So.. I guess Chrome Frame was a success then? Strangely how the stats don't reflect that at all.
so let's see how the future will play out then...
On one side of the ring: H.264
* Solid native support on the default browser of Windows - IE9. * Solid native support on the default browser of OSX - Safari. * Solid support on the rest of the browsers via the ubiquitous (95%+) and well known by the public Flash player. * Native support on mobiles. * Formally approved standard by ISO and IEC * Guaranteed free distribution on the web for free content, minor free for paid content. * Vast amounts of existing H.264 content, widely used in video editing apps, broadcasting, recording motion cameras and so on.
On the other side of the ring: WebM
* No native support on the default browser of Windows - IE9. * No native support on the default browser of OSX - Safari. * Solid native support on the rest of the browsers. * Spotty support on only some mobiles (don't expect it on Apple devices, Microsoft is on the fence). * Not formally approved standard by anybody, just an open code dump at this point. * Free to use, but questionable future if challenged by MPEG LA and others. * Almost no existing WebM content, spotty or missing support in video editing apps, not used in broadcasting, not used in motion cameras and so on.
If being funny were meant to affect karma, it would.
And in fact, it used to. That it no longer does is another one of/.'s unfortunate regressions.
The regression is that he told everyone it doesn't affect the karma. The vast, VAST majority of circumstancial indicators we use to measure measurable things in our life work only if no one knows what they are. The moment you tell somebody what they are, everyone stops doing "the right thing" and targets the indicators directly for more effective results.
If Slashdot stops outlining their algorithms to everyone, people wouldn't on *purpose* mark incorrectly funny posts as informative, as their target would be marking posts appropriately, as they don't know about the indicators.
This is why every time someone says "Google doesn't open their search algos, therefore they suck" - I laugh. If they DID open the search algos, Google would go bankrupt within months due to overwhelming amounts of spam and abuse. Spammers already abuse everything they know about Google's algorithms: link farms, keyword density and so on.
As long as Chrome lacks NoScript, there will continue to be a reason for Firefox. Fix that dealbreaker, and all of the rest is negotiable.
It does have a functionality that works EXACTLY like NoScript. Are you guys even trying?
Menu > Options > Under the Hood > Content Settings > JavaScript > Do not allow any site to run JavaScript
Now when you visit a site that needs JS, you have a "JS is needed" little icon right on the address bar. Click it, and you can whitelist that site for now, or for the future as well.
Under the same options dialog above you can do the same for plugins as well, like Flash.
In other news, I do like the status bar being visible. The primary reasons I don't use Chrome are the missing menu and status bars.
But... Chrome does have a status bar. When it's empty it doesn't render. When you hover a link or have other status information to display (i.e. during page loading for ex.), it renders on bottom left. The menu bar is easily accessible via Alt, then Space or Alt, then Enter, or Alt, then Down Arrow...
I understand when people say removing functionality they use is bad, but when they just react like you, calling a less obtrusive status bar a "missing status bar", I realize they just miss the empty rectangle down there, and want their empty damn rectangle and that's it.
The Earth gets hotter, the Earth gets cooler. But do WE have an impact on this variation. That is the question.
Even before we ask that question: if the earth gets both hotter and cooler, does it matter? Who cares if we have an impact if it doesn't matter?
And even before we ask those two questions. If the Earth gets cooler or hotter, and it's us, and it matters, do we give a damn?
And even before we ask that one. If it's hotter/cooler, it's us, it matters, we give a damn, are we going to do something?
And even before we ask that one as well. It's hotter/cooler, it's us, it matter, we give a damn, we're doing something, but is it going to help us?
I think it's of utmost importance to just do absolutely nothing at all until we clear all of the above beyond any shadow of doubt. I'm sure Earth will wait:)
When text is harder to read, this forces our cognitive resources on the shape of the letters and how letters form words. We try to find familiar words in the confusing medium, and therefore as a side effect focus on unknown words, such as the name of those "fictional alien species" which the readers were tested against.
So they're right in that when we read harder, we're better at noticing the particular spelling of unknown words. But what do we sacrifice in the process? Our focus shifts to merely trying to interpret the protocol (the printed/displayed text) and thus away from trying to grasp the actual meaning of the text, and the higher concepts/story that are described in it.
Try it: it's very hard to both focus on analyzing the accent, phrasing and voice tember of somebody who talks to you, and at the same time listen to the story he's telling.
