You're completely right. The guy literally confessed. The whole first paragraph is a confession. In most courts around the world, the moron literally handed them probable cause to be investigated to the full extent the law allows. Not to mention he provided written proof of being non-apologetic which concurrently admitting he committed crime.
This is really a non-story. Dip ship antagonizes lawyers and provides confession to feed them. Idiot is amazed lawyers pursue. I seriously hope this moron is sterile.
At this point, it doesn't matter one bit if he did it or not because he more or less legally obligated them to pursue the case. And given that he literally handed them probable cause, its not reasonable for him to be able to demand attorney fees - well, not in most courts.
Idiots like him are exactly why lawyers always tell everyone, don't say a word and keep your fucking mouth shut.
There are solutions. Many articles have been written about this very question. I'm not providing details because the author of the article should have simply used Google rather than wasting all of our time with the article.
Literally, many articles have been written on how to use data only Android smart phone + sipdroid + gv + sip provider for more or less free (or extremely cheap) phone services. The major limitation is you only have phone service when WIFI is available. The second limitation is WIFI is the least power efficient communication method available on a smart phone and battery life will suffer accordingly.
Remember, when using a smart phone as a phone and the display is turned off, the phone is able to power down a lot of components. When running on WIFI, the primary CPU + WIFI radio is running for the entire phone call. The combination means much, much higher battery drain when compared to highly efficient voice calls. Remember, data calls means doing in software (on the CPU) what specialized hardware (not on the CPU) does for voice calls.
Question: What EXACTLY is the point of this ever faster JavaScript race for anyway?
Its pretty simple actually. More and more applications are becoming web applications. For Google this is especially important. The more appealing the platform (browser) they can create for developers and users, the more web applications are likely to exist. For Google this directly translates into either revenue or data to be mined, which in turn means revenue.
Try the about:memory trick in Chrome/Chromium to run tests yourself. With just 5/. pages open and NO ADS we are talking over 200Mb of memory! For 5 pages of just text?
The problem with that analysis is that its completely wrong. It gives an extremely poor impression of what is really going on. The simple fact is, its not, "just text." Web browsers are extremely complex and rather technologically advanced. "Its text", in the same way a compiler, runtime environment + interpreter, GUI toolkit, multiple parsers, network engine (multiple protocols), cache engine, encryption engine, and preference/configuration engine is, "just text." Furthermore, to display that simple text means its established a network connection, pulled the data, checked to see if a cached version was locally available, parsed it, interpreted the HTML, applied it to its own GUI, and rendered it for you the user; and that's the most simplistic of paths.
No. Meaning, females would have a preference for males without the spines. Thusly, creating a selection bias.
Why is it everyone has to be a sarcastic prick just because they can't see the bigger picture - or too lazy to think "into" the statement rather than demand extremely verbose and tedious language which is usually not required in the least.
I would guess the selection had more to do with females being able to more easily breed with one mate and have another mate take care of her brood. Time and time again, that seems to provide for fairly strong selective bias.
Robots, on the other hand, can NEVER be empathetic or kind--and we know this without a doubt. There touch isn't a connection and never can be. That introduces a creep factor that no amount of programming or human emulation can ever fix. Because we know they have no base morality or emotion and are incapable of empathy, robots will always inherently creep people out at best, or scare the shit out of them at worst.
If you've ever watched AFV or any number of videos on YouTube, robots can easily have more humanity and empathy than many humans. If the number of views many of these videos have mean anything, we already have massive numbers empathetic robots offering fake sympathy. Its at this point where metal versus flesh becomes a distinction without a difference.
I strongly encourage you to go learn more about the military, tactics, and the physiology required for those who are ordered into harms way. The reality is, you are very likely talking about yourself; which does not validate anything you've said. Factually, just about everything you said is false.
again legally as well as morally, is placed squarely on the combatants who have hidden among them.
