<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_13_2323210</id>
	<title>YouTube Revamp Imminent?</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1263394140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"YouTube's latest blog post indicated that <a href="http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/01/spring-cleaning-comes-early-to-youtube.html">some changes are on the way</a>. Google has opened up a call to submit and vote on ideas. HTML 5 open video with Free formats has dominated the vote, maintaining over twice as many votes as the next-highest item almost since the vote opened up. You may <a href="http://productideas.appspot.com/#8/e=3d60a">vote here</a> (Google login required). Perhaps we don't even need to since their blog post comes suspiciously soon after their <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/07/google-on2-merger-agreement/">revised merger</a> with On2. Could these improvements be a completely overhauled <a href="http://blog.thesilentnumber.me/2009/12/what-might-we-see-in-youtube-20.html">YouTube 2.0</a>?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " YouTube 's latest blog post indicated that some changes are on the way .
Google has opened up a call to submit and vote on ideas .
HTML 5 open video with Free formats has dominated the vote , maintaining over twice as many votes as the next-highest item almost since the vote opened up .
You may vote here ( Google login required ) .
Perhaps we do n't even need to since their blog post comes suspiciously soon after their revised merger with On2 .
Could these improvements be a completely overhauled YouTube 2.0 ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "YouTube's latest blog post indicated that some changes are on the way.
Google has opened up a call to submit and vote on ideas.
HTML 5 open video with Free formats has dominated the vote, maintaining over twice as many votes as the next-highest item almost since the vote opened up.
You may vote here (Google login required).
Perhaps we don't even need to since their blog post comes suspiciously soon after their revised merger with On2.
Could these improvements be a completely overhauled YouTube 2.0?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692</id>
	<title>They should ditch comments entirely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263402540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Youtube is a byword for horrifyingly stupid and banal comments.  The best Youtube comments still make Slashdot seem like a collection of Nobel prizewinners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube is a byword for horrifyingly stupid and banal comments .
The best Youtube comments still make Slashdot seem like a collection of Nobel prizewinners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube is a byword for horrifyingly stupid and banal comments.
The best Youtube comments still make Slashdot seem like a collection of Nobel prizewinners.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30770724</id>
	<title>Re:They should ditch comments entirely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263463440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Youtube comments make even 4chan comments look highly intelligent. 4chan has more trolls, more assholes, and is more disgusting, but youtube manages to beats them at stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube comments make even 4chan comments look highly intelligent .
4chan has more trolls , more assholes , and is more disgusting , but youtube manages to beats them at stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube comments make even 4chan comments look highly intelligent.
4chan has more trolls, more assholes, and is more disgusting, but youtube manages to beats them at stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761362</id>
	<title>How about a repeat button ?</title>
	<author>parallel\_prankster</author>
	<datestamp>1263409980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So that I can keep playing the same music videos over and over and get to work instead of coming back to youtube every 5minutes and pressing play.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So that I can keep playing the same music videos over and over and get to work instead of coming back to youtube every 5minutes and pressing play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So that I can keep playing the same music videos over and over and get to work instead of coming back to youtube every 5minutes and pressing play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760740</id>
	<title>Improved login system?</title>
	<author>jrozzi</author>
	<datestamp>1263402960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be nice if they simply revamped their login system. Right now I have an older "unlinked" google account and every time I try to login with it I get an infinite redirect loop. Yes, I cleared my cookies and the problem occurs on Firefox, Google Chrome, and Internet Explorer. I used to be able to login fine just a few weeks ago.

What does it take to get support from YouTube with login troubles? Is anyone else experiencing login issues?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be nice if they simply revamped their login system .
Right now I have an older " unlinked " google account and every time I try to login with it I get an infinite redirect loop .
Yes , I cleared my cookies and the problem occurs on Firefox , Google Chrome , and Internet Explorer .
I used to be able to login fine just a few weeks ago .
What does it take to get support from YouTube with login troubles ?
Is anyone else experiencing login issues ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be nice if they simply revamped their login system.
Right now I have an older "unlinked" google account and every time I try to login with it I get an infinite redirect loop.
Yes, I cleared my cookies and the problem occurs on Firefox, Google Chrome, and Internet Explorer.
I used to be able to login fine just a few weeks ago.
What does it take to get support from YouTube with login troubles?