And the story and concepts are the most useful part of speech and text, and not learning random sequences of letter by heart, and reproducing them verbatim later on. The scientists in this study are right in that they succeeded to bias their readers to the medium, but failed to properly define what's the essense of reading: describing ideas, concepts, stories. Letters and words are just the means, not the goal....So I believe I'll be keep using my readers on "easy" in the future as well.
More pay Ownership stake Look for your replacement
That's the boring answer. "You want more ok gimme more". The real question is, do more hours result in more work done. From personal experience, no.
If your boss is making you work 11 hours a day, it may be a symptom of some other problem the product/approach in the company has. Look for it and find it.
I like the media. Everything is simple in the media. They can side with a certain viewpoint for a few years, implicitly calling everyone who doesn't agree, an idiot, selecting their guests and questions to only maintain the illusion of being neutral, while having a clear bias.
Then suddenly, something happens, new information becomes apparent and an endless stream of "it turns out that..." articles flood the public. Everything we proclaimed bad is now good, everything good, is now bad. Panic, people, for you were caught off guard again. The savior was the devil himself.
Media can repeatedly turn 180 on themselves and sell panic non-stop. They can even fabricate an issue where none exists, then as we recover, claim the opposite so we panic again. Really nice for ratings, and really suitable for pushing hidden agendas. Here's my world view: People's motives are complex. People's moral compass has more than two poles. Sometimes, good people becomes self deluded. Sometimes, bad people get things right. Sometimes, good studies fudge data, and sometimes, there is commercial interests behind a genuinely good cause.
Am I saying Andrew Wakefield was "right" and vaccines are "bad"? No. Am I saying get yourself all the vaccine shots, and all the seasonal flu ones, always because they are "good"? No. Because the world is just more complex than that. Some vaccines have helped us rid of serious conditions, and ultimately made and keep making the world a better place, while other are just peddled for profit with little or no scientific support behind them. I'm not going into details, because I'm not trying to sell you a certain viewpoint on this "scandal" as correct.
I'm only trying to bring recognition that in the media cycle we're in now, Wakefield is an evil incarnate who never even believed his own studies, who never ever had a honest thought in his life, and vaccines are as harmless as drinking purified water. You'll see one-sided "fact checks". You'll see journalist display clear dislike of Wakefield while pretending to interview him. You'll see them reiterate how wrong everyone always was.
The question you need to ask yourself, other than a widely read analysis made by a h.264 encoder developer and the MPEG-LA vaguely announcing they were compiling a patent pool for VP8. Is there any convincing review or proof that WebM is infringing existing patents?
Let's think like MPEG LA does.
Google, which is using H.264 on YouTube and has included support for H.264 in their browser, suddenly buys On2, a company with a souped up codec that has many similarities to MPEG4. You shrug it off, H.264 has the quality, the hardware support on a ton of devices and it's the broadcasting standard. Next, Google starts pushing this WebM initiative to "replace H.264", then starts compiling VP8 videos for YouTube, then pushes for hardware support in devices, and as the last drop it REMOVES loudly H.264 support from their Chrome browser.
Now, if I was MPEG LA, I wouldn't sue or reveal my cards now. I'd wait. I'd wait for the hardware spec to be in stone and hardware supporting WebM to be produced, and used for phones. I'd wait YouTube to start using WebM for more than a little experiment. I'd wait web site owners to start publishing WebM videos.
And THEN I'd hit them with a lawsuit. If they called out the patents early, Google would try to change the codec to avoid infringing. Later on however VP8 is in stone, it's in hardware, it's in browsers, it's on sites. It can't be changed to work around any patents. And MPEG LA wins.
What everyone is really waiting for are the major online video content providers to flip to WebM when it is supported by enough devices. With youtube being the biggest of them all making loud steps in that direction, it seems only a matter of time before they aim the guns at the main sail. Then we get fireworks:)
Is the fireworks when MPEG LA starts suing Google for WebM infringing on their patents?
There is absolutely zero convincing review or proof that WebM isn't infringing on existing MPEG LA patents, and in fact if I remember they have hinted at the opposite few months ago.
Does Chrome really have the market share required for this move to have any effect on the decisions of web designers?