I agree. Which is why ultimately this has become a war of mind share and associated propaganda. Unfortunately, the press and a wikileaks has done wonders for undermining the war of propaganda while empowering terrorists. The simply truth is, the military would be far more likely to admit civilian deaths if they were not already constantly wrongly accused for civilian deaths were were actually armed militants. But getting the average people to understand this seems very much an up hill battle.
I suggest you go to their website and do some simple math.
I did. That's how I came to that conclusion. Why do angry over simply math. You may not save money with your options but it can be done. I didn't say in absolute terms.
Why it is so hard for supposedly smart people to actually use their head? That's rhetorical.
Headline should read, Poorly Designed Aviation equipment Suffer interference From WIFI, with the body reading, "...when WIFI transmits at levels far in excess of consumer equipment."
There isn't a story here.
Phone use in airplanes has always been about economics and excessive use of scarce ground resources.
I went through this a little over a year ago. Last time I went through the numbers, it was break even at line four and discount at line five. Obviously things vary based on the exact options and time associated with you plan.
Please do note I said, "likely". I specifically avoided absolutes here.
The primary purpose of my post was to get people to look. Its very possible they can save money with multiple, individual plans rather than a family plan if they are not maxing the number of lines.
unlimited text messaging
Unless you're a teenage girl, changes are you're paying something like $10-$15/m (forget exact amounts now) too much here. Chances are, unlimited text makes sense for your daughter but it doesn't make sense for you or you're wife. You didn't say what you and your wife's text usage is, but changes are you can save $20-$30/mo by using a more limited texting plan on those phones. Really, unless you are a very heavy text user, unlimited texting never makes sense. They have other texting plans but they are generally not advertised because they make lots of money from people who buy the unlimited plan but don't actually use it.
Besides, if you have a smart phone, the need for SMS and MMS is dramatically reduced. In fact, if you're circle of friends and family have smart phones, its likely MUCH cheaper to not have a text plan at all. Obviously your daughter is an exception because her circle of friends likely doesn't include smart phones given the volume of messages she generates.
Seriously, if you look, and depending on your options, lots of money have be saved. All too often, its not hard to save money by NOT using a family plan if you only have a couple of phones on the plan.
* Please note, my statements are also under the assumption their pricing hasn't significantly changed over the last year plus.
The single biggest problem the public has with these videos is they are extremely ignorant of operational details. Generally speaking, the more ignorant people are they more upset they are at the video in question.
How far away were the apaches from the armed individuals?
It doesn't matter. In a war zone, if you carry a weapon, you are classified as a combatant. The local population is constantly told not to carry weapons. Weapons are constantly confiscated. Much of the weaponry the local police have, have actually been confiscated from the local citizenry.
Such a question is also extremely loaded. The point of the Apache's capabilities is to act as a stand-off weapon. If it can resolve conflict without involving ground troops, they are obligated to do so. The Apache is armored and most bullet proof to small arms fire. Most ground troops are not. If you've ever seen "Blackhard Down", that's what happens when helicopters are ordered to violate their operational procedures. Thusly, standard procedure is to remain at distance until the threat is fully evolved and measured.
Why should the apaches not fire on non uniformed, unidentified, ARMED individuals within line-of-sight of active combat involving friendly troops?
Because no one wears a uniform. Interestingly enough, combatants who do not wear uniforms or wear the enemy uniform do not receive protection of the Geneva Convention and can literally be summarily executed on the spot - all completely legal.
Standard operating procedures for the terrorists there is almost exactly what you saw in the video. The come together in groups, go to their target, kill people, and then blend back into the general population. Worse, the commonly have vans fly into the area to pick up dropped weapons and the wounded. Occasionally, they kill the wounded to prevent them from talking. As a result of their "van tactics", they then cry to the world innocent people have been murdered by uniformed troops - after all, no weapons were found with them. The sad fact is, an extremely large number of "civilian deaths", are actually illegal combatants who have had their weapons removed before ground troops could arrive and contain.
From a propaganda perspective, this is extremely effective. From a military perspective, they don't want actual civilian deaths released because they've already been blamed for civilian deaths which were actually not so.