Is anyone else experiencing login issues?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762870</id>
	<title>Re:The homepage.</title>
	<author>TOGSolid</author>
	<datestamp>1263476760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"How about they fix the bloated, slow-to-load youtube.com and replace it with something clean."<br>
<br>
Fixed that for you.<br>
Youtube has been progressively getting more and more buggy as they keep screwing with it.  The only thing on my wishlist for it is that they just fix the damn site.  It's gotten so bad that me and a few other friends who do video work are wondering why they even bother having a loading bar on their videos anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" How about they fix the bloated , slow-to-load youtube.com and replace it with something clean .
" Fixed that for you .
Youtube has been progressively getting more and more buggy as they keep screwing with it .
The only thing on my wishlist for it is that they just fix the damn site .
It 's gotten so bad that me and a few other friends who do video work are wondering why they even bother having a loading bar on their videos anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How about they fix the bloated, slow-to-load youtube.com and replace it with something clean.
"

Fixed that for you.
Youtube has been progressively getting more and more buggy as they keep screwing with it.
The only thing on my wishlist for it is that they just fix the damn site.
It's gotten so bad that me and a few other friends who do video work are wondering why they even bother having a loading bar on their videos anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760552</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1263401040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, so that's a better question to debate than HTML5 over HTML4... what's the best codec available now that they can use?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , so that 's a better question to debate than HTML5 over HTML4... what 's the best codec available now that they can use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, so that's a better question to debate than HTML5 over HTML4... what's the best codec available now that they can use?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761330</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>tangent3</author>
	<datestamp>1263409680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ideally, HTML5 standards would use an open, patent-free standard for use with video. The point of standards is to allow different systems to communicate effectively, the fact that it is open is a requirement of any standard meant for benefiting users. Right now, Theora is about the only major codec that seems to fit the bill.</p></div><p>Theora is actually based on patented VP3. However, the source code has been BSD'ed and from Wikipedia, "On2 also made an irrevocable, royalty-free license grant for any patent claims it might have over the software and any derivatives, allowing anyone to use any VP3-derived codec for any purpose."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideally , HTML5 standards would use an open , patent-free standard for use with video .
The point of standards is to allow different systems to communicate effectively , the fact that it is open is a requirement of any standard meant for benefiting users .
Right now , Theora is about the only major codec that seems to fit the bill.Theora is actually based on patented VP3 .
However , the source code has been BSD'ed and from Wikipedia , " On2 also made an irrevocable , royalty-free license grant for any patent claims it might have over the software and any derivatives , allowing anyone to use any VP3-derived codec for any purpose .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideally, HTML5 standards would use an open, patent-free standard for use with video.
The point of standards is to allow different systems to communicate effectively, the fact that it is open is a requirement of any standard meant for benefiting users.
Right now, Theora is about the only major codec that seems to fit the bill.Theora is actually based on patented VP3.
However, the source code has been BSD'ed and from Wikipedia, "On2 also made an irrevocable, royalty-free license grant for any patent claims it might have over the software and any derivatives, allowing anyone to use any VP3-derived codec for any purpose.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178</id>
	<title>HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263397740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There seems to be a rather loud outcry for HTML5 in the idea list. Many of the top ten ideas use that phrase and nothing else of substance.</p><p>There's only one problem. It ain't finished yet. So we've got the same problems 801.11n had a few years ago. It's hard to implement a moving spec.</p><p>This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today. Even worse, it's the same people behind it... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use\_of\_Ogg\_formats\_in\_HTML5" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Ogg's video spec 's used to be called out by name for being used in HTML5</a> [wikipedia.org] and that's still under debate. Open Source fans including Mozilla support it, while owners of other video codecs of course think they shouldn't be locked out.</p><p>So... really, HTML5 doesn't solve Google's problems with YouTube. Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call. You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use, or we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube while other sites use other codecs....and not make much of a change.</p><p>Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be a rather loud outcry for HTML5 in the idea list .
Many of the top ten ideas use that phrase and nothing else of substance.There 's only one problem .
It ai n't finished yet .
So we 've got the same problems 801.11n had a few years ago .
It 's hard to implement a moving spec.This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM , and it 's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today .
Even worse , it 's the same people behind it... Ogg 's video spec 's used to be called out by name for being used in HTML5 [ wikipedia.org ] and that 's still under debate .
