If they earn significant amount of money from this bussines that's their job to figure out how to filter out these content. Do you think rapidshare would be that popular if there wasn't any copyrighted material on that site? Or do you think people would visit youtube that often if there only had stupid videos of random people? I think not.
These sites earn money (and very big money) from illegal behavior of the users. Agree with it or not, they exploit the lack of regulations on this front.
Moreover that might be a strategic move from RIM, since they know that NTP can suck much more money from other companies, and that might hurt their competition power. I guess, RIM wanted to fund them to give headache to its competitors.
Your grandma should use a device designed for her age then. Stop thinking PC usage based on grandmas anymore. That's not 90s. Current generation is growing with computers, and they should be intelligent enough to know and grasp the basics of computing.
What's the problem of this kind of American, is thinking that everything they see in movies are for real. Hope you're detached to Avatar soon. You're just living on a virtual baloon that, every while and then it bursts and you sit on your back. What's worrying about this is that others have to pull you up. When they decide not to do that I'm pretty sure you'll see what the real life is. If you can't afford to visit India, then why don't you just STFU and comment on other European countries, where you visited. Ah, if you're unhappy that Indian workers gets your job, then move your fat a** and work harder to get this job back, don't whine.
You must be very experienced third-world trader. Bribing is an ethical issue, and apparently this ethical culture is not limited to the third-world countries, and western countries are also very convenient with bribing. You and those giving your insightful mod are just accusing lots of nations with this kind of ignorant claim.
Actually using bribing as a way of marketing their overpriced products is a practice not because they could not compete with local third-world companies although they are superior, but it's because local companies are clear winner when you put price/performance criteria on the table.
Although you're right that they need bribing in order to compete, it's not because competitors are also bribing, real reason is local companies are as good and a great magnitude cheaper than over-priced products of western companies.
I'm wondering how many cocks CowboyNeal needed to see while collecting ideas for this joke. On the other hand, it's good to know CowboyNeal is using chatrl, so maybe I could meet him some day, only if I know how he looks.
Please mod AC up. A very good summary of what's broken with H.264. With Theora you have only single profile, which is very efficient, and way better than H.264 baseline technically. Just because patent lobby enforces a codec, it does not make their trap magically superior to others. There're facts, proof of concept videos comparing both H.264 and Theora. How come people are so blind, and parroting FUD of how H.264 is so cool and Theora lost the race. There's no race, and there's a usable, well implemented codec. I'm pretty sure if IE, Chrome and Opera support Theora on them, in less than five years amount of time, Theora content on the Internet will outnumber any other video codecs exist online.
Can you please name what are those technical problems if you know what you're babbling? Those comparing Theora and H.264 do not consider H.264 has profiles, however theora is a single profile. Theora is not for high bit rate applications as in Blue-ray (although in high bitrates difference in human observable visual artefacts approach to zero), but it's very well suitable for web based streaming and content. What people complain about Theora is not 'technical' problems, just 'implementation' problems. Theora as a nature needs less calculation while decoding and encoding. If you add same kind of overhead of h.264 to theora, there's nothing that could be worse than h.264 for same bitrates. Theora encoders will be only better if adoption is higher and more manpower behind the implementation. Moreover on simple profile that web is supposed to use for H.264 has even technical shortcomings that Theora does not have.
Microsoft has H.264 licensed, so it has nothing to worry about on that front.
Licensed? They don't need to license it since they are one of those Licensors of H.264. Licensors do not need to pay any fee.
Theora, while it is claimed that it is patent-free, it's not conclusively proven, so it's a potential minefield for anyone choosing to implement it.
This kind of FUD is pretty obvious when you say something but do not back it. Theora has been out for a while and nobody ever claimed any patent on it although lots of big corporations already support it, besides implementing H.264 is more risky since even MPEG-LA admit that their patent pool does not cover all the patents, and just paying for license fee to MPEG-LA you're in not way protected from other claims. In that sense, using any codec format is risky, however with H.264 you admit to pay to fee and restrict yourself without any need. Whoever resist not to pay this fee will not be in browser or web market in future.
Since when GPS measures traffic jam? I'd happily pay 5 bucks more if I won't wait in the traffic for half an hour more. That's the whole point for getting a taxi any ways (ie. being at where you want to be faster).
Google can fool nobody. They lost in China. Baidu is a clear winner. And this hack thing is just to blame for them for their failure. If they were such a big network company they could have easily eliminated such an attack, but they couldn't and now they just don't want to be seen "evil" and blame Chinese government.
They for sure will not leave the China for their operations. It's a huge market. They will just try to hide their incapability but be prepared for better technology for China and they know as much as I do that if they leave the China they will eventually lose market in whole world. If not why it took so long for them close their operations in China? It's just a basic block on Chinese ips which they know what they are.
So mod me down Google fanbois (oh it should hard to find on/.) but that's the reality.
Nokia bought Trolltech in order to get control of QT. And Intel bought OpenedHand in order to improve Clutter and Moblin. Now they merge their platforms, which is based on the Nokia's QT. Money wasted for OpenedHand buy out? It looks like Intel had plenty of money to dump for unstrategic move.