Yes. Chrome is rapidly eating market share: in just about 2 years since launch, it's at 13.5%. This is twice the share of Opera and Safari combined. But the decision to drop H.264 doesn't put Chrome "versus the world", as they already had Firefox and Opera in their camp (which also lack H.264). Opera + Safari + Chrome make over 50% of the browsers used today, in market share.
This is substantially different than the previous situation, where Google, Microsoft and Apple all had a H.264 browser, and Firefox looked like the odd one out, while Opera was quietly awaiting the market to decide (they'd have no choice but support H.264, if Firefox did it).
However, the battle is still not over for H.264. The common wisdom is that Google is pushing their WebM standard and that's why they drop H.264. If they really think it's that simple, they have not done their math right.
The growth is with mobile devices. The leaders among them is Apple with iOS, and Google with Android, both of which come with hardware support for H.264, and no WebM hardware support (future support in... theory, but I can say, count Apple out). So what are web content owners left to do? Maybe encode all content twice: WebM and then H.264. Imagine the hassle of, ironically Google's very own, YouTube, having YET another version of every single video they have in their library: FLV, H.264 and now WebM.
No, actually web authors will opt for the simplest choice, that's least amount of work: the same H.264 video everywhere, making use of hardware support for H.264 in mobiles, exposed via HTML5, and... Flash on the desktop, which also support exactly the same H.264 videos.
So, in attempt to push WebM, Google may end up accidentally (or not..?) cementing Flash's position on the desktop as the video player for the foreseeable future.
I used to think Flash will considerably fade away once IE9 becomes mainstream (which comes with GPU accelerated renderer and H264 support), but now things are suddenly interesting again for Adobe.
So how is Verizon going to spin this to backpeddle against their previous bashings of the iPhone? Weren't they just a year or so ago telling how puny and weak the iPhone was in comparison to their Droid?
They don't have to backpeddle. Verizon isn't interested in providing a consistent narrative, but as any company, their goal is to say whatever maximizes this quarter's profit.
They also knew of these contradictions as they were working on the Verizon iPhone with Apple since early 2008.
Just like Steve Jobs himself laughing off video iPods, while working on a video iPod, laughing off iPhone while working on iPhone, and same for iPad, the reality is that honest opinions and linear truths are simply not the optimal strategy.
Think the real estate market is bad now? OK, imagine that the population is shrinking. Actually, I don't see why a bank would even offer a loan under those conditions. Home value plunges.
I wish you could look a bit farther than your nose... If you depend on exponential population growth in order to keep the economy healthy, a point will come where further growth becomes impossible, a much harder shock will have to be endured and you'll have much less time and resources to deal with it.
I'd prefer to hurt the real estate economy in the short-term, than devastate everything in the mid-term.
It's much bigger. If they manage to grow big enough insects so I won't have to eat their eyes, mandibles, wings and so on, I might consider giving it a shot.
It also needs, because of purely associative reasons, to look sufficiently different enough from the nastiness we spray in our bathrooms, and the flies that go for each piece of s**t they see. That's if you want this kind of meal to have any chance with the general population.
If insect production becomes an industry, then, I suspect, just like with cattle, we'll see the emergence of new selected species of insects sufficiently different from their wild counterparts.
As a matter of fact - you all eat insects every day; standards for grain, flour, vegetables, etc. generally speak of "maximum number of insect body parts per unit"
While it's a fact nothing is pure, and especially food, the requirements for body insect parts per unit sum up to significantly less than 100% insects, compared to what you'd eat under this new green proposal.
As you put a meal on the table and leave it there for 5 mins, just by interacting with air it comes in contact with various environment waste and pollutants, like flakes of human skin and what not. Doesn't mean I'd enjoy to be served human waste for dinner either.
In short: it's not the idea I might have tasted an insect that's the problem. It's when that's primarily for dinner.
Maybe we do not NEED to be 7 billion people on this planet. Yea, there I said it.
I'm not advocating genocide, but we would start with (1) two children per family. One child per family causes too big tragedy if that child is lost, and causes cultural strangeness in some countries where the families try to make that one child be a boy. Two is better.
Considering not every family wants two children, and not everyone creates a family, this will stop growth and begin a new process of population reduction.
Next, (2) encouraging traits that cause women to have their children later in life. Education of women, equal employment of women: while it's in the name of women, it also causes them to have their child later in life (late 20-s, early 30-s) rather than early (mid-teens-s to early 20-s). This means about 10, up to 20 years less "overlap" between generations, so slower reproduction means a lesser number of people.
