of course sony is scum. one of the worst. apple has become the new sony.
So, everyone is scum, except the pure as the driven snow open source coders struggling to free mankind from the scourge of intellectual property?
And, if Google are scum, as well as everyone else, shouldn't we expect that they have an ulterior motive in backing WebM? Maybe, just maybe, they have an evil plan to pervert open source to their own ends... gasp!
was i addressing you with that one? i don't think so.
Who you are attacking is irrelevant to the point. If anonymouse was making personal attacks against you I?d tell him to stop, too. Go on if you insist, but I warned you for your own good.
So, everyone is scum, except the pure as the driven snow open source coders struggling to free mankind from the scourge of intellectual property?
And, if Google are scum, as well as everyone else, shouldn't we expect that they have an ulterior motive in backing WebM? Maybe, just maybe, they have an evil plan to pervert open source to their own ends... gasp!
yes, pretty much everyone is scum except for the open source coders.
Who you are attacking is irrelevant to the point. If anonymouse was making personal attacks against you I?d tell him to stop, too. Go on if you insist, but I warned you for your own good.
oh. okay, so the 'tone' of ones post can be as slimy as you wish just don't use any exact derogatory word....
where were you when i objected to the use of 'freetard' and was told 'i shouldn't take it personally as it wasn't directed at me'? guess you weren't patrolling the streets that day.
Who you are attacking is irrelevant to the point. If anonymouse was making personal attacks against you I?d tell him to stop, too. Go on if you insist, but I warned you for your own good.
Be gentle with the innocent open source accolyte, he's on a mission from god.
oh. okay, so the 'tone' of ones post can be as slimy as you wish just don't use any exact derogatory word....
where were you when i objected to the use of 'freetard' and was told 'i shouldn't take it personally as it wasn't directed at me'? guess you weren't patrolling the streets that day.
removed the objectionable word from the post.
I didn’t see any freetard comment.
Anyway, according to the rules of the forum you can’t attack the person. You can go after their ideas. for instance, “Your idea is stupid” is okay, but “You are stupid” is not okay
While that might save you from being banned from the site it doesn’t make a foundation for a sound argument. Remember that the posters make up a small percentage of the total readers. You can say you don’t care what anyone thinks, but that isn’t true or you won’t be making an argument for your case in the first place.
You could further make your argument sound better by making sure an opinion is stated as such. For instance, “I think your idea is stupid.” You can further make your argument better by removing pejorative terms like stupid that put your opponent on the defensive and replace it with something less harsh and then explaining why you think so. “I think your idea doesn’t work. Here’s why…”
PS: Disparaging remarks about religion (and politics) also don’t help.
Anyway, according to the rules of the forum you can’t attack the person. You can go after their ideas. for instance, “Your idea is stupid” is okay, but “You are stupid” is not okay
While that might save you from being banned from the site it doesn’t make a foundation for a sound argument. Remember that the posters make up a small percentage of the total readers. You can say you don’t care what anyone thinks, but that isn’t true or you won’t be making an argument for your case in the first place.
You could further make your argument sound better by making sure an opinion is stated as such. For instance, “I think your idea is stupid.” You can further make your argument better by removing pejorative terms like stupid that put your opponent on the defensive and replace it with something less harsh and then explaining why you think so. “I think your idea doesn’t work. Here’s why…”
PS: Disparaging remarks about religion (and politics) also don’t help.
well unless a lawsuit stops webm prepare to install the codecs on your safari and ie browser. so you guys stick with your DC and the rest of the world will go with AC.
all that matters is the legality of it all. otherwise rest in peace h.264
have a banana, chimp.
No professional tools, not much use. Kinda hard to kill H.264 when there is only a promise and an absolute disaster of a WebM tech spec.
No professional tools, not much use. Kinda hard to kill H.264 when there is only a promise and an absolute disaster of a WebM tech spec.
Yes, but, remember, this isn't really about promoting WebM. Even Google knows that isn't going anywhere. It's about propping up Flash, which won't kill H.264 either, since it depends on it. Basically, Google has decided it's in its best interest to try to sabotage direct HTML video.
Google, apparently, has decided that promoting these widely adopted open standards isn't giving it the leverage it wants in certain markets. So, they dump the open standard in favor of a move that essentially drives content providers back into the arms of closed, proprietary Flash.
