons; and that's the minority who are actually equipped. Literally, the US' military is specifically designed to stomp on these types of forces, over and over and over again. Which means China absolutely does not want to combat the US unless they plan on using nukes - and even then, its complete suicide for the Chinese. Which means, it would be completely insane for them to start a war they are guaranteed to lose.
You need to understand, the US' power multipliers literally allow a single plane with a single bomb to completely destroy an entire armored brigade. That's no hyperbole and no exaguration. And no, I'm not talking about MOABs or nukes.
Furthermore, you really need to understand, what the world has seen of US capabilities in recent times literally a fraction of the force they can bring to bare on its enemies. Even China would be beaten into the stone age without the use of nukes should they ever draw the ire of the US. That's not to say the US wouldn't feel some pain, but understand full well, the outcome is fully understood without the need to ever wage war.
Or...more realistically, someone who knows you're completely full of shit and have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I even glimpsed at your previous post - absolute lies and bullshit.
You are either a troll or a fucking idiot. Literally. Period.
No, when people use well established bullshit to support their point of view, I stop listening. That is the case here. As such, I'm tired of morons spewing ignorance and lies to support their holy war of stupidity; as very much seems to be the case here.
They are trying to position it for massive royalities by... declaring it free of royalties for web streaming forever? That's one cunning plan right there.
I stopped read right there given that its factually incorrect. Its royalty free for non-commercial use. You must pay royalties for commercial use.
That depends on where the encryption and decryption is performed. If its strictly done on the client (rather than their servers), unless they specifically designed a backdoor into the client, its not reasonable to believe they can decrypt it on demand.
H.264 is produced, managed and licenced by a consortium of companies with excellent documentation and a low barrier to entry of said consortium. Patent liabilities are well-known.
Why do people keep trolling with this garbage? H.264 is patent encumbered and the organization is constantly and clearly trying to position it to leverage for massive royalties down the road. They openly admit that. Its also closed sourced.
WebM is produced by one firm, controlled by one firm, has had no real determination of patent liability, and is documented well by... no-one.
What you mean is, it appears to be equally patent free, guarded by one of the largest tech companies on earth who clearly have an extremely important vested interest in its health and survival, is extremely well documented given that the source is freely available. Furthermore, anyone can use the codec in their project (modified or unmodified) for anything.
and there has been little to no effort to determine who may be owed what (legally speaking) for its implementation or deployment.
And this is just bullshit and stupidity. A company the size of Google, as standard practice, is absolutely going to perform patent searches and evaluate their current and future liabilities. Unless you have proof they specifically did not do what every large company does, you're trolling and talking about your ass. What a surprise.
tl;dr H.264 is far more open than WebM.
Except in the real world where is absolutely is not unless you're a complete fucking idiot.
The bottom line is, WebM is already competing with H.264 in visual quality. WebM's encoding performance (time) is worse than H.264 but still acceptable. On the other hand, WebM has superior decoding attributes and is on par with H.264 (software vs hardware). With newer hardware which now supports WebM, WebM provides a superior decoding experience which directly translates into better battery life. Future hardware is expected to widen the gap even more.
The combination means WebM has visual parity with H.264 while providing superior battery life. For the majority of the world, no one gives a crap about encoding time and in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter at, all so long as its good enough. Add to the fact its perpetually royalty free, open source, freely available licensing, and seemingly, patent unencumbered (which is technically on equal footing with H.264), WebM looks better than H.264 anyway you want to look at it so long as you're not a complete fucking idiot.
Hell, the fact that the H.264 consortium is going out of their way to patent troll WebM and has yet to state they've found anything is yet more proof of WebM's unencumbered patent status.
So please, stop with your fucking idiocy and stop spewing lies and trolling. H.264 is only more attractive if either you're a complete fucking idiot or you have a vested financial interest in H.264. For the rest of the world, WebM is the winner.
Out of interest, what was it about the story that you disliked? Was it simply not developed enough, or was it unbelievable, or something else?