The simply fact is, if you are observed traveling with illegal combatants, unless they have information which indicates otherwise, you are legally an illegal combatant. That mixed with questionable behavior plus refusal to properly identify ones self as press (which any sane, half intelligent press member does), makes one a legal yet tragic target.
HTML5 is an emerging standard. You're argument is it can't be because the world doesn't look like what didn't exist. WTF? I don't think you understand how technology adoption works.
YouTube is an extremely huge chunk of the online video market. WebM is finally becoming available on hardware. Future generation hardware is likely to provide yet additional performance boosts. Video quality has achieved parity with H.264. WebM is faster to decode than H.264 and likely to be much, much faster in future releases. This means better battery life when compared to H.264. WebM is now multi-core ready and likely to continue to increase its scalability in the future.
About the only place H.264 has a clear advantage over WebM is its significantly faster at encoding. But frankly, given the ratio of content creation to consumption, I'm honestly not sure that matters for the vast, vast majority of consumers.
Why are they, "too late", when ever indicator, and I mean every indicator, says the exact opposite of what you're saying? So why should we listen to you versus the market forces which are actually shaping, you know, the market?
ow you buy a multi-line plan....say a family plan consisting of 5 lines.
Last I looked, the family plan doesn't require five phones. A family plan was simply shared minutes with two or more phones. The problem is, its actually more expensive until you get five phones on your plan. Verizon's family plan actually makes no sense. Traditionally, shared minutes was a means of cheaper service. But with Verizon, you actually pay a premium for cheaper service until you have reached five lines and then its only slightly discounted.
If you are a Verizon customer and on a family plan and do not have five phones on the account, very, very, very likely you can save money by moving away from the family plan and converting to individual plans without shared minutes.
Texting is so much less data being sent in small packets while voice requires so much more infrastructure
Its even more insulting than that. Text data is actually carried by the control channel which every phone must have to register on the network. All they did was increase the packet size of the control channel messages. That's why there is a text message size limit. The RF portion of transport is really what costs them and their extra cost for carrying SMS is literally, almost zero. On a busy tower, they can fit 9 SMS messages into a single ethernet frame which means. SMS is the most expensive data for consumers and the cheapest for carriers. The fact SMS isn't a completely free service is mind numbing.
Please note, I said it is unencumbered, not that it doesn't have any. This is according to Google. Such claims are legitimate unless someone can prove otherwise. Seemingly such claims carry significant weight given the MPEG community's effort at trying to locate ammo. Its likely they've already looked fairly hard and have been unable to find anything which is why they went publicly shopping.
The only exception, of course, is iOS where users will not be allowed to use WebM, so I guess you'll go for H264.
The problem with that is the market has changed and will continue to move away from Apple as a significant market segment. It used to be Apple and RIM where the only mobile platforms with clout. Now Android is pushing RIM out and eclipsing Apple in the numbers game. Which means, in the next couple of years to decade or so, if Apple doesn't support WebM, their owners will likely have an inferior experience which in turn likely means reduced sales which in turn quickly spirals into Apple supporting WebM or it becoming a dying platform.
Apple may not support WebM today but the writing is already on the wall they will support it tomorrow; either by sheer user demand or by falling market share.
By introducing the h.264/VP8 debate prematurely, Google have derailed the progress of HTML5.
You mean by creating competition before a defacto incumbent could be entrenched, they stopped HTML5; which ignores video was a tiny, tiny element of the spec? WTF?
Coupled with the stagnation of HTML5 YouTube and increased reliance on Adobe Flash in Google Maps, Stocks, Analytics and Android, it appears that Google have gone off HTML5. How long till Google Docs and gMail become Flash-based?
So you're saying their open support for HTML5, such that they don't want to support flash vs a current need to drive their business can only be interpreted as support for flash? Paranoid much? You're conflating a business need now with a business need for tomorrow. They used what's available. They're working to change that for tomorrow. Someone you interpret very clear anti-flash behavior for being pro-flash to the detriment of themselves. How could you have possibly reached that conclusion?