Because they have seen the light of the currently completely uncontrolled use of Flash cookies. Those are wide open to really evil uses with absolutely no adequate oversight. Most people don't even know they exist or how much powerful they are when used "properly" from the trackers point of view. They are an advertisers wet dream compared to cookies just being a webmasters dream.
Yes, but, remember, this isn't really about promoting WebM. Even Google knows that isn't going anywhere. It's about propping up Flash, which won't kill H.264 either, since it depends on it. Basically, Google has decided it's in its best interest to try to sabotage direct HTML video.
None of that really matters unless Google takes away H.264 from YouTube, then the DOJ will have to get involved. Not a likely scenario. The whole thing is a non-issue.
Yes, it was nicely played and shows just how poorly though-out every one of screamingfist's arguments are. The amusing part is he still doesn't understand how completely he destroys his own arguments. He probably still won't and he'll just get more frustrated and do an even better job now.
Yes, but, remember, this isn't really about promoting WebM. Even Google knows that isn't going anywhere. It's about propping up Flash, which won't kill H.264 either, since it depends on it. Basically, Google has decided it's in its best interest to try to sabotage direct HTML video.
Replace your last sentence with something along the lines of the below. Declare yourself a Winnah!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
Because they have seen the light of the currently completely uncontrolled use of Flash cookies. Those are wide open to really evil uses with absolutely no adequate oversight. Most people don't even know they exist or how much powerful they are when used "properly" from the trackers point of view. They are an advertisers wet dream compared to cookies just being a webmasters dream.
Google wants the Flash wrapper, they don't give a crap about the codec. It's just indirection that will potentially trap a whole bunch of other folks that just follow the codec and get burned should MPEG-LA change from FUD to fight.
Comments
That also means the majority, if not all, of these companies are also scum for backing H.264.
Cool it with the personal attacks.
was i addressing you with that one? i don't think so.
of course sony is scum. one of the worst. apple has become the new sony.
So, everyone is scum, except the pure as the driven snow open source coders struggling to free mankind from the scourge of intellectual property?
And, if Google are scum, as well as everyone else, shouldn't we expect that they have an ulterior motive in backing WebM? Maybe, just maybe, they have an evil plan to pervert open source to their own ends... gasp!
I honestly don't know why anyone's gettign worked up. Opera browser works on my Iphone just fine.
because its fun to do when you are bored with work....ha.
was i addressing you with that one? i don't think so.
Who you are attacking is irrelevant to the point. If anonymouse was making personal attacks against you I?d tell him to stop, too. Go on if you insist, but I warned you for your own good.
So, everyone is scum, except the pure as the driven snow open source coders struggling to free mankind from the scourge of intellectual property?
And, if Google are scum, as well as everyone else, shouldn't we expect that they have an ulterior motive in backing WebM? Maybe, just maybe, they have an evil plan to pervert open source to their own ends... gasp!
yes, pretty much everyone is scum except for the open source coders.
Who you are attacking is irrelevant to the point. If anonymouse was making personal attacks against you I?d tell him to stop, too. Go on if you insist, but I warned you for your own good.
oh. okay, so the 'tone' of ones post can be as slimy as you wish just don't use any exact derogatory word....
where were you when i objected to the use of 'freetard' and was told 'i shouldn't take it personally as it wasn't directed at me'? guess you weren't patrolling the streets that day.
removed the objectionable word from the post.
Who you are attacking is irrelevant to the point. If anonymouse was making personal attacks against you I?d tell him to stop, too. Go on if you insist, but I warned you for your own good.
Be gentle with the innocent open source accolyte, he's on a mission from god.
Be gentle with the innocent open source accolyte, he's on a mission from god.
i couldn't be. god is just a made up fairy tale to frighten the sheep of the world.
oh. okay, so the 'tone' of ones post can be as slimy as you wish just don't use any exact derogatory word....
where were you when i objected to the use of 'freetard' and was told 'i shouldn't take it personally as it wasn't directed at me'? guess you weren't patrolling the streets that day.
removed the objectionable word from the post.
I didn’t see any freetard comment.
Anyway, according to the rules of the forum you can’t attack the person. You can go after their ideas. for instance, “Your idea is stupid” is okay, but “You are stupid” is not okay
While that might save you from being banned from the site it doesn’t make a foundation for a sound argument. Remember that the posters make up a small percentage of the total readers. You can say you don’t care what anyone thinks, but that isn’t true or you won’t be making an argument for your case in the first place.