Open Source fans including Mozilla support it , while owners of other video codecs of course think they should n't be locked out.So... really , HTML5 does n't solve Google 's problems with YouTube .
Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call .
You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use , or we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube while other sites use other codecs....and not make much of a change.Standards are good... but we 're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems to be a rather loud outcry for HTML5 in the idea list.
Many of the top ten ideas use that phrase and nothing else of substance.There's only one problem.
It ain't finished yet.
So we've got the same problems 801.11n had a few years ago.
It's hard to implement a moving spec.This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today.
Even worse, it's the same people behind it... Ogg's video spec 's used to be called out by name for being used in HTML5 [wikipedia.org] and that's still under debate.
Open Source fans including Mozilla support it, while owners of other video codecs of course think they shouldn't be locked out.So... really, HTML5 doesn't solve Google's problems with YouTube.
Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call.
You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use, or we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube while other sites use other codecs....and not make much of a change.Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30788994</id>
	<title>Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263640800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Youtube could keep current video's in h.264 and future videos in Ogg (thedora), converting upon demand. Problem solved.</p><p>ps. ogg will not go away, just like Linux. Better to support it now then wait for it to byte you in the tail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube could keep current video 's in h.264 and future videos in Ogg ( thedora ) , converting upon demand .
Problem solved.ps .
ogg will not go away , just like Linux .
Better to support it now then wait for it to byte you in the tail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube could keep current video's in h.264 and future videos in Ogg (thedora), converting upon demand.
Problem solved.ps.
ogg will not go away, just like Linux.
Better to support it now then wait for it to byte you in the tail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30763620</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>SD-Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1263482520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On2, which rapidly releases new spec generations, is currently at VP8 and this is supposed to compete with h.264. AFAIK no one has seen an actual VP8 encoder released to the public, so the comparativ quality is unknown.
<br>The secret about vido codecs is that the implementation and ongoing optimization is more important than the spec itself anyway. Just look at how far XVID has come despite being based on a 10 year old standard. Similarly, Theora was based on VP3, but it is extremely tuned and updated to this day. So Theora is already closer to h.264 (although not on par) than anything from On2 up to VP7 at the moment. VP7 was comparable to h.264 when the h.264 implementations sucked (circa 2005), but so was XVID! since then h.264 implementations, especially x264 has made strides, eclipsing VP7 (and XVID etc).
<br>The moral of the story is that even if VP7 is made open source, it is only comparable to Theora quality anyway, I doubt there is enough room for improvement in that spec to compete with h.264. VP8 probably has more potential, but all we have ar On2's claims and (biased) demonstrations so far. VP8 open sourced + Google pouring in development effort could produce the breakthrough in 1-2 years, who knows.. But nothing from On2 is the holy grail ATM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On2 , which rapidly releases new spec generations , is currently at VP8 and this is supposed to compete with h.264 .
AFAIK no one has seen an actual VP8 encoder released to the public , so the comparativ quality is unknown .
The secret about vido codecs is that the implementation and ongoing optimization is more important than the spec itself anyway .
Just look at how far XVID has come despite being based on a 10 year old standard .
Similarly , Theora was based on VP3 , but it is extremely tuned and updated to this day .
So Theora is already closer to h.264 ( although not on par ) than anything from On2 up to VP7 at the moment .
VP7 was comparable to h.264 when the h.264 implementations sucked ( circa 2005 ) , but so was XVID !
since then h.264 implementations , especially x264 has made strides , eclipsing VP7 ( and XVID etc ) .
The moral of the story is that even if VP7 is made open source , it is only comparable to Theora quality anyway , I doubt there is enough room for improvement in that spec to compete with h.264 .
VP8 probably has more potential , but all we have ar On2 's claims and ( biased ) demonstrations so far .
VP8 open sourced + Google pouring in development effort could produce the breakthrough in 1-2 years , who knows.. But nothing from On2 is the holy grail ATM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On2, which rapidly releases new spec generations, is currently at VP8 and this is supposed to compete with h.264.
AFAIK no one has seen an actual VP8 encoder released to the public, so the comparativ quality is unknown.
The secret about vido codecs is that the implementation and ongoing optimization is more important than the spec itself anyway.
Just look at how far XVID has come despite being based on a 10 year old standard.
Similarly, Theora was based on VP3, but it is extremely tuned and updated to this day.
So Theora is already closer to h.264 (although not on par) than anything from On2 up to VP7 at the moment.