Now it's obvious that QT will evolve for Mobile devices. And GTK will evolve to be a solid Desktop toolkit for Linux. When maemo project started GTK had lost lots of blood because Nokia contribution had no visible benefit to desktop users. That affected GNOME very much. Now I think KDE will suffer this mobile-movement of QT. I hope they won't, but history is evident for it to happen.
Are you talking about GNOME or GNOME Applications? Miguel never tried to embrace GNOME with Mono. You can't show me any mail/blog post regarding with that. Of course he would be happy if Mono was a core dependency of GNOME, but some other people have concerns about necessity of this move. That decision was not based on Microsoft and patents, every single app in GNOME would infringe one or more patent in today's broken USA patent system, decision was based on merits of platform, and Mono couldn't contribute to GNOME desktop. Tomboy was just an application which was test of this. And I believe Gnote showed that there's nothing Mono gives from development productivity point to GNOME at all.
What I'm trying to say is that GNOME has nothing to do with Mono. Neither Canonical's decision about Mono. Canonical produces a distro and they can get benefit from Mono much more than GNOME at all. And indeed why GNOME does not have Mono as a dependency is partly for that. Distributors can add frameworks as their wishes. GNOME does not push them to include any framework, apart from its own. Lastly I want to assure that if Gnote was written in C it would have already replaced Tomboy, which is the only application that needs mono in GNOME.
How did you switch to Mono while mentioning about GNOME? What's the relationship of Mono with GNOME? I'm not against mono, nor I buy the MS hater's attack on it, but why do you hate GNOME and judge it with Mono? Only component in default GNOME desktop that uses Mono is Tomboy, which is far away from being a key tool. Moreover if you need similar functionality with Tomboy, there's GNote, that is C++ port of Tomboy. Mono is not a dependency of GNOME and not seen to be one in forseeable future.
I think only relation of Mono and GNOME is both projects were started by Miguel. Not to mention both projects are very successful F/OSS projects.
If a photo manipulation program has something broken with a new version of kernel, that means developers should be unhappy since they are doing something very wrong at the beginning.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's not science, that's philosophy.
If they earn significant amount of money from this bussines that's their job to figure out how to filter out these content. Do you think rapidshare would be that popular if there wasn't any copyrighted material on that site? Or do you think people would visit youtube that often if there only had stupid videos of random people? I think not.
These sites earn money (and very big money) from illegal behavior of the users. Agree with it or not, they exploit the lack of regulations on this front.
They've already created Go. But nobody wanted to learn it, yet.
They don't care whether you read their ads or not, they only care if you click on them.
Pet project.
Moreover that might be a strategic move from RIM, since they know that NTP can suck much more money from other companies, and that might hurt their competition power. I guess, RIM wanted to fund them to give headache to its competitors.
I don't support design direction of Firefox 4 and Chrome.
Your grandma should use a device designed for her age then. Stop thinking PC usage based on grandmas anymore. That's not 90s. Current generation is growing with computers, and they should be intelligent enough to know and grasp the basics of computing.
It would cost 3 cents now.
What's the problem of this kind of American, is thinking that everything they see in movies are for real. Hope you're detached to Avatar soon. You're just living on a virtual baloon that, every while and then it bursts and you sit on your back. What's worrying about this is that others have to pull you up. When they decide not to do that I'm pretty sure you'll see what the real life is. If you can't afford to visit India, then why don't you just STFU and comment on other European countries, where you visited. Ah, if you're unhappy that Indian workers gets your job, then move your fat a** and work harder to get this job back, don't whine.
You must be very experienced third-world trader. Bribing is an ethical issue, and apparently this ethical culture is not limited to the third-world countries, and western countries are also very convenient with bribing. You and those giving your insightful mod are just accusing lots of nations with this kind of ignorant claim.
Actually using bribing as a way of marketing their overpriced products is a practice not because they could not compete with local third-world companies although they are superior, but it's because local companies are clear winner when you put price/performance criteria on the table.
Although you're right that they need bribing in order to compete, it's not because competitors are also bribing, real reason is local companies are as good and a great magnitude cheaper than over-priced products of western companies.
I'm wondering how many cocks CowboyNeal needed to see while collecting ideas for this joke. On the other hand, it's good to know CowboyNeal is using chatrl, so maybe I could meet him some day, only if I know how he looks.
Even though I don't like Microsoft as many as I do like my sins, their employee is right. Google as in 'do no evil' is just an imagination.
Please mod AC up. A very good summary of what's broken with H.264. With Theora you have only single profile, which is very efficient, and way better than H.264 baseline technically. Just because patent lobby enforces a codec, it does not make their trap magically superior to others. There're facts, proof of concept videos comparing both H.264 and Theora. How come people are so blind, and parroting FUD of how H.264 is so cool and Theora lost the race. There's no race, and there's a usable, well implemented codec. I'm pretty sure if IE, Chrome and Opera support Theora on them, in less than five years amount of time, Theora content on the Internet will outnumber any other video codecs exist online.