Cheese did a pretty good job of answering. Its been a long while since I've seen the movie so I'll try to recall. IIRC, the character development sucked, character motivations were nonsense, there wasn't a real plot and what they presented as even a weak plot, the characters violated.
The problems are frequently one of the biggest problems many movies make. People know people. When you have people who behavior in a fashion which violates human nature you better have really good character development and motivation to explain it. If you don't, the writer breaks their contract with the viewing public. The violations were so egregious, it was basically a giant, "Fuck you, we already have your money. Hahaha."
As I said, the concept was cool, for its time the stylization was interesting yet overdone, but the characters and story absolutely sucked.
No, a nuclear explosion doesn't mean you get a mushroom cloud.
When you said, "no", you mean, "yes", since that's what I said. I clearly denoted a mushroom cloud is the result of convective-thermal activity. They are not unique to nuclear explosions but they are common with nuclear explosions given that a considerable thermal component is common to most nuclear explosions. Grant, its possible to have a nuclear explosion without a mushroom but its pretty rare.
A large hydrogen explosion is also likely.
That's my point. We have overwhelming evidence as an extremely likely cause - let's go with what's likely.
So what you're saying is, a cop who was profiling, performed an illegal stop, who just happen to get lucky, should not be punished because he's a criminal? Awesome!
Slashdot Mirror
Attempts with less exotic materials have had very limited success.
The biggest problem there is, the user has no clue what he's doing. Large swords are never used as swords (swinging/slashing). That's a complete misconception. Large swords are actually used as a pole arm (thus the typical handhold north of the hilt) and frequently used from horseback where the extra reach is desired. Furthermore, should one actually desire to use it standing and not as a pole arm, you would do so in a spinning/slicing fashion rather than a swinging manner - but that would be a move or pure desperation.
Remember, not all swords are used the same. For example, the classic Roman sword, central to the phalanx, was almost never used in a swinging fashion; despite being bladed. It was almost exclusively used in a shielded, stabbing technique.
In fact, contrary to pop culture, the sword was pretty far down on the list of preferred weapons. Universally, weapons such as spears, pikes, flails, mace, pole arms, axes and hammers of various sizes were, by far, the preferred weapons. Swords, if in fact they were used at all, were considered a weapon of last resort. And in fact, long daggers/short swords where typically preferred over that of what is typically depicted as a sword in pop culture. Which in turn, is precisely what inspired the creation of weapons such as bastard (sword and a half)/long sword, and two handed swords (example, claymore).
Good question, but I always assume it means tensile strength unless they state otherwise.
Actually, I did. Thusly the stupidity comments were born. The fact you have no clue why your comments are stupidity is sad. Your posts are on troll after another. I seriously can't figure out if you really are that stupid or are purposely trolling. Either way, its been answered.
Okay. Thanks. That explains why I found they were still selling the weapons. That's why I thought they were not outlawed.
Rolling eyes is literally impossible. As for the unfounded, sorry, but that's the facts. Its the pro-pirates who want to displace the current economic status quo. Accordingly, its completely on your shoulders to prove conventional wisdom and hundreds of years of economic theory is completely wrong. So glad to know you consider the world economy to be "voodoo." That really showed me. Ouch.
Ugh...and the stupidity of the China comment - they've literally grown (by graft and theft) on the shoulders of everyone who does have a copyright system.
Any other stupidity to offer.
Seriously, its so annoying to have such completely stupid and factually wrong arguments offered up as the pro-pirate debate.
And worse yet, you offered up nothing but stupidity and still didn't even address the issue which was originally raise. Why is it pro-pirates can never offer any real answers but do everything they can to dance around the real issues? Guess propaganda and lies only go so far - but completely fall flat when explored.
To date, never once had a pro-pirate actually answer anything about how destroying the world economy helps everyone. Not once. They typically just provide stupidity, such as yours, which tries to pretend the entire system they are fighting suddenly does exist - as least for the duration of attempting to address the real issues are heart. That's why pirates are thought to be stupid - because they act stupid and are constantly and consistently hypocritical.