VP7 was comparable to h.264 when the h.264 implementations sucked (circa 2005), but so was XVID!
since then h.264 implementations, especially x264 has made strides, eclipsing VP7 (and XVID etc).
The moral of the story is that even if VP7 is made open source, it is only comparable to Theora quality anyway, I doubt there is enough room for improvement in that spec to compete with h.264.
VP8 probably has more potential, but all we have ar On2's claims and (biased) demonstrations so far.
VP8 open sourced + Google pouring in development effort could produce the breakthrough in 1-2 years, who knows.. But nothing from On2 is the holy grail ATM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761244</id>
	<title>Re:I'm curious</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1263408720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The linked site was not a Google URL, the login page was a Google page with proper SSL certificate (and yes I did check to see if any of the obvious fake SSL cert techniques had been used)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked site was not a Google URL , the login page was a Google page with proper SSL certificate ( and yes I did check to see if any of the obvious fake SSL cert techniques had been used )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked site was not a Google URL, the login page was a Google page with proper SSL certificate (and yes I did check to see if any of the obvious fake SSL cert techniques had been used)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30769298</id>
	<title>Re:Stop being basement nerds</title>
	<author>Doug52392</author>
	<datestamp>1263501420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sad thing is, what the fuck are you going to watch with your fancy HTML5-compliant capitalist copyright Nazi video "sharing" site we call YouTube? The only actual "user-generated" content on that garbage site consists of one-minute "vlogs" from idiots who think they're cool because they say "fuck" "gay" and "faggot" after every word.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad thing is , what the fuck are you going to watch with your fancy HTML5-compliant capitalist copyright Nazi video " sharing " site we call YouTube ?
The only actual " user-generated " content on that garbage site consists of one-minute " vlogs " from idiots who think they 're cool because they say " fuck " " gay " and " faggot " after every word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad thing is, what the fuck are you going to watch with your fancy HTML5-compliant capitalist copyright Nazi video "sharing" site we call YouTube?
The only actual "user-generated" content on that garbage site consists of one-minute "vlogs" from idiots who think they're cool because they say "fuck" "gay" and "faggot" after every word.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30766552</id>
	<title>Re:They should ditch comments entirely</title>
	<author>eigenstates</author>
	<datestamp>1263492600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Laying odds that one comment appearing on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. belonged to a Nobel Prize winner... 3 to 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Laying odds that one comment appearing on / .
belonged to a Nobel Prize winner... 3 to 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Laying odds that one comment appearing on /.
belonged to a Nobel Prize winner... 3 to 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30770558</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1263463020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure, Theora is no H.264, but it handily beats the H.263 that YouTube currently uses for downlevel Flash Players</p></div><p>Which is worthless here. Why do you think YouTube is doing that, if, indeed, they're still doing that?</p><p>Duh -- to support people who won't (or can't) upgrade their Flash player.</p><p>Now, what makes you think those people would be able to play Theora in any sense? If they can install a new browser, they can just as well install Chrome, which supports h.264. If they can install a new Flash player, they've got h.264.</p><p>Just what market does this make sense for?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You appear to have just called the members of MPEG-LA "political assholes".</p></div><p>No, I just called the Mozilla Foundation "political assholes".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>How much would it cost to move Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation out of the United States?</p></div><p>Not relevant -- they don't provide any framework or support, and in fact work against, any efforts that might be made outside the United States to develop a less-crippled Firefox. In particular, they flatly refuse to make codecs pluggable in any way, let alone native libraries like DirectShow or QuickTime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , Theora is no H.264 , but it handily beats the H.263 that YouTube currently uses for downlevel Flash PlayersWhich is worthless here .
Why do you think YouTube is doing that , if , indeed , they 're still doing that ? Duh -- to support people who wo n't ( or ca n't ) upgrade their Flash player.Now , what makes you think those people would be able to play Theora in any sense ?
If they can install a new browser , they can just as well install Chrome , which supports h.264 .
If they can install a new Flash player , they 've got h.264.Just what market does this make sense for ? You appear to have just called the members of MPEG-LA " political assholes " .No , I just called the Mozilla Foundation " political assholes " .How much would it cost to move Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation out of the United States ? Not relevant -- they do n't provide any framework or support , and in fact work against , any efforts that might be made outside the United States to develop a less-crippled Firefox .