Cap and trade is too easily corrupted, especially with "offsets", even if well intended, so let's face it: (3) we need to reduce some other taxes, and tax greenhouse production at some point, with no possibility for the business filling in papers for offsets. The money from these taxes can then be used by the government to produce additional offsets themselves.
So, just three things in no particular order, I'd gladly see in this world, before we're forced to eat cockroaches. Just saying, mmk?
You really don't see the problem? How can you be so naive. Maybe you're new to this. All signs show to the fact there is a problem.
Of course the problem is not obvious. The article itself says it'll completely surprise us. They know we won't believe it at first. But that's why we must believe it, or else it's Armageddon.
Would you risk an Armageddon, because of your inability to understand and see?
Compared to the "omg he said profit, all bets are off" interpretation of most Slashdot users, your post is giving me hope that not all tech nerds are a uniformly infantile bunch.
I dunno. Will people instead risk their job and freedom... just to make some dickweed richer?
Don't be so simple. Do you really think he's running WikiLeaks to be rich?
Little hint 1) He has personally supported WikiLeaks from his money for the most of the project duration. Little hint 2) He recently signed for his biography rights and said a lot of the money will go towards supporting WikiLeaks.
My my, does seem it's all about profit.
Now here's the reality: things cost money. Some of the people who work for him, want money (some don't, but not all). The machines WikiLeaks is hosted and maintained on, cost money. Processing these documents, costs money.
If you're so easily disillusioned that he mentioned the word "profit" as a part of his legal strategy, you'll basically hate absolutely everything "good" that you ever aspired to in the history of human civilizations.
What was he thinking? Threatening to sue? Did he really say he "owned" the documents?
This is exactly the problem everyone has with Assange and why Openleaks will replace Wikileaks.
Wikileaks no longer acts as a leak facilitator, it is not a political organization which selects what to leak, when, how. It's no longer a technology that acts like a dumb pipe, it's no longer functioning under network neutrality, it's now controlled top down by God aka Julian Assange.
Aren't you a perfect picture. What would YOU do in his position? The function of WikiLeaks is to leak, but it has to be in a controlled responsible manner. Isn't that what everyone wants?
What he said, was because he needed a legal motive to threaten to sue. What the real motive behind his threat was you'd probably never know. The documents might have had sensitive information that isn't in public interest, he'd prefer blacked out, like he has done with most documents WikiLeaks has released.
The mortality of measles is about 0.3% - 3 kids in 1000 that contract it will die. Your sample size simply means nothing. That's why you leave epidemiology to the experts and don't recklessly endanger not only your kids but everyone they come in contact with by refusing vaccination. In my opinion, it should simply be mandated by law. Parents refusing to vaccinate are clearly unfit for their role, their kids are better off if their asshat parents get thrown into the slammer and the kids set up for adoption.
Wow, aren't you intimidating waving that big finger at him.
However, he said that he knows more people who died in a car crash than measles. You cite "3 in 1000 kids infected die". Well, 1 in 100 die in a car crash.
So, turns out of we abolish vaccines, which I wouldn't recommend completely, there will be still more people dying in stupid car accidents which no one talks about, than measles. Stats is a funny thing.
Parents refusing to vaccinate are clearly unfit for their role, their kids are better off if their asshat parents get thrown into the slammer and the kids set up for adoption.
Wow, I wish I had your "clear" view of that matter. The parents love their children, and are mislead by poorly constructed evidence aired in media. Solution: make those children orphans and put their parents in jail.
Although that's a false dilemma, I'd still personally prefer to keep my parents and the 0.3% chance of dying than 100% of chance growing up on the street with my parents in jail, thank you very much.
In fact, consider the appeal of buying a phone and THEN choosing the OS you want - 'WindowsARM', Android, 'OpenIOS'... Or perhaps a hypervisor and VMs running any of the three?
I like it.
O_O
You know what, in the big picture, I think you and the people who'd "like it" count on the fingers my hand.
Slashdot Mirror
So.. I guess Chrome Frame was a success then? Strangely how the stats don't reflect that at all.
so let's see how the future will play out then...
On one side of the ring: H.264
* Solid native support on the default browser of Windows - IE9.
* Solid native support on the default browser of OSX - Safari.
* Solid support on the rest of the browsers via the ubiquitous (95%+) and well known by the public Flash player.
* Native support on mobiles.