Just got to love the pro-pirate stupidity. Seriously, does anyone actually think about the stupidity that comes out of their mouth? Seriously, think about what you're saying. Now then, offer up for discussion details on how you plan on fixing the world economy you destroyed. Is it really so obviously the stupidity the pro-pirate argument that your only answer is to troll moderate and censor? On slashdot, the answer is almost universally yes.
At some point in time, you really need to have some answers beyond the lies and propaganda. Isn't now as good a time as any? Oh wait, that bring to light you're full of shit. Very clearly, the pro-pirate propaganda so weak, it stand any critical evaluation. Without fail, it always fails to withstand even modest review. Sad.
That's your opinion. Is it China's?
No, its not their opinion either. China has clearly signaled they would only use nukes if they were land invaded and to simply use them as MAD deterrence. Politics would play a huge role in any engagement with China because of the world economy implications, their nuclear capabilities, and the simple fact, no one wants to try to deal with the power vacuum of a toppled Chinese government.
Copyright is an outdated mechanism.
Morons on slashdot constantly make that assertion but never actually say why or how things would work without it. And even worse, the stupidity of such statements completely destroys massive segments of the world economy and brings a halt to innovation in the technology communities.
So please, explain in detail how destroying the world economy and creating massive unemployment is an excellent idea.
The problem is, far too many stupid people say stuff but never stop to actually think what it really means. In this case, beyond meaning you're really stupid, you massive damage the world economy and instantly increase the unemployment, destroying some of the most critical to the economy (small and medium sized businesses).
Even worse, all too often, the people who make you assertion, are so stupid they don't even realize they are arguing the world should move to socialism. After all, you're arguing everyone should work for free. Either that, or you're first in line to pay $1000.00 to see your next movie. Oh, that's right, you won't want to pay anyone for their work - we should all live in socialist communes.
In one ignorant wave of the hand you destroyed countless chunks of the world economy, including businesses of all sizes, ranging from one man shops to multi-billion dollar corporations. Any other idiocy you want to share?
It shouldn't be passed onto the public
Why not? That's generally how things function? Why does this suddenly justify a deviation from the norm? The simple fact is, its not fair for companies to have to defend themselves against millions of criminals. And in fact, its all but impossible for small to medium sized companies to hope to do anything. Its a socioeconomic issue in which the public at large has generally been complacent if not outright conspirators. Why shouldn't the public, in turn, foot the bill for the problem they directly or indirectly help create?
What are you talking about?
Likely, they wouldn't use their nukes unless there was a land invasion. The US wouldn't want to invade China for an endless list of reasons; almost none of which have anything to do with nuclear weapons.
Besides, you're trying to play out scenarios which predicate an insane Chinese leader with generals willing to destroy their entire country. Not likely to happen.
Ah - no! I'm not a moving goalpost and the fact you provided a link underscores your lacking intelligence and general disregard for polite discourse. Its insulting. The simple fact is, its all but impossible there was a nuclear explosion. Period.
You're confusing polite brushoff of your rediculas assertion for a concession. The simple fact is YOU are the moving goalpost - and now a hypocrite, while asserting what is basically impossible, while half-ass acknowledging the likely explanation is in fact, THE explanation.
Very likely what happened is there was some form of reaction FROM the secondary explosion which created the isotopes in question. That is not the same thing as an explosion. Such cases are well known to occur and is in fact, why some bomb designs use explosives to set off the nuclear reaction. This stuff is literally so complex, they use some of the world's most powerful supercomputers to actually understand the physics involved. Which brings me full circle; unless they simulated the explosion, the report is question is baseless, useless, and completely full of shit.
Basically, the chances of a nuclear explosion, while not zero, are so close to zero so as to make the discussion literally rediculas. Its extremely improbable and likely beyond impossible. Unless they were using some bizarre fuel well outside of established norms, it didn't happen.
Actually, I said a single plane with a single bomb - but I screwed up. Go back up to my original post and find the follow up post I made in reply to another's comment. That post details my correction and provides links. Sorry for the misrepresentation.
