The FSF seems particularly misguided or unaware of the larger context it is working in. Google's position on WebM, realistically, means that Flash's dominance on the web is going to be prolonged. After all, it's not likely anybody is going to seriously adopt WebM while Google continues to support Flash.
So, while theoretically the FSF should be about freedom of the user and the community, the actual implication of their stance is to bolster proprietary formats (Adobe Flash) and monopolistic control of the internet (Google).
Nokia may not be doing well in smart phones, but comparatively feature phones make smart phones look like a drop in the bucket.
In raw sales numbers, perhaps. But they don't make very much profit at all. Smartphones are where the money is to be made, both by manufacturers and service providers.
Toaster: Howdy doodly do. How's it going? I'm Talkie, Talkie Toaster, your chirpy breakfast companion. Talkie's the name, toasting's the game. Anyone like any toast?
Lister: Look, I don't want any toast, and he doesn't want any toast. In fact, no one around here wants any toast. Not now, not ever. No toast.
Toaster: How 'bout a muffin?
Lister: Or muffins. We don't like muffins around here. We want no muffins, no toast, no teacakes, no buns, baps, baguettes or bagels, no croissants, no crumpets, no pancakes, no potato cakes and no hot-cross buns and definitely no smegging flapjacks.
If you aren't even a facebook user, you might want to add the antisocial subscription [adblockplus.org] to adblock, since those little facebook icons are just as useless as the social bookmarking buttons of yore, but more viral.
As a Facebook non-user, those little icons serve a valuable purpose. They help me identify which websites to never visit again.
Without "grammar snobs," language wouldn't exist as more than a series of grunts. The beautiful thing about language is that we can refine it and use it to perform amazing tasks if we use it precisely.
it isn't desirable to bundle it but until adobe steps up their game it is certainly the best option.
Wouldn't the best option not to bundle it at all, and allow the user to choose if they want to install it? Why are they encouraging people to use Flash in any form? Especially when they claim to be all about open standards.
How could something that is not desirable be the best option?
Type about:plugins in Chrome. Find "Flash" plugin. Hit Disable.
What does this have to do with my post? My point was that Chrome does not use a standard system-wide method for installing Flash, and actually bundles Flash with the browser.
chrome's flash plugin isn't installed to the system path like most plugins are, it's installed to its installation directory. hence why i said it was bundled, and not silently installed. ffmpeg is also bundled.
You said it was "in standard plugin form." Clearly, it is not, as it uses a non-standard installation location.
Regardless, Chrome is the only browser which bundles the Flash plugin. Hence the hypocrisy - not supporting an open standard, yet deliberately shipping a proprietary plugin.
What's wrong with doer? It's a perfectly good English word--it was quite old already when Shakespeare used it.
Regardless of the appropriateness of "doer" the most obvious fault is with "Israeli." Presumably we are are talking about the actions of the government of Israel. In which case "Israel is the doer" would be appropriate. If your were talking about the people of Israel committing the act, then "Israelis are the doers" would be an acceptable phrase.
Much better would be "The alleged culprit is the government of Israel."
chrome only bundles flash in standard plugin form; it is not integrated. the bundled plugin can be disabled or deleted from the filesystem.
Clearly it doesn't, as I have removed the Flash plugin from my Mac, which has disabled Flash in Safari and Firefox, yet Chrome continues to play Flash, even though the system plugin has been removed.
I've noticed that cynical disposition and the constant need to shit on anything that remotely looks like fun is inversely proportional to one's lack of accomplishments.
In other words, the need to shit on anything that remotely looks like fun is directly proportional to one's accomplishments? I don't think you got that formula quite right.
h.264 is proprietary in theory you have to license the decoder and the encode
Only if you have a very unusual definition of "proprietary." In this context, proprietary means "owned or controlled by one company." H.264 is an open standard.
Its only free to stream it, if I understand correctly.
"Proprietary" has nothing to do with how much something costs in monetary terms. It's absolutely possibly to have an open standard that costs money. Just as it is possible to have a proprietary format that doesn't cost any money.
Google is not retaining flash Crome does not support flash, its plugin just like it is for every other browser.