* Formally approved standard by ISO and IEC
* Guaranteed free distribution on the web for free content, minor free for paid content.
* Vast amounts of existing H.264 content, widely used in video editing apps, broadcasting, recording motion cameras and so on.
On the other side of the ring: WebM
* No native support on the default browser of Windows - IE9.
* No native support on the default browser of OSX - Safari.
* Solid native support on the rest of the browsers.
* Spotty support on only some mobiles (don't expect it on Apple devices, Microsoft is on the fence).
* Not formally approved standard by anybody, just an open code dump at this point.
* Free to use, but questionable future if challenged by MPEG LA and others.
* Almost no existing WebM content, spotty or missing support in video editing apps, not used in broadcasting, not used in motion cameras and so on.
So uhmm, yeah, Google. I wish you guys good luck.
If being funny were meant to affect karma, it would.
And in fact, it used to. That it no longer does is another one of /.'s unfortunate regressions.
The regression is that he told everyone it doesn't affect the karma. The vast, VAST majority of circumstancial indicators we use to measure measurable things in our life work only if no one knows what they are. The moment you tell somebody what they are, everyone stops doing "the right thing" and targets the indicators directly for more effective results.
If Slashdot stops outlining their algorithms to everyone, people wouldn't on *purpose* mark incorrectly funny posts as informative, as their target would be marking posts appropriately, as they don't know about the indicators.
This is why every time someone says "Google doesn't open their search algos, therefore they suck" - I laugh. If they DID open the search algos, Google would go bankrupt within months due to overwhelming amounts of spam and abuse. Spammers already abuse everything they know about Google's algorithms: link farms, keyword density and so on.
Looking at his pictures I would say he has a crazy look
Interesting diagnosis. Can you also heal illnesses over the phone or tell me my future based on my birth date?
As long as Chrome lacks NoScript, there will continue to be a reason for Firefox. Fix that dealbreaker, and all of the rest is negotiable.
It does have a functionality that works EXACTLY like NoScript. Are you guys even trying?
Menu > Options > Under the Hood > Content Settings > JavaScript > Do not allow any site to run JavaScript
Now when you visit a site that needs JS, you have a "JS is needed" little icon right on the address bar. Click it, and you can whitelist that site for now, or for the future as well.
Under the same options dialog above you can do the same for plugins as well, like Flash.
In other news, I do like the status bar being visible. The primary reasons I don't use Chrome are the missing menu and status bars.
But... Chrome does have a status bar. When it's empty it doesn't render. When you hover a link or have other status information to display (i.e. during page loading for ex.), it renders on bottom left. The menu bar is easily accessible via Alt, then Space or Alt, then Enter, or Alt, then Down Arrow...
I understand when people say removing functionality they use is bad, but when they just react like you, calling a less obtrusive status bar a "missing status bar", I realize they just miss the empty rectangle down there, and want their empty damn rectangle and that's it.
But who would bug... a bathroom?
Who would prosecute a pro-western guy in a pro-western country?
I fear as if his own email points to a rather trivial explanation, that afflicts some people in the field of exact sciences...
The Earth gets hotter, the Earth gets cooler.
But do WE have an impact on this variation. That is the question.
Even before we ask that question: if the earth gets both hotter and cooler, does it matter?
Who cares if we have an impact if it doesn't matter?
And even before we ask those two questions. If the Earth gets cooler or hotter, and it's us, and it matters, do we give a damn?
And even before we ask that one. If it's hotter/cooler, it's us, it matters, we give a damn, are we going to do something?
And even before we ask that one as well. It's hotter/cooler, it's us, it matter, we give a damn, we're doing something, but is it going to help us?
I think it's of utmost importance to just do absolutely nothing at all until we clear all of the above beyond any shadow of doubt. I'm sure Earth will wait :)
When text is harder to read, this forces our cognitive resources on the shape of the letters and how letters form words. We try to find familiar words in the confusing medium, and therefore as a side effect focus on unknown words, such as the name of those "fictional alien species" which the readers were tested against.
So they're right in that when we read harder, we're better at noticing the particular spelling of unknown words. But what do we sacrifice in the process? Our focus shifts to merely trying to interpret the protocol (the printed/displayed text) and thus away from trying to grasp the actual meaning of the text, and the higher concepts/story that are described in it.
Try it: it's very hard to both focus on analyzing the accent, phrasing and voice tember of somebody who talks to you, and at the same time listen to the story he's telling.