In particular , they flatly refuse to make codecs pluggable in any way , let alone native libraries like DirectShow or QuickTime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, Theora is no H.264, but it handily beats the H.263 that YouTube currently uses for downlevel Flash PlayersWhich is worthless here.
Why do you think YouTube is doing that, if, indeed, they're still doing that?Duh -- to support people who won't (or can't) upgrade their Flash player.Now, what makes you think those people would be able to play Theora in any sense?
If they can install a new browser, they can just as well install Chrome, which supports h.264.
If they can install a new Flash player, they've got h.264.Just what market does this make sense for?You appear to have just called the members of MPEG-LA "political assholes".No, I just called the Mozilla Foundation "political assholes".How much would it cost to move Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation out of the United States?Not relevant -- they don't provide any framework or support, and in fact work against, any efforts that might be made outside the United States to develop a less-crippled Firefox.
In particular, they flatly refuse to make codecs pluggable in any way, let alone native libraries like DirectShow or QuickTime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761518</id>
	<title>Re:DMCA Reform</title>
	<author>slikk</author>
	<datestamp>1263412320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem here is the DMCA law.  YouTube is basically following the law that if they receive a DMCA request, they must follow it and take down the videos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem here is the DMCA law .
YouTube is basically following the law that if they receive a DMCA request , they must follow it and take down the videos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem here is the DMCA law.
YouTube is basically following the law that if they receive a DMCA request, they must follow it and take down the videos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762866</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263476700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.</i></p><p>I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.</i></p><p>I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.</p></div><p>Well, youtube is the reason that flash really took off. Before that it was mainly used by shitty web developers with more training in graphic design than usability. We had emb, and java video which both sort of sucked. Right now we're reaching suckiness levels once again because flash video sucks up so much processor usage. Frankly, it's amazing what adobe is doing. Usually only an antivirus suite would be able to make a brand new amazing machine seem like a turd.</p><p>If youtube went HTML5, the only reason flash wouldn't die a quick death is if there was a luddite revolt. But youtube can take a page from facebook there. Change the standard and hold your ground. People will scream bloody murder at first, but it will eventually die down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Standards are good... but we 're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.I think that , given Youtube 's weight , any codec Google chose would probably win the format war .
Standards are good... but we 're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.I think that , given Youtube 's weight , any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.Well , youtube is the reason that flash really took off .
Before that it was mainly used by shitty web developers with more training in graphic design than usability .
We had emb , and java video which both sort of sucked .
Right now we 're reaching suckiness levels once again because flash video sucks up so much processor usage .
Frankly , it 's amazing what adobe is doing .
Usually only an antivirus suite would be able to make a brand new amazing machine seem like a turd.If youtube went HTML5 , the only reason flash would n't die a quick death is if there was a luddite revolt .
But youtube can take a page from facebook there .
Change the standard and hold your ground .
People will scream bloody murder at first , but it will eventually die down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.
Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.Well, youtube is the reason that flash really took off.
Before that it was mainly used by shitty web developers with more training in graphic design than usability.
We had emb, and java video which both sort of sucked.
Right now we're reaching suckiness levels once again because flash video sucks up so much processor usage.
Frankly, it's amazing what adobe is doing.
Usually only an antivirus suite would be able to make a brand new amazing machine seem like a turd.If youtube went HTML5, the only reason flash wouldn't die a quick death is if there was a luddite revolt.
But youtube can take a page from facebook there.
Change the standard and hold your ground.
People will scream bloody murder at first, but it will eventually die down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30789428</id>
	<title>Re:The homepage.</title>
	<author>Akral</author>
	<datestamp>1263646800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already have that.<br>It's called <a href="http://www.youtube.com/feather\_beta" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">YouTube Feather</a> [youtube.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already have that.It 's called YouTube Feather [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already have that.It's called YouTube Feather [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30763504</id>
	<title>Google using naked video on youtube? I doubt it.</title>
	<author>Concern</author>
	<datestamp>1263481980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It would also get us the ability to use purely open source software for our web browsing again, or at least for our YouTube -- no need for Flash. It'd also give us the ability to right-click and do something like "save video as", or click+drag a video to our desktop, or email. It'd also greatly simplify anything else which just wants the video -- for example, any sort of set-top box, etc, now only needs a web browser, or even just something that can scrape the YouTube HTML, instead of a web browser and a Flash port.</i></p><p>Is there a solution for all of Google's overlay features and customer spying- i mean, statistics and market intelligence capabilities, in this scenario you envision?</p><p>I'm assuming anything that prevents i.e. second by second reporting of how much of the video you watch, or current and future in-frame advertising capabilities, is pretty much a non-starter.</p><p>They may not be "evil," but they are in the ad business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would also get us the ability to use purely open source software for our web browsing again , or at least for our YouTube -- no need for Flash .