You could further make your argument sound better by making sure an opinion is stated as such. For instance, “I think your idea is stupid.” You can further make your argument better by removing pejorative terms like stupid that put your opponent on the defensive and replace it with something less harsh and then explaining why you think so. “I think your idea doesn’t work. Here’s why…”
PS: Disparaging remarks about religion (and politics) also don’t help.
i couldn't be. god is just a made up fairy tale to frighten the sheep of the world.
I think god is supposed to be Mr. Stallman.
i couldn't be. god is just a made up fairy tale to frighten the sheep of the world.
I was speaking metaphorically. But, we all worship something, whether we realize it or not.
I didn’t see any freetard comment.
Anyway, according to the rules of the forum you can’t attack the person. You can go after their ideas. for instance, “Your idea is stupid” is okay, but “You are stupid” is not okay
While that might save you from being banned from the site it doesn’t make a foundation for a sound argument. Remember that the posters make up a small percentage of the total readers. You can say you don’t care what anyone thinks, but that isn’t true or you won’t be making an argument for your case in the first place.
You could further make your argument sound better by making sure an opinion is stated as such. For instance, “I think your idea is stupid.” You can further make your argument better by removing pejorative terms like stupid that put your opponent on the defensive and replace it with something less harsh and then explaining why you think so. “I think your idea doesn’t work. Here’s why…”
PS: Disparaging remarks about religion (and politics) also don’t help.
hmm, or i could read Weston's little book....nah.
are disparaging remarks about santa claus okay?
I think god is supposed to be Mr. Stallman.
i like Woz, Wittgenstein, Peirce, Polya, Turing, Von Neumann, Quine, Weinberg.
oh and i would be okay with Bill Joy being a demi-god
those could be called gods and i wouldn't object ha.
I was speaking metaphorically. But, we all worship something, whether we realize it or not.
profound.
well unless a lawsuit stops webm prepare to install the codecs on your safari and ie browser. so you guys stick with your DC and the rest of the world will go with AC.
all that matters is the legality of it all. otherwise rest in peace h.264
have a banana, chimp.
No professional tools, not much use. Kinda hard to kill H.264 when there is only a promise and an absolute disaster of a WebM tech spec.
No professional tools, not much use. Kinda hard to kill H.264 when there is only a promise and an absolute disaster of a WebM tech spec.
Yes, but, remember, this isn't really about promoting WebM. Even Google knows that isn't going anywhere. It's about propping up Flash, which won't kill H.264 either, since it depends on it. Basically, Google has decided it's in its best interest to try to sabotage direct HTML video.
Google, apparently, has decided that promoting these widely adopted open standards isn't giving it the leverage it wants in certain markets. So, they dump the open standard in favor of a move that essentially drives content providers back into the arms of closed, proprietary Flash.
Because they have seen the light of the currently completely uncontrolled use of Flash cookies. Those are wide open to really evil uses with absolutely no adequate oversight. Most people don't even know they exist or how much powerful they are when used "properly" from the trackers point of view. They are an advertisers wet dream compared to cookies just being a webmasters dream.
Yes, but, remember, this isn't really about promoting WebM. Even Google knows that isn't going anywhere. It's about propping up Flash, which won't kill H.264 either, since it depends on it. Basically, Google has decided it's in its best interest to try to sabotage direct HTML video.
None of that really matters unless Google takes away H.264 from YouTube, then the DOJ will have to get involved. Not a likely scenario. The whole thing is a non-issue.
I see what you did there.
Yes, it was nicely played and shows just how poorly though-out every one of screamingfist's arguments are. The amusing part is he still doesn't understand how completely he destroys his own arguments. He probably still won't and he'll just get more frustrated and do an even better job now.
Yes, but, remember, this isn't really about promoting WebM. Even Google knows that isn't going anywhere. It's about propping up Flash, which won't kill H.264 either, since it depends on it. Basically, Google has decided it's in its best interest to try to sabotage direct HTML video.
Replace your last sentence with something along the lines of the below. Declare yourself a Winnah!
Because they have seen the light of the currently completely uncontrolled use of Flash cookies. Those are wide open to really evil uses with absolutely no adequate oversight. Most people don't even know they exist or how much powerful they are when used "properly" from the trackers point of view. They are an advertisers wet dream compared to cookies just being a webmasters dream.
Google wants the Flash wrapper, they don't give a crap about the codec. It's just indirection that will potentially trap a whole bunch of other folks that just follow the codec and get burned should MPEG-LA change from FUD to fight.