And the story and concepts are the most useful part of speech and text, and not learning random sequences of letter by heart, and reproducing them verbatim later on. The scientists in this study are right in that they succeeded to bias their readers to the medium, but failed to properly define what's the essense of reading: describing ideas, concepts, stories. Letters and words are just the means, not the goal. ...So I believe I'll be keep using my readers on "easy" in the future as well.
Give him three options:
More pay
Ownership stake
Look for your replacement
That's the boring answer. "You want more ok gimme more". The real question is, do more hours result in more work done. From personal experience, no.
If your boss is making you work 11 hours a day, it may be a symptom of some other problem the product/approach in the company has. Look for it and find it.
I like the media. Everything is simple in the media. They can side with a certain viewpoint for a few years, implicitly calling everyone who doesn't agree, an idiot, selecting their guests and questions to only maintain the illusion of being neutral, while having a clear bias.
Then suddenly, something happens, new information becomes apparent and an endless stream of "it turns out that..." articles flood the public. Everything we proclaimed bad is now good, everything good, is now bad. Panic, people, for you were caught off guard again. The savior was the devil himself.
Media can repeatedly turn 180 on themselves and sell panic non-stop. They can even fabricate an issue where none exists, then as we recover, claim the opposite so we panic again. Really nice for ratings, and really suitable for pushing hidden agendas. Here's my world view: People's motives are complex. People's moral compass has more than two poles. Sometimes, good people becomes self deluded. Sometimes, bad people get things right. Sometimes, good studies fudge data, and sometimes, there is commercial interests behind a genuinely good cause.
Am I saying Andrew Wakefield was "right" and vaccines are "bad"? No. Am I saying get yourself all the vaccine shots, and all the seasonal flu ones, always because they are "good"? No. Because the world is just more complex than that. Some vaccines have helped us rid of serious conditions, and ultimately made and keep making the world a better place, while other are just peddled for profit with little or no scientific support behind them. I'm not going into details, because I'm not trying to sell you a certain viewpoint on this "scandal" as correct.
I'm only trying to bring recognition that in the media cycle we're in now, Wakefield is an evil incarnate who never even believed his own studies, who never ever had a honest thought in his life, and vaccines are as harmless as drinking purified water. You'll see one-sided "fact checks". You'll see journalist display clear dislike of Wakefield while pretending to interview him. You'll see them reiterate how wrong everyone always was.
Until the next cycle.
The question you need to ask yourself, other than a widely read analysis made by a h.264 encoder developer and the MPEG-LA vaguely announcing they were compiling a patent pool for VP8. Is there any convincing review or proof that WebM is infringing existing patents?
Let's think like MPEG LA does.
Google, which is using H.264 on YouTube and has included support for H.264 in their browser, suddenly buys On2, a company with a souped up codec that has many similarities to MPEG4. You shrug it off, H.264 has the quality, the hardware support on a ton of devices and it's the broadcasting standard. Next, Google starts pushing this WebM initiative to "replace H.264", then starts compiling VP8 videos for YouTube, then pushes for hardware support in devices, and as the last drop it REMOVES loudly H.264 support from their Chrome browser.
Now, if I was MPEG LA, I wouldn't sue or reveal my cards now. I'd wait. I'd wait for the hardware spec to be in stone and hardware supporting WebM to be produced, and used for phones. I'd wait YouTube to start using WebM for more than a little experiment. I'd wait web site owners to start publishing WebM videos.
And THEN I'd hit them with a lawsuit. If they called out the patents early, Google would try to change the codec to avoid infringing. Later on however VP8 is in stone, it's in hardware, it's in browsers, it's on sites. It can't be changed to work around any patents. And MPEG LA wins.
What everyone is really waiting for are the major online video content providers to flip to WebM when it is supported by enough devices. With youtube being the biggest of them all making loud steps in that direction, it seems only a matter of time before they aim the guns at the main sail. Then we get fireworks :)
Is the fireworks when MPEG LA starts suing Google for WebM infringing on their patents?
There is absolutely zero convincing review or proof that WebM isn't infringing on existing MPEG LA patents, and in fact if I remember they have hinted at the opposite few months ago.
Opera + Safari + Chrome make over 50% of the browsers used today, in market share.
Clarification, I meant: Opera + Firefox + Chrome here
Does Chrome really have the market share required for this move to have any effect on the decisions of web designers?