I said:
You need to understand, the US' power multipliers literally allow a single plane with a single bomb to completely destroy an entire armored brigade. That's no hyperbole and no exaguration.
To which you replied:
Out of interest, what single bomb can kill 3-5.000 people?
I screwed that up. I didn't mean to mislead there; though clearly I did. I meant to say, "...destroy an entire armored battalion." Brain fart on my part. But, you're also taking it too literally. From a military perspective, they are dead if their primary fighting units have been destroyed. So saying, "completely destroy..." does mean down to every last trigger finger. It means they are no longer a unit capable of effective fighting. When someone says something like, "That armored division is destroyed", they don't mean every last man; down to the mechanics well behind friendly lines. Rather, they mean all the armored units are destroyed or non-combat worthy. What's left would be absorbed into other units or it would be entirely re-constituted if re-enforcements allowed.
Now then, to answer your question, the bomb is called the CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Cluster Bomb. Its a 1000lbs cluster bomb. The bomb itself is a dumb bomb (though a tail kit is available for it) but the bomblets are smart. One bomb can cover ~380 acres, destroying up to 40 armored vehicles; including main battle tanks; plus lots of infantry from shrapnel. Each bomblet is basically a fragmenting shape charge.
I know many have been dropped in Iraq. In fact, I read an account of one being used during the early days of the Iraq invasion. One bomb destroyed some 20+ armored vehicles, including four or so heavy tanks plus a couple dozen infantry. The rest immediately surrendered. Before that single bomb was dropped, it was shaping up to be one of the larger armored engagements of the war. That didn't happen for obvious reasons.
The main catch with this weapon now is conventional cluster bombs have been internationally outlawed. But, given the specific nature of this weapon, I don't believe it has been outlawed. I did some quick checking and couldn't find anything definitively, but easily find laymen arguing both sides of the coin. So who knows.
Before the creation of this type of weapon, you were generally looking at 1-500lbs bomb per tank, an air-to-ground missile per tank, or direct fire from something like an A-10. The force multiplier here is extremely profound - especially given that its delivered via a 1000-lbs bomb, which means it can be carried by a variety of aircraft - unlike the MOAB.
Think again. In the real world, the Chinese would fight a war of attrition and the US would kill them in mass from the air and sea. Unlike an assault, you don't need feet on the ground to defend a country because the indigenous population is fully capable of doing the shit work the US wouldn't want to do in the first place - as should be - its their nation. Which means, the US would have the luxury of shooting fish in a barrel finally being able to unleash its full military arsenal and potential.
And contrary to popular hype, over all, the Chinese technology is many, many decades behind the US; save only for tiny groups of premiere forces. The bulk of their military is equipped with Korean era weapons; and that's the minority who are actually equipped. Literally, the US' military is specifically designed to stomp on these types of forces, over and over and over again. Which means China absolutely does not want to combat the US unless they plan on using nukes - and even then, its complete suicide for the Chinese. Which means, it would be completely insane for them to start a war they are guaranteed to lose.
You need to understand, the US' power multipliers literally allow a single plane with a single bomb to completely destroy an entire armored brigade. That's no hyperbole and no exaguration. And no, I'm not talking about MOABs or nukes.
Furthermore, you really need to understand, what the world has seen of US capabilities in recent times literally a fraction of the force they can bring to bare on its enemies. Even China would be beaten into the stone age without the use of nukes should they ever draw the ire of the US. That's not to say the US wouldn't feel some pain, but understand full well, the outcome is fully understood without the need to ever wage war.
Or...more realistically, someone who knows you're completely full of shit and have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I even glimpsed at your previous post - absolute lies and bullshit.
You are either a troll or a fucking idiot. Literally. Period.
No, when people use well established bullshit to support their point of view, I stop listening. That is the case here. As such, I'm tired of morons spewing ignorance and lies to support their holy war of stupidity; as very much seems to be the case here.
They are trying to position it for massive royalities by... declaring it free of royalties for web streaming forever? That's one cunning plan right there.
