So this is very typically Microsoft, it cannot win the case in Germany apparently, so it stirs up anti-German sentiment in the USA and tries to divide the US and Germany to its own advantage. Nasty, very nasty.
No, the case is currently being heard in the US, and Motorola is losing it badly. That is why they rushed to file for an injunction in Germany. They hope that Microsoft will drop the case here and settle. An injunction isn't a case, it's a measure to stop any damage being done until the case can be heard. The judge saw what Motorola was doing and said he won't allow them to force arm Microsoft into dropping the case for fear of threats in another country. Once the case here is resolved, Motorola can do whatever they want. Of course they CAN continue their request for an injunction in Germany, but they will get a silly ridiculous fine here in the US for disobeying the court that will make whatever they think they will gain in Germany look like child's play. Judges, from any country, and any jurisdiction do not like it when entities try to game the legal system as Motorola is doing.
It isn't about the validity of any laws in foreign countries. A court injunction is simply a tool to prevent a company from selling their product while a case is heard. Motorola is using the German case to try and force a decision in a US case. The judge saw this as an attempt to circumvent the current case in his review, and stated that he won't allow it. Motorola can continue of course in Germany, but then their assets here in the US will be forfeited, barred from ever doing business in the US, and likely what management is here (The vast majority) will be held in jail for contempt of court. But, they will have their case tried in Germany, and Germany is free to rule however they want, and can enforce whatever laws they deem appropriate in their country.
Or, they can wait until the current US case is finalized, and THEN they can pursue whatever they want in Germany, including even demanding compensation from the delayed filing if the German courts allow it. More than likely, the German courts don't want to hear the case any more than the US does, so they would deny/delay invoking an injunction until the US case is decided if a US judge formally requested it out of respect, but again, they don't have to if they don't want to.
The problem is that Motorola is trying to circumvent the US legal system by filing a case in Germany about the exact same patents that are now in the US court after Motorola didn't like the way it's current case is headed. The judge isn't declaring its decisions are to be enforced in Germany, only that they may not file for an injunction in Germany to try and force an outcome by Microsoft in a US court. Once the case here is settled either way, the judge will allow Motorola to file whatever it wants again in other countries.
Yes, people often forget the nearly 520,000 vehicles, 20,000 tanks, and 100% (ALL) of the soviet troop transports that the US supplied to the soviets during WW2. Add in another 18,000 artillery pieces, 130,000 submachine guns, megatons of food, and nearly 18,000 aircraft (30% of all soviet flown aircraft and over 50% at the start of the war!)
Dear TheRaven64, We here at the movie studios are writing you back to let you know that we don't agree with your open source stance, and that is why don't get the privilege of viewing our totally awesome content. You can keep your money, and we'll use your illegal downloading of our content to show how we've lost 10 billion trillion million dollars, and use that as a case to filter the internets, get the courts to allow us to rifle through any/all social networks whenever we want, place surveillance cameras in your home, and threaten to sue you until your grandkids go bankrupt.
Actually, he is correct. The C-64 did have "graphics support hardware" beyond offering a bitmap that programmer could directly manipulate. The GP is only mistaken in that he characterized the hardware as being like a "graphics card". The specialized C64 graphics hardware supported 8 sprites. It was a very handy thing.
You could also consider the reprogrammable character set as such graphics hardware that sped up games. Various VIC-20 and C-64 games used this technique to good effect.
Well again, other computers had the same or better years before the C-64 was released. The Atari 800 had ANTIC and GTIA which supported hardware sprites and had a reprogrammable character set, again, 3 years before the C-64 was released.
Well except for the Atari 800 which predated the C64 by 3 years of course, which had the same amount of RAM, better graphics, and similar sound capabilities.
Erm, well except for the fact that Apple created AirPrint first (Sept 15, 2010), and THEN google released theirs (Jan 10, 2011). Silly facts always getting in the way of a good point.
Last I checked, the EU was more often to bring American companies to trial, and then when a verdict was given, they would apply a much higher fine than average. It's all on their website if you care to look. I haven't checked in the past couple of years, but that was the trend when I did check for myself.
Really? Fooled me. I'm 42, and I had an Atari 2600 (Sears Video Arcase) when I was growing up. And a pong console. And an Atari 800, 65XL, 130XE, and two Atari ST's. I also ran a BBS (The largest in the midwest at the time), had 8 disk drives of various sizes at various times (5.25" SDSS, 5.25 DDSS, 3" SSSD, 3" DDDS, 5.25" HDDS), multiple modems MPPE, Hayes 300, and 1200 baud Duck Modem, 9600 USR Courier, 14.4K USR Courier, 19.2K USR Courier, etc etc. And a very large collection of games on each of those systems.