Yes. Chrome is rapidly eating market share: in just about 2 years since launch, it's at 13.5%. This is twice the share of Opera and Safari combined. But the decision to drop H.264 doesn't put Chrome "versus the world", as they already had Firefox and Opera in their camp (which also lack H.264). Opera + Safari + Chrome make over 50% of the browsers used today, in market share.
This is substantially different than the previous situation, where Google, Microsoft and Apple all had a H.264 browser, and Firefox looked like the odd one out, while Opera was quietly awaiting the market to decide (they'd have no choice but support H.264, if Firefox did it).
However, the battle is still not over for H.264. The common wisdom is that Google is pushing their WebM standard and that's why they drop H.264. If they really think it's that simple, they have not done their math right.
The growth is with mobile devices. The leaders among them is Apple with iOS, and Google with Android, both of which come with hardware support for H.264, and no WebM hardware support (future support in... theory, but I can say, count Apple out). So what are web content owners left to do? Maybe encode all content twice: WebM and then H.264. Imagine the hassle of, ironically Google's very own, YouTube, having YET another version of every single video they have in their library: FLV, H.264 and now WebM.
No, actually web authors will opt for the simplest choice, that's least amount of work: the same H.264 video everywhere, making use of hardware support for H.264 in mobiles, exposed via HTML5, and ... Flash on the desktop, which also support exactly the same H.264 videos.
So, in attempt to push WebM, Google may end up accidentally (or not..?) cementing Flash's position on the desktop as the video player for the foreseeable future.
I used to think Flash will considerably fade away once IE9 becomes mainstream (which comes with GPU accelerated renderer and H264 support), but now things are suddenly interesting again for Adobe.
So how is Verizon going to spin this to backpeddle against their previous bashings of the iPhone? Weren't they just a year or so ago telling how puny and weak the iPhone was in comparison to their Droid?
They don't have to backpeddle. Verizon isn't interested in providing a consistent narrative, but as any company, their goal is to say whatever maximizes this quarter's profit.
They also knew of these contradictions as they were working on the Verizon iPhone with Apple since early 2008.
Just like Steve Jobs himself laughing off video iPods, while working on a video iPod, laughing off iPhone while working on iPhone, and same for iPad, the reality is that honest opinions and linear truths are simply not the optimal strategy.
Think the real estate market is bad now? OK, imagine that the population is shrinking. Actually, I don't see why a bank would even offer a loan under those conditions. Home value plunges.
I wish you could look a bit farther than your nose... If you depend on exponential population growth in order to keep the economy healthy, a point will come where further growth becomes impossible, a much harder shock will have to be endured and you'll have much less time and resources to deal with it.
I'd prefer to hurt the real estate economy in the short-term, than devastate everything in the mid-term.
Why lobster is (probably) OK for you?
It's much bigger. If they manage to grow big enough insects so I won't have to eat their eyes, mandibles, wings and so on, I might consider giving it a shot.
It also needs, because of purely associative reasons, to look sufficiently different enough from the nastiness we spray in our bathrooms, and the flies that go for each piece of s**t they see. That's if you want this kind of meal to have any chance with the general population.
If insect production becomes an industry, then, I suspect, just like with cattle, we'll see the emergence of new selected species of insects sufficiently different from their wild counterparts.
As a matter of fact - you all eat insects every day; standards for grain, flour, vegetables, etc. generally speak of "maximum number of insect body parts per unit"
While it's a fact nothing is pure, and especially food, the requirements for body insect parts per unit sum up to significantly less than 100% insects, compared to what you'd eat under this new green proposal.
As you put a meal on the table and leave it there for 5 mins, just by interacting with air it comes in contact with various environment waste and pollutants, like flakes of human skin and what not. Doesn't mean I'd enjoy to be served human waste for dinner either.
In short: it's not the idea I might have tasted an insect that's the problem. It's when that's primarily for dinner.
Maybe we do not NEED to be 7 billion people on this planet. Yea, there I said it.
I'm not advocating genocide, but we would start with (1) two children per family. One child per family causes too big tragedy if that child is lost, and causes cultural strangeness in some countries where the families try to make that one child be a boy. Two is better.
Considering not every family wants two children, and not everyone creates a family, this will stop growth and begin a new process of population reduction.