No, it doesn't. Chrome is the only browser with a built-in Flash renderer that doesn't rely on a plugin. Google ships Flash code with every copy of Chrome.
Get you facts strait.
You might want to look into doing that yourself, as well as straightening up your spelling.
In the public's mind, Microsoft is Bill Gates. Therefore, anything he does reflects on Microsoft. In Bill Gates' mind, he is Microsoft, so anything he does is naturally a part of Microsoft.
What is even better is that Android is front runner in the cell phone market so now Apple and MS can suck a big fat twinkie when Google turns the tables on them and removes support for h.264 from android.
... and watch as Android devices suddenly get much worse performance and battery life, because WebM isn't hardware accelerated like H.264 is. Yeah, what a great plan.
Aside from the fact that Google couldn't afford it, the shareholders and Boards of Directors of the target companies would not approve it. Neither would federal regulators.
than how would you describe Apple and Microsoft's work to make sure the only way to play a video is the use of a proprietary format?
H.264 isn't proprietary. Also, what you're missing is that Google has removed support for an open standard, while retaining a proprietary format (Flash).
I'm not quite sure why this was assigned to MS; I'm aware that the Gates foundation [wikipedia.org] is doing work in this arena, but why they'd want to file a patent on it is unclear and using MS to do so is downright weird.
Why are you confused? It's been clear since its inception that the Gates Foundation is the propaganda wing of Microsoft.
Exactly. On internet people download and upload. They "consume" media but produce it as well.
You know, people produce media for TV, film and radio too. Where do you think the shows come from? Robots? They even have these things called "credits" which list people including those with a job title of "producer."
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't you, as a video host, much rather have to worry about supporting two open, royalty-free formats than several closed ones?
Which two formats are you referring to here?
The FSF seems particularly misguided or unaware of the larger context it is working in. Google's position on WebM, realistically, means that Flash's dominance on the web is going to be prolonged. After all, it's not likely anybody is going to seriously adopt WebM while Google continues to support Flash.
So, while theoretically the FSF should be about freedom of the user and the community, the actual implication of their stance is to bolster proprietary formats (Adobe Flash) and monopolistic control of the internet (Google).
Nokia may not be doing well in smart phones, but comparatively feature phones make smart phones look like a drop in the bucket.
In raw sales numbers, perhaps. But they don't make very much profit at all. Smartphones are where the money is to be made, both by manufacturers and service providers.
I think Blackberries being replaced in the enterprise enviroment is about as liklly as Gmail replacing Outlook.
Which is what our medium-large company has just done. Don't you know Google has been offering corporate/institutional services for quite a while?
Toaster: Howdy doodly do. How's it going? I'm Talkie, Talkie Toaster, your chirpy breakfast companion. Talkie's the name, toasting's the game. Anyone like any toast?
Lister: Look, I don't want any toast, and he doesn't want any toast. In fact, no one around here wants any toast. Not now, not ever. No toast.
Toaster: How 'bout a muffin?
Lister: Or muffins. We don't like muffins around here. We want no muffins, no toast, no teacakes, no buns, baps, baguettes or bagels, no croissants, no crumpets, no pancakes, no potato cakes and no hot-cross buns and definitely no smegging flapjacks.
Toaster: Aah, so you're a waffle man.
Online dating company Gotham Dating Partners...
How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not interested in dating Batman? What a goddamn passive-aggressive slut.
If you aren't even a facebook user, you might want to add the antisocial subscription [adblockplus.org] to adblock,
since those little facebook icons are just as useless as the social bookmarking buttons of yore, but more viral.
As a Facebook non-user, those little icons serve a valuable purpose. They help me identify which websites to never visit again.
Without "grammar snobs," language wouldn't exist as more than a series of grunts. The beautiful thing about language is that we can refine it and use it to perform amazing tasks if we use it precisely.
it isn't desirable to bundle it but until adobe steps up their game it is certainly the best option.
Wouldn't the best option not to bundle it at all, and allow the user to choose if they want to install it? Why are they encouraging people to use Flash in any form? Especially when they claim to be all about open standards.
How could something that is not desirable be the best option?