I stopped read right there given that its factually incorrect. Its royalty free for non-commercial use. You must pay royalties for commercial use.
So the answer is, "server-side." Sounds like the same conclusion I had before.
That depends on where the encryption and decryption is performed. If its strictly done on the client (rather than their servers), unless they specifically designed a backdoor into the client, its not reasonable to believe they can decrypt it on demand.
H.264 is produced, managed and licenced by a consortium of companies with excellent documentation and a low barrier to entry of said consortium. Patent liabilities are well-known.
Why do people keep trolling with this garbage? H.264 is patent encumbered and the organization is constantly and clearly trying to position it to leverage for massive royalties down the road. They openly admit that. Its also closed sourced.
WebM is produced by one firm, controlled by one firm, has had no real determination of patent liability, and is documented well by... no-one.
What you mean is, it appears to be equally patent free, guarded by one of the largest tech companies on earth who clearly have an extremely important vested interest in its health and survival, is extremely well documented given that the source is freely available. Furthermore, anyone can use the codec in their project (modified or unmodified) for anything.
and there has been little to no effort to determine who may be owed what (legally speaking) for its implementation or deployment.
And this is just bullshit and stupidity. A company the size of Google, as standard practice, is absolutely going to perform patent searches and evaluate their current and future liabilities. Unless you have proof they specifically did not do what every large company does, you're trolling and talking about your ass. What a surprise.
tl;dr H.264 is far more open than WebM.
Except in the real world where is absolutely is not unless you're a complete fucking idiot.
The bottom line is, WebM is already competing with H.264 in visual quality. WebM's encoding performance (time) is worse than H.264 but still acceptable. On the other hand, WebM has superior decoding attributes and is on par with H.264 (software vs hardware). With newer hardware which now supports WebM, WebM provides a superior decoding experience which directly translates into better battery life. Future hardware is expected to widen the gap even more.
The combination means WebM has visual parity with H.264 while providing superior battery life. For the majority of the world, no one gives a crap about encoding time and in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter at, all so long as its good enough. Add to the fact its perpetually royalty free, open source, freely available licensing, and seemingly, patent unencumbered (which is technically on equal footing with H.264), WebM looks better than H.264 anyway you want to look at it so long as you're not a complete fucking idiot.
Hell, the fact that the H.264 consortium is going out of their way to patent troll WebM and has yet to state they've found anything is yet more proof of WebM's unencumbered patent status.
So please, stop with your fucking idiocy and stop spewing lies and trolling. H.264 is only more attractive if either you're a complete fucking idiot or you have a vested financial interest in H.264. For the rest of the world, WebM is the winner.
Out of interest, what was it about the story that you disliked? Was it simply not developed enough, or was it unbelievable, or something else?
Cheese did a pretty good job of answering. Its been a long while since I've seen the movie so I'll try to recall. IIRC, the character development sucked, character motivations were nonsense, there wasn't a real plot and what they presented as even a weak plot, the characters violated.
The problems are frequently one of the biggest problems many movies make. People know people. When you have people who behavior in a fashion which violates human nature you better have really good character development and motivation to explain it. If you don't, the writer breaks their contract with the viewing public. The violations were so egregious, it was basically a giant, "Fuck you, we already have your money. Hahaha."
As I said, the concept was cool, for its time the stylization was interesting yet overdone, but the characters and story absolutely sucked.
No, a nuclear explosion doesn't mean you get a mushroom cloud.
When you said, "no", you mean, "yes", since that's what I said. I clearly denoted a mushroom cloud is the result of convective-thermal activity. They are not unique to nuclear explosions but they are common with nuclear explosions given that a considerable thermal component is common to most nuclear explosions. Grant, its possible to have a nuclear explosion without a mushroom but its pretty rare.
A large hydrogen explosion is also likely.
That's my point. We have overwhelming evidence as an extremely likely cause - let's go with what's likely.
So what you're saying is, a cop who was profiling, performed an illegal stop, who just happen to get lucky, should not be punished because he's a criminal? Awesome!