HTML5 didn't exist yesterday. Flash did exist yesterday. Their only options were, use flash, create an entirely new technology which wouldn't be supported by other browsers, or push for a new standard. They picked the first option, to address current business needs and the third option to address tomorrow's business needs. I don't see the problem. Its the same decision any half way decent businessman would have made.
Not marginally so. Not just a little bit. But massively so.
Pure delusion. The latest release of WebM almost completely closes quality gap. H.264 still has a huge lead in encoding performance. WebM has an edge in decoding performance. Given, as consumers, who have a primary need to decode, which makes more sense.
So basically we have more or less visual quality parity between H.264 and WebM. Hardware support is steadily growing for WebM which means battery life parity. H.264 is clear champ at encoding performance. WebM is pushing ahead of H.264 at decoding performance. For most devices, the later means superior battery life.
Contrary to you delusion, WebM looks to be offering H.264 some serious competition.
I mean, like Android, this is really the most bullshit kind of open sourcing.
That is a complete bullshit statement and a complete lie. Propaganda much?
Android does accept input and patches. Not only have bugs I've filed been fixed, at least one of my recommended patches are now running in Android; which was first adopted by third party roms. As are hundreds of other patches and improvements. And no, I do not work for Google or a carrier.
Android absolutely is open source in the most literal sense. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or an idiot with an agenda.
With your idiotic logic, Linux isn't open source because we don't all have the source and/or input into the bios and firmware of all the installed components.
Slashdot Mirror
You're completely right. The guy literally confessed. The whole first paragraph is a confession. In most courts around the world, the moron literally handed them probable cause to be investigated to the full extent the law allows. Not to mention he provided written proof of being non-apologetic which concurrently admitting he committed crime.
This is really a non-story. Dip ship antagonizes lawyers and provides confession to feed them. Idiot is amazed lawyers pursue. I seriously hope this moron is sterile.
At this point, it doesn't matter one bit if he did it or not because he more or less legally obligated them to pursue the case. And given that he literally handed them probable cause, its not reasonable for him to be able to demand attorney fees - well, not in most courts.
Idiots like him are exactly why lawyers always tell everyone, don't say a word and keep your fucking mouth shut.
There are solutions. Many articles have been written about this very question. I'm not providing details because the author of the article should have simply used Google rather than wasting all of our time with the article.
Literally, many articles have been written on how to use data only Android smart phone + sipdroid + gv + sip provider for more or less free (or extremely cheap) phone services. The major limitation is you only have phone service when WIFI is available. The second limitation is WIFI is the least power efficient communication method available on a smart phone and battery life will suffer accordingly.
Remember, when using a smart phone as a phone and the display is turned off, the phone is able to power down a lot of components. When running on WIFI, the primary CPU + WIFI radio is running for the entire phone call. The combination means much, much higher battery drain when compared to highly efficient voice calls. Remember, data calls means doing in software (on the CPU) what specialized hardware (not on the CPU) does for voice calls.
Question: What EXACTLY is the point of this ever faster JavaScript race for anyway?
Its pretty simple actually. More and more applications are becoming web applications. For Google this is especially important. The more appealing the platform (browser) they can create for developers and users, the more web applications are likely to exist. For Google this directly translates into either revenue or data to be mined, which in turn means revenue.
Try the about:memory trick in Chrome/Chromium to run tests yourself. With just 5 /. pages open and NO ADS we are talking over 200Mb of memory! For 5 pages of just text?
The problem with that analysis is that its completely wrong. It gives an extremely poor impression of what is really going on. The simple fact is, its not, "just text." Web browsers are extremely complex and rather technologically advanced. "Its text", in the same way a compiler, runtime environment + interpreter, GUI toolkit, multiple parsers, network engine (multiple protocols), cache engine, encryption engine, and preference/configuration engine is, "just text." Furthermore, to display that simple text means its established a network connection, pulled the data, checked to see if a cached version was locally available, parsed it, interpreted the HTML, applied it to its own GUI, and rendered it for you the user; and that's the most simplistic of paths.