I didn't choose for GP to be the processing system used with my card
Sure you did, you just didn't check. You could have went to another merchant, but you decided not to, or that checking who they were going to use to process your credit card wasn't worth the trouble. I'm quite guilty of this myself. But you (we) did have the opportunity to find out and use something else, but we didn't because we couldn't be bothered. The risk was low enough that it wasn't worth the trouble. Until this happens often enough that people actually do think it's worth the bother, it will continue. It being companies that are supposed to safe guard your information don't. Simply because it's cheaper and more cost effective not to. Of course merchants will use whomever is cheapest, until there is a reason (people refuse to shop with them) to actually justify using 3rd parties who actually secure your information.
And how does a paid poster write? Are you refering to my ability to put together complete sentences that are spelled correctly? Or I'm fairly good at using the correct punctuation?
Oh, you mean that I have my opinions, they happen to be contrary to yours, and I won't back down when faced with ignorance. Ok.
You have some very strange views my friend. MPEG-LA exists so that something reasonable could be done about all the patents that are involved with specific codecs, and people who wanted to license it could do so from one place rather than dozens. I'm not sure how that is considered being a troll, but apparently having to actually pay for stuff means "troll" to you.
As for something that MPEG-LA did that was friendly and/or supportive of FOSS (although I wonder why it's all about FOSS with you). Here: http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/231/n-10-08-26.pdf Not sure how what they do is more or less friendly towards FOSS than commercial products other than FOSS can't be completely free if they want to use other people's work.
In the end this doesn't have a damned thing to do with the technical merits of H.264, that is a red herring and in fact Flash often used h.264. No what mattered is that the community was biting the hand that feeds because Adobe was paying the license fee for the ENTIRE community, well guess what? that's over, pay up suckers.
Not sure what your ranting is all about here, as a web developer of a fairly large set of websites myself, I'm serving h.264 videos for FREE without any stupid flash RIGHT NOW, and it works across all major browsers, and all major smartphones. It's called HTML 5, and it works great, you should try it. Oh, and I paid NOTHING for it, neither as a developer, a publisher, an end user, or as a producer (Many of our videos are our own creation) -- nothing beyond the price of the software that we would have had anyway.
In the end the ONLY ones that got trolled was the FOSS community which Steve jobs played like a harp from hell. It was common knowledge that Jobs hated Flash because it offered a way around his app store, so he talked about how much better his iShiny was without flash and the FOSS community jumped right on board, even though Jobs has always been militant ANTI-FOSS and actually made gates and MSFT look like the Care Bears. it was Jobs that first locked devices to the OS, it was Jobs that first added DRM so you could only use it HIS way, while Adobe let you do any damned thing you wanted, including both distributing AND making a knockoff, did they sue? nope.
Steve jobs hated flash because it crashed A LOT, gave terrible user experiences, ran like crap and sucked down mobile batteries super fast. I rarely miss flash on my iStuff, and I'm glad that it isn't using flash to play video. It just isn't a good user experience when the battery dies out half way through the day. Droids with the early flash builds (early meaning a year AFTER the whole no flash on iOS thing) sucked down the batteries in those terrible. It wasn't until 10.1 which just came out fairly recently that it supported hardware acceleration, and stopped being such a terrible battery hog. Heck flash didn't even support hardware acceleration on the mac at that point either. I'm not sure why anyone would be crying about that bloated piece of crap getting phased out, it's long been time, and it should have and would have been if it wasn't for the lack of a valid video standard on the web, which there now is. As for the rest of your tirade, Jobs was not the ANTI-FOSS, he based his iOS on FOSS, and it still is. Jobs wasn't the first to lock devices to a particular OS, in fact almost ALL devices are locked to their own OS. Unless you've upgraded your fridge, washer, drier, or car to a different OS. You can't change the OS on the nintendo/nintendo 64/sega/ps1/ps2/ps3(anymore)/xbox/xbox 360. So you'd be totally wrong there. iDevices aren't the first, nor the last, just one that you apparently want to change and tens of millions of other customers just DONT CARE. They want stuff that works, and they work great, better than the alternatives.
It doesn't necessarily have to be the end of free as in free as beer, but worst case scenario it is, sure. You might as well be complaining that mozilla has to pay for bandwidth for everyone to download the browser from their site, or grab add-ins. That isn't free either. They'll just pay the license fee out of the revenue they get from google for having them as their default search engine. Whoopee.