Both Apple and Microsoft have patents in MPEG-LA AVC patent pool, so they don't pay royalties.
Can you please name what are those technical problems if you know what you're babbling? Those comparing Theora and H.264 do not consider H.264 has profiles, however theora is a single profile. Theora is not for high bit rate applications as in Blue-ray (although in high bitrates difference in human observable visual artefacts approach to zero), but it's very well suitable for web based streaming and content. What people complain about Theora is not 'technical' problems, just 'implementation' problems. Theora as a nature needs less calculation while decoding and encoding. If you add same kind of overhead of h.264 to theora, there's nothing that could be worse than h.264 for same bitrates. Theora encoders will be only better if adoption is higher and more manpower behind the implementation. Moreover on simple profile that web is supposed to use for H.264 has even technical shortcomings that Theora does not have.
Check answer of Greg Maxwell as a reply to similar FUD that Chris diBona tried to spread if you want to see it with your own eyes.
Microsoft has H.264 licensed, so it has nothing to worry about on that front.
Licensed? They don't need to license it since they are one of those Licensors of H.264. Licensors do not need to pay any fee.
Theora, while it is claimed that it is patent-free, it's not conclusively proven, so it's a potential minefield for anyone choosing to implement it.
This kind of FUD is pretty obvious when you say something but do not back it. Theora has been out for a while and nobody ever claimed any patent on it although lots of big corporations already support it, besides implementing H.264 is more risky since even MPEG-LA admit that their patent pool does not cover all the patents, and just paying for license fee to MPEG-LA you're in not way protected from other claims. In that sense, using any codec format is risky, however with H.264 you admit to pay to fee and restrict yourself without any need. Whoever resist not to pay this fee will not be in browser or web market in future.
Of course they will support (most probably) only H.264. Microsoft is one of those in patent pool of MPEG-LA for AVC.
Since when GPS measures traffic jam? I'd happily pay 5 bucks more if I won't wait in the traffic for half an hour more. That's the whole point for getting a taxi any ways (ie. being at where you want to be faster).
Google can fool nobody. They lost in China. Baidu is a clear winner. And this hack thing is just to blame for them for their failure. If they were such a big network company they could have easily eliminated such an attack, but they couldn't and now they just don't want to be seen "evil" and blame Chinese government.
/.) but that's the reality.
They for sure will not leave the China for their operations. It's a huge market. They will just try to hide their incapability but be prepared for better technology for China and they know as much as I do that if they leave the China they will eventually lose market in whole world. If not why it took so long for them close their operations in China? It's just a basic block on Chinese ips which they know what they are.
So mod me down Google fanbois (oh it should hard to find on
Nokia bought Trolltech in order to get control of QT. And Intel bought OpenedHand in order to improve Clutter and Moblin. Now they merge their platforms, which is based on the Nokia's QT. Money wasted for OpenedHand buy out? It looks like Intel had plenty of money to dump for unstrategic move.
Now it's obvious that QT will evolve for Mobile devices. And GTK will evolve to be a solid Desktop toolkit for Linux. When maemo project started GTK had lost lots of blood because Nokia contribution had no visible benefit to desktop users. That affected GNOME very much. Now I think KDE will suffer this mobile-movement of QT. I hope they won't, but history is evident for it to happen.
Are you talking about GNOME or GNOME Applications? Miguel never tried to embrace GNOME with Mono. You can't show me any mail/blog post regarding with that. Of course he would be happy if Mono was a core dependency of GNOME, but some other people have concerns about necessity of this move. That decision was not based on Microsoft and patents, every single app in GNOME would infringe one or more patent in today's broken USA patent system, decision was based on merits of platform, and Mono couldn't contribute to GNOME desktop. Tomboy was just an application which was test of this. And I believe Gnote showed that there's nothing Mono gives from development productivity point to GNOME at all.
What I'm trying to say is that GNOME has nothing to do with Mono. Neither Canonical's decision about Mono. Canonical produces a distro and they can get benefit from Mono much more than GNOME at all. And indeed why GNOME does not have Mono as a dependency is partly for that. Distributors can add frameworks as their wishes. GNOME does not push them to include any framework, apart from its own. Lastly I want to assure that if Gnote was written in C it would have already replaced Tomboy, which is the only application that needs mono in GNOME.
How did you switch to Mono while mentioning about GNOME? What's the relationship of Mono with GNOME? I'm not against mono, nor I buy the MS hater's attack on it, but why do you hate GNOME and judge it with Mono? Only component in default GNOME desktop that uses Mono is Tomboy, which is far away from being a key tool. Moreover if you need similar functionality with Tomboy, there's GNote, that is C++ port of Tomboy. Mono is not a dependency of GNOME and not seen to be one in forseeable future.
I think only relation of Mono and GNOME is both projects were started by Miguel. Not to mention both projects are very successful F/OSS projects.
Are you aware that Google harvest results based on your previous web history and personal profile?
If a photo manipulation program has something broken with a new version of kernel, that means developers should be unhappy since they are doing something very wrong at the beginning.