Type about:plugins in Chrome. Find "Flash" plugin. Hit Disable.
What does this have to do with my post? My point was that Chrome does not use a standard system-wide method for installing Flash, and actually bundles Flash with the browser.
chrome's flash plugin isn't installed to the system path like most plugins are, it's installed to its installation directory. hence why i said it was bundled, and not silently installed. ffmpeg is also bundled.
You said it was "in standard plugin form." Clearly, it is not, as it uses a non-standard installation location.
Regardless, Chrome is the only browser which bundles the Flash plugin. Hence the hypocrisy - not supporting an open standard, yet deliberately shipping a proprietary plugin.
What's wrong with doer? It's a perfectly good English word--it was quite old already when Shakespeare used it.
Regardless of the appropriateness of "doer" the most obvious fault is with "Israeli." Presumably we are are talking about the actions of the government of Israel. In which case "Israel is the doer" would be appropriate. If your were talking about the people of Israel committing the act, then "Israelis are the doers" would be an acceptable phrase.
Much better would be "The alleged culprit is the government of Israel."
.... Israeli is the doer...
Do this implode the horrible consequence that human are the thingifier? Slashdot are the grammarmaker!
chrome only bundles flash in standard plugin form; it is not integrated. the bundled plugin can be disabled or deleted from the filesystem.
Clearly it doesn't, as I have removed the Flash plugin from my Mac, which has disabled Flash in Safari and Firefox, yet Chrome continues to play Flash, even though the system plugin has been removed.
I've noticed that cynical disposition and the constant need to shit on anything that remotely looks like fun is inversely proportional to one's lack of accomplishments.
In other words, the need to shit on anything that remotely looks like fun is directly proportional to one's accomplishments? I don't think you got that formula quite right.
h.264 is proprietary in theory you have to license the decoder and the encode
Only if you have a very unusual definition of "proprietary." In this context, proprietary means "owned or controlled by one company." H.264 is an open standard.
Its only free to stream it, if I understand correctly.
"Proprietary" has nothing to do with how much something costs in monetary terms. It's absolutely possibly to have an open standard that costs money. Just as it is possible to have a proprietary format that doesn't cost any money.
Google is not retaining flash Crome does not support flash, its plugin just like it is for every other browser.
No, it doesn't. Chrome is the only browser with a built-in Flash renderer that doesn't rely on a plugin. Google ships Flash code with every copy of Chrome.
Get you facts strait.
You might want to look into doing that yourself, as well as straightening up your spelling.
In the public's mind, Microsoft is Bill Gates. Therefore, anything he does reflects on Microsoft. In Bill Gates' mind, he is Microsoft, so anything he does is naturally a part of Microsoft.
What is even better is that Android is front runner in the cell phone market so now Apple and MS can suck a big fat twinkie when Google turns the tables on them and removes support for h.264 from android.
... and watch as Android devices suddenly get much worse performance and battery life, because WebM isn't hardware accelerated like H.264 is. Yeah, what a great plan.
Aside from the fact that Google couldn't afford it, the shareholders and Boards of Directors of the target companies would not approve it. Neither would federal regulators.
than how would you describe Apple and Microsoft's work to make sure the only way to play a video is the use of a proprietary format?
H.264 isn't proprietary. Also, what you're missing is that Google has removed support for an open standard, while retaining a proprietary format (Flash).
Developers should pay close attention to how Microsoft and Apple react to this
What's to pay attention to? There won't be any reaction, as far as removing plugin APIs goes.
I'm not quite sure why this was assigned to MS; I'm aware that the Gates foundation [wikipedia.org] is doing work in this arena, but why they'd want to file a patent on it is unclear and using MS to do so is downright weird.
Why are you confused? It's been clear since its inception that the Gates Foundation is the propaganda wing of Microsoft.
So, not very successful, then?
give me one case in which those have been of any use.
Give me one case where a DDoS attack has been of any any use (to further the stated political cause).
Exactly. On internet people download and upload. They "consume" media but produce it as well.
You know, people produce media for TV, film and radio too. Where do you think the shows come from? Robots? They even have these things called "credits" which list people including those with a job title of "producer."