Not all "FOSSies" are clueless, they just aren't just aren't as a religious zealot about not using h.264 as you are. They are actually fairly smart about doing what's best for themselves, usually. If you actually studied most of the technologies in h.264, VP8, WMV, etc, you'd realize if a patent likely applies to one, would apply to them all. The open source codecs aren't all that different from the proprietary ones that they would likely escape either.
And yes, I would consider your post to be TROLLING, as it really didn't do anything but complain and spread FUD.
And Mozilla. It's a 4 way race, but that's what we have now. The rest of the browsers are too insignificant to matter and will continue to not matter anyhow.
Quite the opposite of you, I WANTED flash to die. It's terrible, crashes, and makes the internet a worse place. h.264 was the best codec, and it won out. Good for the market. I'm not sorry if it'll cost you $.10 to download your insignificant browser.
That's because chrome wasn't doing any hardware acceleration. I don't want Firefox not using a feature just because your video drivers are buggy. The problem is definately in them. I don't care what calls you make to the video driver, it still should not bsod. Ati is just being stupid. Sorry you are stuck with them, but it's not surprising. It's been very well known that the ati drivers are terrible.
BSoD's are the video card driver's fault. Nothing that software does on your system should be able to cause the driver to BSoD. Drop your ATI cards and buy Nvidia and your problems will go away instantly.
I would add in addition to images (Which for my web sites are the majority of the bandwidth use), also stylesheets, javascript, and fonts can be cached, and those 4 things combined take up the majority of the bandwidth. Taking an example page:
1.7MB total 42.5k HTML (uncachable - dynamically generated) 92.1k Stylesheets (cachable) 627k Javascript (cachable) 880k Images (cachable)
Slashdot Mirror
So this is very typically Microsoft, it cannot win the case in Germany apparently, so it stirs up anti-German sentiment in the USA and tries to divide the US and Germany to its own advantage. Nasty, very nasty.
No, the case is currently being heard in the US, and Motorola is losing it badly. That is why they rushed to file for an injunction in Germany. They hope that Microsoft will drop the case here and settle. An injunction isn't a case, it's a measure to stop any damage being done until the case can be heard. The judge saw what Motorola was doing and said he won't allow them to force arm Microsoft into dropping the case for fear of threats in another country. Once the case here is resolved, Motorola can do whatever they want. Of course they CAN continue their request for an injunction in Germany, but they will get a silly ridiculous fine here in the US for disobeying the court that will make whatever they think they will gain in Germany look like child's play. Judges, from any country, and any jurisdiction do not like it when entities try to game the legal system as Motorola is doing.
It isn't about the validity of any laws in foreign countries. A court injunction is simply a tool to prevent a company from selling their product while a case is heard. Motorola is using the German case to try and force a decision in a US case. The judge saw this as an attempt to circumvent the current case in his review, and stated that he won't allow it. Motorola can continue of course in Germany, but then their assets here in the US will be forfeited, barred from ever doing business in the US, and likely what management is here (The vast majority) will be held in jail for contempt of court. But, they will have their case tried in Germany, and Germany is free to rule however they want, and can enforce whatever laws they deem appropriate in their country.
Or, they can wait until the current US case is finalized, and THEN they can pursue whatever they want in Germany, including even demanding compensation from the delayed filing if the German courts allow it. More than likely, the German courts don't want to hear the case any more than the US does, so they would deny/delay invoking an injunction until the US case is decided if a US judge formally requested it out of respect, but again, they don't have to if they don't want to.
The problem is that Motorola is trying to circumvent the US legal system by filing a case in Germany about the exact same patents that are now in the US court after Motorola didn't like the way it's current case is headed. The judge isn't declaring its decisions are to be enforced in Germany, only that they may not file for an injunction in Germany to try and force an outcome by Microsoft in a US court. Once the case here is settled either way, the judge will allow Motorola to file whatever it wants again in other countries.
Yes, people often forget the nearly 520,000 vehicles, 20,000 tanks, and 100% (ALL) of the soviet troop transports that the US supplied to the soviets during WW2. Add in another 18,000 artillery pieces, 130,000 submachine guns, megatons of food, and nearly 18,000 aircraft (30% of all soviet flown aircraft and over 50% at the start of the war!)