No. Meaning, females would have a preference for males without the spines. Thusly, creating a selection bias.
Why is it everyone has to be a sarcastic prick just because they can't see the bigger picture - or too lazy to think "into" the statement rather than demand extremely verbose and tedious language which is usually not required in the least.
I would guess the selection had more to do with females being able to more easily breed with one mate and have another mate take care of her brood. Time and time again, that seems to provide for fairly strong selective bias.
Robots, on the other hand, can NEVER be empathetic or kind--and we know this without a doubt. There touch isn't a connection and never can be. That introduces a creep factor that no amount of programming or human emulation can ever fix. Because we know they have no base morality or emotion and are incapable of empathy, robots will always inherently creep people out at best, or scare the shit out of them at worst.
If you've ever watched AFV or any number of videos on YouTube, robots can easily have more humanity and empathy than many humans. If the number of views many of these videos have mean anything, we already have massive numbers empathetic robots offering fake sympathy. Its at this point where metal versus flesh becomes a distinction without a difference.
Wow - you are woefully ignorant of reality.
I strongly encourage you to go learn more about the military, tactics, and the physiology required for those who are ordered into harms way. The reality is, you are very likely talking about yourself; which does not validate anything you've said. Factually, just about everything you said is false.
again legally as well as morally, is placed squarely on the combatants who have hidden among them.
I agree. Which is why ultimately this has become a war of mind share and associated propaganda. Unfortunately, the press and a wikileaks has done wonders for undermining the war of propaganda while empowering terrorists. The simply truth is, the military would be far more likely to admit civilian deaths if they were not already constantly wrongly accused for civilian deaths were were actually armed militants. But getting the average people to understand this seems very much an up hill battle.
I suggest you go to their website and do some simple math.
I did. That's how I came to that conclusion. Why do angry over simply math. You may not save money with your options but it can be done. I didn't say in absolute terms.
Why it is so hard for supposedly smart people to actually use their head? That's rhetorical.
Headline should read, Poorly Designed Aviation equipment Suffer interference From WIFI, with the body reading, "...when WIFI transmits at levels far in excess of consumer equipment."
There isn't a story here.
Phone use in airplanes has always been about economics and excessive use of scarce ground resources.
I went through this a little over a year ago. Last time I went through the numbers, it was break even at line four and discount at line five. Obviously things vary based on the exact options and time associated with you plan.
Please do note I said, "likely". I specifically avoided absolutes here.
The primary purpose of my post was to get people to look. Its very possible they can save money with multiple, individual plans rather than a family plan if they are not maxing the number of lines.
unlimited text messaging
Unless you're a teenage girl, changes are you're paying something like $10-$15/m (forget exact amounts now) too much here. Chances are, unlimited text makes sense for your daughter but it doesn't make sense for you or you're wife. You didn't say what you and your wife's text usage is, but changes are you can save $20-$30/mo by using a more limited texting plan on those phones. Really, unless you are a very heavy text user, unlimited texting never makes sense. They have other texting plans but they are generally not advertised because they make lots of money from people who buy the unlimited plan but don't actually use it.
Besides, if you have a smart phone, the need for SMS and MMS is dramatically reduced. In fact, if you're circle of friends and family have smart phones, its likely MUCH cheaper to not have a text plan at all. Obviously your daughter is an exception because her circle of friends likely doesn't include smart phones given the volume of messages she generates.
Seriously, if you look, and depending on your options, lots of money have be saved. All too often, its not hard to save money by NOT using a family plan if you only have a couple of phones on the plan.
* Please note, my statements are also under the assumption their pricing hasn't significantly changed over the last year plus.
The single biggest problem the public has with these videos is they are extremely ignorant of operational details. Generally speaking, the more ignorant people are they more upset they are at the video in question.
How far away were the apaches from the armed individuals?
