Chrome does this, and more: It auto-encodes UTF-8 characters in the URL when you copy the clipboard contents, but shows them as the actual characters in the bar. This is very useful, and not at all a flaw.
Steve is not "going around promoting" anything "like it will replace Flash". He is using the best available video format on his platforms. Just like Flash is. Apple, Adobe and Microsoft are all using h.264, you know?
So to enforce lock-in, Apple and Microsoft are promoting... the same format, which is easily licensable by anyone with even a little bit of money, and which is also used by Flash, their supposed enemy.
One more time: Apple has a single patent in the h.264 pool. Microsoft has something like sixty, and they still pay the MPEG-LA twice what they receive in royalties. And Apple gets pocket change for their patent. Neither have an economic interest in promoting h.264, beyond sunk costs.
Don't make the mistake of believing those companies present any kind of united front here. A lot of them do not hold very many patents in the pool, and are actually paying more to the MPEG-LA than they get back in royalties. For them, it would be beneficial for another format to take over.
The MPEG-LA is an alliance of convenience, it's not some great scheme to force the world to use a certain video format.
Like the previous guy said, Apple holds one single patent in the h.264 pool. Microsoft holds something like sixty, and they STILL pay the MPEG-LA twice in license fees what they get back in royalities.
Apple is getting pocket change for that patent, and they are paying good money to use h.264.
Do not get Iron. It offsers no advantages over Chromium, and it was made by a highly questionable developer who admits spreading FUD about Chrome to increase his own profits.
The idea is to explode the nuke deep underground to collapse the borehole. This works, but it is far from trivial to do several kilometers under the sea.
but I didn't really see an explanation of why its not a viable option?
1. I doubt anyone has nukes designed to function at several kilometers underwater. One would have to be constructed first.
2. You don't just set the nuke off near the hole and hope for the best. You drill a hole into the ground, insert the nuke, and seal the hole, and then explode it to collapse the drill hole. Thus, you need to drill this hole.
Both of these take a lot of time, and there are many, many detail which may not be feasible.
Slashdot Mirror
Chrome does this, and more: It auto-encodes UTF-8 characters in the URL when you copy the clipboard contents, but shows them as the actual characters in the bar. This is very useful, and not at all a flaw.
Those are not things anybody actually does, so that's hardly a problem.
Perhaps the new Chrome will "auto-insert" the protocol prefix when copying the URL to the operating system's clipboard, but I kind of doubt this.
It has done so from the day they introduced this change.
If it doesn't add it properly, you should report that as a bug.
Steve is not "going around promoting" anything "like it will replace Flash". He is using the best available video format on his platforms. Just like Flash is. Apple, Adobe and Microsoft are all using h.264, you know?
So to enforce lock-in, Apple and Microsoft are promoting... the same format, which is easily licensable by anyone with even a little bit of money, and which is also used by Flash, their supposed enemy.
That makes perfect sense.
They can't be sued because they are paying their license fees, just like everyone else using h.264. That has nothing to do with being a member.
All right, that makes sense.
Well, you might call FLV a "proprietary variant" of h.263 and VP6, I guess, but h.264 in Flash does not use FLV, it uses plain old .mp4.
One more time: Apple has a single patent in the h.264 pool. Microsoft has something like sixty, and they still pay the MPEG-LA twice what they receive in royalties. And Apple gets pocket change for their patent. Neither have an economic interest in promoting h.264, beyond sunk costs.
The difference is never more than a factor of two or so in any direction anyway.
Also, you will notice I sneakily never explicitly mentioned any particular kiloton yield!
You know those wacky "kiloton" and "megaton" numbers they use about nukes? That's exactly the weight of the equivalent conventional explosive charge.
Do you have fifteen thousand tons of C4 lying around somewhere?
And still Microsoft pays twice the amount of money in licensing fees that they get back in royalties for their sixty patents.
h.264 is both technically superior and better supported.
Don't make the mistake of believing those companies present any kind of united front here. A lot of them do not hold very many patents in the pool, and are actually paying more to the MPEG-LA than they get back in royalties. For them, it would be beneficial for another format to take over.
The MPEG-LA is an alliance of convenience, it's not some great scheme to force the world to use a certain video format.
Why would Apple not want a codec to win which would save them money? Apple has to pay to use h.264 just like everyone else.
Like the previous guy said, Apple holds one single patent in the h.264 pool. Microsoft holds something like sixty, and they STILL pay the MPEG-LA twice in license fees what they get back in royalities.
Apple is getting pocket change for that patent, and they are paying good money to use h.264.
Well, go do that, then, if it makes you happy.
No. If you worry about Google, get Chromium.
Do not get Iron. It offsers no advantages over Chromium, and it was made by a highly questionable developer who admits spreading FUD about Chrome to increase his own profits.
Remind us again, which crackpot theory is it that you're blindly supporting?
This is why fire departments warn you to never, ever put water on a fire.
The idea is to explode the nuke deep underground to collapse the borehole. This works, but it is far from trivial to do several kilometers under the sea.
but I didn't really see an explanation of why its not a viable option?
1. I doubt anyone has nukes designed to function at several kilometers underwater. One would have to be constructed first.
2. You don't just set the nuke off near the hole and hope for the best. You drill a hole into the ground, insert the nuke, and seal the hole, and then explode it to collapse the drill hole. Thus, you need to drill this hole.
Both of these take a lot of time, and there are many, many detail which may not be feasible.
Yes, simulating the performance of an airplane is impossible, even for a computer!
Yes, it does.