It 'd also give us the ability to right-click and do something like " save video as " , or click + drag a video to our desktop , or email .
It 'd also greatly simplify anything else which just wants the video -- for example , any sort of set-top box , etc , now only needs a web browser , or even just something that can scrape the YouTube HTML , instead of a web browser and a Flash port.Is there a solution for all of Google 's overlay features and customer spying- i mean , statistics and market intelligence capabilities , in this scenario you envision ? I 'm assuming anything that prevents i.e .
second by second reporting of how much of the video you watch , or current and future in-frame advertising capabilities , is pretty much a non-starter.They may not be " evil , " but they are in the ad business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would also get us the ability to use purely open source software for our web browsing again, or at least for our YouTube -- no need for Flash.
It'd also give us the ability to right-click and do something like "save video as", or click+drag a video to our desktop, or email.
It'd also greatly simplify anything else which just wants the video -- for example, any sort of set-top box, etc, now only needs a web browser, or even just something that can scrape the YouTube HTML, instead of a web browser and a Flash port.Is there a solution for all of Google's overlay features and customer spying- i mean, statistics and market intelligence capabilities, in this scenario you envision?I'm assuming anything that prevents i.e.
second by second reporting of how much of the video you watch, or current and future in-frame advertising capabilities, is pretty much a non-starter.They may not be "evil," but they are in the ad business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761728</id>
	<title>Re:They should ditch comments entirely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263502200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obviously haven't seen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/b/ on 4chan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously have n't seen /b/ on 4chan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously haven't seen /b/ on 4chan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30766992</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>qwertyatwork</author>
	<datestamp>1263494100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not a fan of cat videos eh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a fan of cat videos eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a fan of cat videos eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30770098</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1263461160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Linux desktop market share is maybe 1\% at most.</p></div><p>Could of sworn I remember reading the number is actually closer to 3\% and likely under represented, with Apple holding something like 10\%. And these numbers are fairly old.</p><p>Meaning, assuming my memory is correct, Linux's numbers today are likely to be 5\% and still drastically under represented.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux desktop market share is maybe 1 \ % at most.Could of sworn I remember reading the number is actually closer to 3 \ % and likely under represented , with Apple holding something like 10 \ % .
And these numbers are fairly old.Meaning , assuming my memory is correct , Linux 's numbers today are likely to be 5 \ % and still drastically under represented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux desktop market share is maybe 1\% at most.Could of sworn I remember reading the number is actually closer to 3\% and likely under represented, with Apple holding something like 10\%.
And these numbers are fairly old.Meaning, assuming my memory is correct, Linux's numbers today are likely to be 5\% and still drastically under represented.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30769836</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1263460260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The answer to the format war? Free Theora Porn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer to the format war ?
Free Theora Porn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer to the format war?
Free Theora Porn!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30763712</id>
	<title>Re:IMMA CHOKE YOUR DICK WITH MY MOMS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263483000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Youtube is a byword for horrifyingly stupid and banal comments.  The best Youtube comments still make Slashdot seem like a collection of Nobel prizewinners.</p></div><p> dude u talk leik a fag. get teh fuk of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. bitch. u r fuking cancerz!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube is a byword for horrifyingly stupid and banal comments .
The best Youtube comments still make Slashdot seem like a collection of Nobel prizewinners .
dude u talk leik a fag .
get teh fuk of / .
bitch. u r fuking cancerz !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube is a byword for horrifyingly stupid and banal comments.
The best Youtube comments still make Slashdot seem like a collection of Nobel prizewinners.
dude u talk leik a fag.
get teh fuk of /.
bitch. u r fuking cancerz!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760760</id>
	<title>Re:They should ditch comments entirely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263403140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>so much for 'full of mischief'</htmltext>
<tokenext>so much for 'full of mischief'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so much for 'full of mischief'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762890</id>
	<title>Re:They should ditch comments entirely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263476940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Youtube is a byword for horrifyingly stupid and banal comments.  The best Youtube comments still make Slashdot seem like a collection of Nobel prizewinners.</p></div><p>Yes, us is good!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube is a byword for horrifyingly stupid and banal comments .