It doesn't matter. In a war zone, if you carry a weapon, you are classified as a combatant. The local population is constantly told not to carry weapons. Weapons are constantly confiscated. Much of the weaponry the local police have, have actually been confiscated from the local citizenry.
Such a question is also extremely loaded. The point of the Apache's capabilities is to act as a stand-off weapon. If it can resolve conflict without involving ground troops, they are obligated to do so. The Apache is armored and most bullet proof to small arms fire. Most ground troops are not. If you've ever seen "Blackhard Down", that's what happens when helicopters are ordered to violate their operational procedures. Thusly, standard procedure is to remain at distance until the threat is fully evolved and measured.
Why should the apaches not fire on non uniformed, unidentified, ARMED individuals within line-of-sight of active combat involving friendly troops?
Because no one wears a uniform. Interestingly enough, combatants who do not wear uniforms or wear the enemy uniform do not receive protection of the Geneva Convention and can literally be summarily executed on the spot - all completely legal.
Standard operating procedures for the terrorists there is almost exactly what you saw in the video. The come together in groups, go to their target, kill people, and then blend back into the general population. Worse, the commonly have vans fly into the area to pick up dropped weapons and the wounded. Occasionally, they kill the wounded to prevent them from talking. As a result of their "van tactics", they then cry to the world innocent people have been murdered by uniformed troops - after all, no weapons were found with them. The sad fact is, an extremely large number of "civilian deaths", are actually illegal combatants who have had their weapons removed before ground troops could arrive and contain.
From a propaganda perspective, this is extremely effective. From a military perspective, they don't want actual civilian deaths released because they've already been blamed for civilian deaths which were actually not so.
The simply fact is, if you are observed traveling with illegal combatants, unless they have information which indicates otherwise, you are legally an illegal combatant. That mixed with questionable behavior plus refusal to properly identify ones self as press (which any sane, half intelligent press member does), makes one a legal yet tragic target.
With that logic, the Internet doesn't exist.
HTML5 is an emerging standard. You're argument is it can't be because the world doesn't look like what didn't exist. WTF? I don't think you understand how technology adoption works.
YouTube is an extremely huge chunk of the online video market. WebM is finally becoming available on hardware. Future generation hardware is likely to provide yet additional performance boosts. Video quality has achieved parity with H.264. WebM is faster to decode than H.264 and likely to be much, much faster in future releases. This means better battery life when compared to H.264. WebM is now multi-core ready and likely to continue to increase its scalability in the future.
About the only place H.264 has a clear advantage over WebM is its significantly faster at encoding. But frankly, given the ratio of content creation to consumption, I'm honestly not sure that matters for the vast, vast majority of consumers.
Why are they, "too late", when ever indicator, and I mean every indicator, says the exact opposite of what you're saying? So why should we listen to you versus the market forces which are actually shaping, you know, the market?
ow you buy a multi-line plan....say a family plan consisting of 5 lines.
Last I looked, the family plan doesn't require five phones. A family plan was simply shared minutes with two or more phones. The problem is, its actually more expensive until you get five phones on your plan. Verizon's family plan actually makes no sense. Traditionally, shared minutes was a means of cheaper service. But with Verizon, you actually pay a premium for cheaper service until you have reached five lines and then its only slightly discounted.
If you are a Verizon customer and on a family plan and do not have five phones on the account, very, very, very likely you can save money by moving away from the family plan and converting to individual plans without shared minutes.
Texting is so much less data being sent in small packets while voice requires so much more infrastructure
Its even more insulting than that. Text data is actually carried by the control channel which every phone must have to register on the network. All they did was increase the packet size of the control channel messages. That's why there is a text message size limit. The RF portion of transport is really what costs them and their extra cost for carrying SMS is literally, almost zero. On a busy tower, they can fit 9 SMS messages into a single ethernet frame which means. SMS is the most expensive data for consumers and the cheapest for carriers. The fact SMS isn't a completely free service is mind numbing.