Next, (2) encouraging traits that cause women to have their children later in life. Education of women, equal employment of women: while it's in the name of women, it also causes them to have their child later in life (late 20-s, early 30-s) rather than early (mid-teens-s to early 20-s). This means about 10, up to 20 years less "overlap" between generations, so slower reproduction means a lesser number of people.
Cap and trade is too easily corrupted, especially with "offsets", even if well intended, so let's face it: (3) we need to reduce some other taxes, and tax greenhouse production at some point, with no possibility for the business filling in papers for offsets. The money from these taxes can then be used by the government to produce additional offsets themselves.
So, just three things in no particular order, I'd gladly see in this world, before we're forced to eat cockroaches. Just saying, mmk?
Really, what's the problem here?
You really don't see the problem? How can you be so naive. Maybe you're new to this. All signs show to the fact there is a problem.
Of course the problem is not obvious. The article itself says it'll completely surprise us. They know we won't believe it at first. But that's why we must believe it, or else it's Armageddon.
Would you risk an Armageddon, because of your inability to understand and see?
And that's, in short, why we must attack Iraq.
Wait, what were we talking about :P?
Compared to the "omg he said profit, all bets are off" interpretation of most Slashdot users, your post is giving me hope that not all tech nerds are a uniformly infantile bunch.
That said, apparently a big share of them are.
I dunno. Will people instead risk their job and freedom... just to make some dickweed richer?
Don't be so simple. Do you really think he's running WikiLeaks to be rich?
Little hint 1) He has personally supported WikiLeaks from his money for the most of the project duration.
Little hint 2) He recently signed for his biography rights and said a lot of the money will go towards supporting WikiLeaks.
My my, does seem it's all about profit.
Now here's the reality: things cost money. Some of the people who work for him, want money (some don't, but not all). The machines WikiLeaks is hosted and maintained on, cost money. Processing these documents, costs money.
If you're so easily disillusioned that he mentioned the word "profit" as a part of his legal strategy, you'll basically hate absolutely everything "good" that you ever aspired to in the history of human civilizations.
What was he thinking? Threatening to sue? Did he really say he "owned" the documents?
This is exactly the problem everyone has with Assange and why Openleaks will replace Wikileaks.
Wikileaks no longer acts as a leak facilitator, it is not a political organization which selects what to leak, when, how. It's no longer a technology that acts like a dumb pipe, it's no longer functioning under network neutrality, it's now controlled top down by God aka Julian Assange.
Aren't you a perfect picture. What would YOU do in his position? The function of WikiLeaks is to leak, but it has to be in a controlled responsible manner. Isn't that what everyone wants?
What he said, was because he needed a legal motive to threaten to sue. What the real motive behind his threat was you'd probably never know. The documents might have had sensitive information that isn't in public interest, he'd prefer blacked out, like he has done with most documents WikiLeaks has released.
The mortality of measles is about 0.3% - 3 kids in 1000 that contract it will die. Your sample size simply means nothing. That's why you leave epidemiology to the experts and don't recklessly endanger not only your kids but everyone they come in contact with by refusing vaccination. In my opinion, it should simply be mandated by law. Parents refusing to vaccinate are clearly unfit for their role, their kids are better off if their asshat parents get thrown into the slammer and the kids set up for adoption.
Wow, aren't you intimidating waving that big finger at him.
However, he said that he knows more people who died in a car crash than measles. You cite "3 in 1000 kids infected die". Well, 1 in 100 die in a car crash.
So, turns out of we abolish vaccines, which I wouldn't recommend completely, there will be still more people dying in stupid car accidents which no one talks about, than measles. Stats is a funny thing.
Parents refusing to vaccinate are clearly unfit for their role, their kids are better off if their asshat parents get thrown into the slammer and the kids set up for adoption.
Wow, I wish I had your "clear" view of that matter. The parents love their children, and are mislead by poorly constructed evidence aired in media. Solution: make those children orphans and put their parents in jail.
Although that's a false dilemma, I'd still personally prefer to keep my parents and the 0.3% chance of dying than 100% of chance growing up on the street with my parents in jail, thank you very much.
In fact, consider the appeal of buying a phone and THEN choosing the OS you want - 'WindowsARM', Android, 'OpenIOS'... Or perhaps a hypervisor and VMs running any of the three?
I like it.
O_O
You know what, in the big picture, I think you and the people who'd "like it" count on the fingers my hand.