All apps in the app store have a non-obtrusive DRM in them, this means you can’t hand someone a copy of the free app you downloaded.
This is incorrect, at least for the Mac App Store. The Mac App Store provides the tools you need to implement a DRM system in your app. There is no requirement whatsoever that you actually take advantage of this. If you do not implement your own DRM code, there is no DRM.
This is probably preferable to the alternative, which would be that encode licenses would be astronomical sums. With license fees dependent on distribution, that means that those that can afford to pay a lot pay the largest part of the money involved, and smaller companies get away with small sums.
Anybody who works in video distribution knows that distribution may require a different license than just encoding. Encoding software does not and can not include that license.
Again the bullshit about x264 developers being "biased".
He also helped write the fastest VP8 decoder available, you know. Why did he do that if he was so biased against it?
Enough of these ridiculous ad hominem attacks. The guy is incredibly competent in the field, and nobody who's attacked him for what he said is anywhere close.
I'd have thought that the difference between doing the work and writing a report about the work done would be obvious to pretty much anyone, but I guess every day contains surprises.
Actually, that relies on several assumptions, the most important one being a multiple-cell battery. With multiple cells, the cells will rupture due to overpressure from heating at different times, and when they do so, the contained lithium will rapidly burn. Pouring water on this is fairly safe, as the lithium in the ruptured cells has already burned out, and the remaining lithium in the non-ruptured cells is protected from the water by the cell casing. Your goal there is to prevent any further cells from erupting by cooling them down.
A cell phone generally has a single cell, however, and once it ruptures there's no point in trying to cool it down. At this point, the only way to stop the fire is to let all the lithium burn out. If the fire is slow, perhaps because the cell has a very small puncture, then pouring water on it will speed it up. If the single cell has not yet ruptured water may help cool it down, or it may not, and once it ruptures the water may make the fire worse.
When it is fully charged, it is. Remember, it's storing a lot of energy, and it's storing it chemically. This means it needs some pretty reactive materials.
If you puncture a lithium battery, it'll catch fire just from reacting with the oxygen in the air. That is what these laptop and smartphone fires are all about.
So, a third party had to make this spy app for the carriers because Google was not spying enough on users for their taste. And your conclusion is that Google is evil.
If you are actually working with someone, and actually solving hard problems, nothing beats spoken communication. There just isn't anywhere near bandwidth in written communication to actually get any real use out of it.
Written communication is good for time-wasting issues like management. Real work happens through speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you take the plastic bags away at the same time?
I am fairly sure that it is standard practice to take plastic bags away from small children if they start playing with them, yes.
You have some funny ideas about what the average college student does.
If Google mandated this, then Verizon would have to arrange their contracts with their suppliers so that they would get whatever code they need.
The media player also doesn't run on iOS anyway, so the license is the smallest problem there.
All that's resusable for an iOS version is the core libraries, and those have been re-licenesed.
Guess what: They just did that thing you said they couldn't do.
http://www.videolan.org/press/lgpl.html
Pretty rich of you to accuse others of "bullshit", then.
Protects them from actually getting the software they want.
All apps in the app store have a non-obtrusive DRM in them, this means you can’t hand someone a copy of the free app you downloaded.
This is incorrect, at least for the Mac App Store. The Mac App Store provides the tools you need to implement a DRM system in your app. There is no requirement whatsoever that you actually take advantage of this. If you do not implement your own DRM code, there is no DRM.
Honey what?
Yes, that is how the licensing works.
This is probably preferable to the alternative, which would be that encode licenses would be astronomical sums. With license fees dependent on distribution, that means that those that can afford to pay a lot pay the largest part of the money involved, and smaller companies get away with small sums.
Youtube uses an ancient and broken encoder. Comparing it to anything is meaningless.
It is not known to be patent-free, unlike MPEG-1. MPEG-1 is, due to its age, patent-free by definition.
WebM is not in any way better than h.264, and your link does not support this claim.
Anybody who works in video distribution knows that distribution may require a different license than just encoding. Encoding software does not and can not include that license.
VP8 absolutely and objectively technically inferior to h.264. Anybody with any kind of understanding of the field knows that.
Again the bullshit about x264 developers being "biased".
He also helped write the fastest VP8 decoder available, you know. Why did he do that if he was so biased against it?
Enough of these ridiculous ad hominem attacks. The guy is incredibly competent in the field, and nobody who's attacked him for what he said is anywhere close.
The free costs for web content are only temporary.
No, they are permanent.
It is not comparing the severity of the situation. It is comparing the feedback reaction making that makes the situation worse.
I'd have thought that the difference between doing the work and writing a report about the work done would be obvious to pretty much anyone, but I guess every day contains surprises.
Nothing you just said really makes any sense. Also, you are kind of insane.
Actually, that relies on several assumptions, the most important one being a multiple-cell battery. With multiple cells, the cells will rupture due to overpressure from heating at different times, and when they do so, the contained lithium will rapidly burn. Pouring water on this is fairly safe, as the lithium in the ruptured cells has already burned out, and the remaining lithium in the non-ruptured cells is protected from the water by the cell casing. Your goal there is to prevent any further cells from erupting by cooling them down.
A cell phone generally has a single cell, however, and once it ruptures there's no point in trying to cool it down. At this point, the only way to stop the fire is to let all the lithium burn out. If the fire is slow, perhaps because the cell has a very small puncture, then pouring water on it will speed it up. If the single cell has not yet ruptured water may help cool it down, or it may not, and once it ruptures the water may make the fire worse.
The only thing that ever catches fire in a phone is the battery. Your pedantry is misdirected, and kind of dangerous.
When it is fully charged, it is. Remember, it's storing a lot of energy, and it's storing it chemically. This means it needs some pretty reactive materials.
If you puncture a lithium battery, it'll catch fire just from reacting with the oxygen in the air. That is what these laptop and smartphone fires are all about.
So, a third party had to make this spy app for the carriers because Google was not spying enough on users for their taste. And your conclusion is that Google is evil.
Try throwing water on an exposed lithium battery and see how well that works out.
If you are actually working with someone, and actually solving hard problems, nothing beats spoken communication. There just isn't anywhere near bandwidth in written communication to actually get any real use out of it.
Written communication is good for time-wasting issues like management. Real work happens through speech.