"fanboy" is another way of saying zealot. Liking something is not the same thing as zealotry. They are worlds apart.
Please note, I said it is unencumbered, not that it doesn't have any. This is according to Google. Such claims are legitimate unless someone can prove otherwise. Seemingly such claims carry significant weight given the MPEG community's effort at trying to locate ammo. Its likely they've already looked fairly hard and have been unable to find anything which is why they went publicly shopping.
The only exception, of course, is iOS where users will not be allowed to use WebM, so I guess you'll go for H264.
The problem with that is the market has changed and will continue to move away from Apple as a significant market segment. It used to be Apple and RIM where the only mobile platforms with clout. Now Android is pushing RIM out and eclipsing Apple in the numbers game. Which means, in the next couple of years to decade or so, if Apple doesn't support WebM, their owners will likely have an inferior experience which in turn likely means reduced sales which in turn quickly spirals into Apple supporting WebM or it becoming a dying platform.
Apple may not support WebM today but the writing is already on the wall they will support it tomorrow; either by sheer user demand or by falling market share.
By introducing the h.264/VP8 debate prematurely, Google have derailed the progress of HTML5.
You mean by creating competition before a defacto incumbent could be entrenched, they stopped HTML5; which ignores video was a tiny, tiny element of the spec? WTF?
Coupled with the stagnation of HTML5 YouTube and increased reliance on Adobe Flash in Google Maps, Stocks, Analytics and Android, it appears that Google have gone off HTML5. How long till Google Docs and gMail become Flash-based?
So you're saying their open support for HTML5, such that they don't want to support flash vs a current need to drive their business can only be interpreted as support for flash? Paranoid much? You're conflating a business need now with a business need for tomorrow. They used what's available. They're working to change that for tomorrow. Someone you interpret very clear anti-flash behavior for being pro-flash to the detriment of themselves. How could you have possibly reached that conclusion?
HTML5 didn't exist yesterday. Flash did exist yesterday. Their only options were, use flash, create an entirely new technology which wouldn't be supported by other browsers, or push for a new standard. They picked the first option, to address current business needs and the third option to address tomorrow's business needs. I don't see the problem. Its the same decision any half way decent businessman would have made.
Yes, it doesn't contradict anything you said, except for the parts where you talked about Android.
Not marginally so. Not just a little bit. But massively so.
Pure delusion. The latest release of WebM almost completely closes quality gap. H.264 still has a huge lead in encoding performance. WebM has an edge in decoding performance. Given, as consumers, who have a primary need to decode, which makes more sense.
So basically we have more or less visual quality parity between H.264 and WebM. Hardware support is steadily growing for WebM which means battery life parity. H.264 is clear champ at encoding performance. WebM is pushing ahead of H.264 at decoding performance. For most devices, the later means superior battery life.
Contrary to you delusion, WebM looks to be offering H.264 some serious competition.
I mean, like Android, this is really the most bullshit kind of open sourcing.
That is a complete bullshit statement and a complete lie. Propaganda much?
Android does accept input and patches. Not only have bugs I've filed been fixed, at least one of my recommended patches are now running in Android; which was first adopted by third party roms. As are hundreds of other patches and improvements. And no, I do not work for Google or a carrier.
Android absolutely is open source in the most literal sense. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or an idiot with an agenda.
With your idiotic logic, Linux isn't open source because we don't all have the source and/or input into the bios and firmware of all the installed components.
Posted too quickly and forgot the reference for the quote.
H.264 is open standard.
Yes. Exactly! Its open in the same way a closed door is open.
To quote a poster at OSNews.com:
WebM: unencumbered by patents, free, Free, open source, can be implemented by anyone - wherever, whenever, however.
H264: none of the above, but instead of being developed by a single company, it was developed by a few big shots.
And somehow, H264 is more open?
So yes, absolutely, H.264 is completely open so long as you completely redefine what "open" means so as to make us ignore the man behind the curtain.
Since you mention codecs, Google just released a version of VP8 for the WebM project. The improvements are noteworthy.