Dear TheRaven64,
We here at the movie studios are writing you back to let you know that we don't agree with your open source stance, and that is why don't get the privilege of viewing our totally awesome content. You can keep your money, and we'll use your illegal downloading of our content to show how we've lost 10 billion trillion million dollars, and use that as a case to filter the internets, get the courts to allow us to rifle through any/all social networks whenever we want, place surveillance cameras in your home, and threaten to sue you until your grandkids go bankrupt.
Thank you,
The Movie Studios
The Apple 2 was released in 78, Atari 800 in 79, C64 in 82.
The Apple 2 could have been upgraded to be everything the C64 had, but it wasn't standard.
The Atari 800 could do everything (graphics, sound, drives, connectivity, processor) the C-64 could, but better and 3 years earlier.
Actually, he is correct. The C-64 did have "graphics support hardware" beyond offering a bitmap that programmer could directly manipulate. The GP is only mistaken in that he characterized the hardware as being like a "graphics card". The specialized C64 graphics hardware supported 8 sprites. It was a very handy thing.
You could also consider the reprogrammable character set as such graphics hardware that sped up games. Various VIC-20 and C-64 games used this technique to good effect.
Well again, other computers had the same or better years before the C-64 was released. The Atari 800 had ANTIC and GTIA which supported hardware sprites and had a reprogrammable character set, again, 3 years before the C-64 was released.
Well except for the Atari 800 which predated the C64 by 3 years of course, which had the same amount of RAM, better graphics, and similar sound capabilities.
Erm, well except for the fact that Apple created AirPrint first (Sept 15, 2010), and THEN google released theirs (Jan 10, 2011). Silly facts always getting in the way of a good point.
Safari on Windows and Macs support it, but not safari on iOS which is what I said.
Of course neither does Opera, iOS safari, or android. I wouldn't call not supporting resizable a terribly bad thing at this point.
It's closer to 0.63% last time I checked (and dropping), but I suppose 1% is close enough.
Last I checked, the EU was more often to bring American companies to trial, and then when a verdict was given, they would apply a much higher fine than average. It's all on their website if you care to look. I haven't checked in the past couple of years, but that was the trend when I did check for myself.
Sorry, I should say I also had 3 3.5" drives for the Atari ST as well.
Really? Fooled me. I'm 42, and I had an Atari 2600 (Sears Video Arcase) when I was growing up. And a pong console. And an Atari 800, 65XL, 130XE, and two Atari ST's. I also ran a BBS (The largest in the midwest at the time), had 8 disk drives of various sizes at various times (5.25" SDSS, 5.25 DDSS, 3" SSSD, 3" DDDS, 5.25" HDDS), multiple modems MPPE, Hayes 300, and 1200 baud Duck Modem, 9600 USR Courier, 14.4K USR Courier, 19.2K USR Courier, etc etc. And a very large collection of games on each of those systems.
I too would like a copy of this supposed "list". I want to see if it's complete or not, by checking if your number is in there.
I didn't choose for GP to be the processing system used with my card
Sure you did, you just didn't check. You could have went to another merchant, but you decided not to, or that checking who they were going to use to process your credit card wasn't worth the trouble. I'm quite guilty of this myself. But you (we) did have the opportunity to find out and use something else, but we didn't because we couldn't be bothered. The risk was low enough that it wasn't worth the trouble. Until this happens often enough that people actually do think it's worth the bother, it will continue. It being companies that are supposed to safe guard your information don't. Simply because it's cheaper and more cost effective not to. Of course merchants will use whomever is cheapest, until there is a reason (people refuse to shop with them) to actually justify using 3rd parties who actually secure your information.
And how does a paid poster write? Are you refering to my ability to put together complete sentences that are spelled correctly? Or I'm fairly good at using the correct punctuation?
Oh, you mean that I have my opinions, they happen to be contrary to yours, and I won't back down when faced with ignorance. Ok.
You have some very strange views my friend. MPEG-LA exists so that something reasonable could be done about all the patents that are involved with specific codecs, and people who wanted to license it could do so from one place rather than dozens. I'm not sure how that is considered being a troll, but apparently having to actually pay for stuff means "troll" to you.
As for something that MPEG-LA did that was friendly and/or supportive of FOSS (although I wonder why it's all about FOSS with you). Here: http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/231/n-10-08-26.pdf Not sure how what they do is more or less friendly towards FOSS than commercial products other than FOSS can't be completely free if they want to use other people's work.
In the end this doesn't have a damned thing to do with the technical merits of H.264, that is a red herring and in fact Flash often used h.264. No what mattered is that the community was biting the hand that feeds because Adobe was paying the license fee for the ENTIRE community, well guess what? that's over, pay up suckers.
Not sure what your ranting is all about here, as a web developer of a fairly large set of websites myself, I'm serving h.264 videos for FREE without any stupid flash RIGHT NOW, and it works across all major browsers, and all major smartphones. It's called HTML 5, and it works great, you should try it. Oh, and I paid NOTHING for it, neither as a developer, a publisher, an end user, or as a producer (Many of our videos are our own creation) -- nothing beyond the price of the software that we would have had anyway.
In the end the ONLY ones that got trolled was the FOSS community which Steve jobs played like a harp from hell. It was common knowledge that Jobs hated Flash because it offered a way around his app store, so he talked about how much better his iShiny was without flash and the FOSS community jumped right on board, even though Jobs has always been militant ANTI-FOSS and actually made gates and MSFT look like the Care Bears. it was Jobs that first locked devices to the OS, it was Jobs that first added DRM so you could only use it HIS way, while Adobe let you do any damned thing you wanted, including both distributing AND making a knockoff, did they sue? nope.
Steve jobs hated flash because it crashed A LOT, gave terrible user experiences, ran like crap and sucked down mobile batteries super fast. I rarely miss flash on my iStuff, and I'm glad that it isn't using flash to play video. It just isn't a good user experience when the battery dies out half way through the day. Droids with the early flash builds (early meaning a year AFTER the whole no flash on iOS thing) sucked down the batteries in those terrible. It wasn't until 10.1 which just came out fairly recently that it supported hardware acceleration, and stopped being such a terrible battery hog. Heck flash didn't even support hardware acceleration on the mac at that point either. I'm not sure why anyone would be crying about that bloated piece of crap getting phased out, it's long been time, and it should have and would have been if it wasn't for the lack of a valid video standard on the web, which there now is. As for the rest of your tirade, Jobs was not the ANTI-FOSS, he based his iOS on FOSS, and it still is. Jobs wasn't the first to lock devices to a particular OS, in fact almost ALL devices are locked to their own OS. Unless you've upgraded your fridge, washer, drier, or car to a different OS. You can't change the OS on the nintendo/nintendo 64/sega/ps1/ps2/ps3(anymore)/xbox/xbox 360. So you'd be totally wrong there. iDevices aren't the first, nor the last, just one that you apparently want to change and tens of millions of other customers just DONT CARE. They want stuff that works, and they work great, better than the alternatives.
So as I said i don't care
It doesn't necessarily have to be the end of free as in free as beer, but worst case scenario it is, sure. You might as well be complaining that mozilla has to pay for bandwidth for everyone to download the browser from their site, or grab add-ins. That isn't free either. They'll just pay the license fee out of the revenue they get from google for having them as their default search engine. Whoopee.
Not all "FOSSies" are clueless, they just aren't just aren't as a religious zealot about not using h.264 as you are. They are actually fairly smart about doing what's best for themselves, usually. If you actually studied most of the technologies in h.264, VP8, WMV, etc, you'd realize if a patent likely applies to one, would apply to them all. The open source codecs aren't all that different from the proprietary ones that they would likely escape either.
And yes, I would consider your post to be TROLLING, as it really didn't do anything but complain and spread FUD.
And Mozilla. It's a 4 way race, but that's what we have now. The rest of the browsers are too insignificant to matter and will continue to not matter anyhow.
Quite the opposite of you, I WANTED flash to die. It's terrible, crashes, and makes the internet a worse place. h.264 was the best codec, and it won out. Good for the market. I'm not sorry if it'll cost you $.10 to download your insignificant browser.
I have 1 tab open in Firefox, and memory usage is just under 2GB. Looks like it's time to restart it again.
That's because chrome wasn't doing any hardware acceleration. I don't want Firefox not using a feature just because your video drivers are buggy. The problem is definately in them. I don't care what calls you make to the video driver, it still should not bsod. Ati is just being stupid. Sorry you are stuck with them, but it's not surprising. It's been very well known that the ati drivers are terrible.
BSoD's are the video card driver's fault. Nothing that software does on your system should be able to cause the driver to BSoD. Drop your ATI cards and buy Nvidia and your problems will go away instantly.
I would add in addition to images (Which for my web sites are the majority of the bandwidth use), also stylesheets, javascript, and fonts can be cached, and those 4 things combined take up the majority of the bandwidth. Taking an example page:
1.7MB total
42.5k HTML (uncachable - dynamically generated)
92.1k Stylesheets (cachable)
627k Javascript (cachable)
880k Images (cachable)