The best Youtube comments still make Slashdot seem like a collection of Nobel prizewinners.Yes , us is good ! !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube is a byword for horrifyingly stupid and banal comments.
The best Youtube comments still make Slashdot seem like a collection of Nobel prizewinners.Yes, us is good!!
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760628</id>
	<title>Re:I'm curious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263402000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It used Google's SSL based login for going to the account from a Google domain, so it is as legit as one can hope for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It used Google 's SSL based login for going to the account from a Google domain , so it is as legit as one can hope for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It used Google's SSL based login for going to the account from a Google domain, so it is as legit as one can hope for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760614</id>
	<title>Uh oh</title>
	<author>the brown guy</author>
	<datestamp>1263401880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>""Slashdot -style comment moderation and filtering."<br>trreeves, Portland, OR  -    "</p><p>He must be new here...or have no idea what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is about</p><p>I suggested More porn...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" " Slashdot -style comment moderation and filtering .
" trreeves , Portland , OR - " He must be new here...or have no idea what / .
is aboutI suggested More porn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>""Slashdot -style comment moderation and filtering.
"trreeves, Portland, OR  -    "He must be new here...or have no idea what /.
is aboutI suggested More porn...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562</id>
	<title>Ogg is out for technical reasons</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1263401280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google already said that they can't do YouTube in Ogg because the Internet does not have enough bandwidth. The back end of YouTube is MPEG-4 H.264. No matter what format you upload your video in, it's converted to H.264 and that is the primary copy. The upcoming YouTube redesign has also been revealed to be essentially porting the mobile version of YouTube to the desktop. That means HTML5 and MPEG-4, which is what mobiles all use.</p><p>An ISO MPEG-4 audio video player is already built into EVERYTHING, there is no opportunity to change it now. Blu-Ray, set-top boxes, smartphones, iPod and other media players, GPU's, Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, iTunes, game consoles, Safari, and Chrome all have H.264. If you don't publish MPEG-4, you might as well send your video encrypted with AES-256 and don't send the key. Nobody can play it if it's not MPEG-4. Ogg is a hobbyist format, suitable for ripping your CD/DVD onto a Linux box and watching them yourself, not suitable for sharing. Sharing requires that you use the community codec, which is what MPEG is all about for 20 years now.</p><p>Also, aside from the players, there is the whole professional toolchain of cameras, recorders, editing suites, encoders, servers. All of it is MPEG-4 because it's the standardization of QuickTime and that was already built into all the tools. Tools that supported proprietary QuickTime were upgraded fairly easily and quickly to support open ISO MPEG-4. Audio video is bigger than the Web. Audio video standardization is more successful than Web standardization. The idea that the W3C is going to tell Pixar and Dolby and such how to make audio video is insane. Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, not the entire world.</p><p>And if we want to close one eye to professional content producers, we can open the other to amateurs who have, for example, a Flip camcorder that creates MPEG-4 H.264, or an iPhone camcorder that creates MPEG-4 H.264 and emails clips right from the iPhone. Users are not going to do a round trip through a PC so they can convert that MPEG-4 to Ogg before they share it. Especially not when all their video players have H.264 in their hardware already. That is why an iPod can play more hours of MPEG-4 H.264 than many laptops: the iPod has an "MPEG-4 CPU" so to speak, a dedicated chip that decodes the video with maximum efficiency. It doesn't have a big general purpose CPU like a PC. Multiple codecs is an AUTHORING side thing, not a consumer side thing. You use various codecs on a workstation to get your editing done, you don't demand that the consumer have a dozen codecs in their video player, it's not practical. The community agrees on one consumer codec and we all use it, just like CD/DVD, and everybody wins. Not the Linux community, the free software community, or the Web community<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the audio video community: MPEG.</p><p>This whole debate happened 10 years ago already. You're way too late to change the consumer audio video standard to something other than MPEG-4 H.264/AAC. And you certainly can't change it to something that isn't at least technically superior. Consider that Adobe Flash was the de facto HTML4 video player that is being replaced by the audio and video tags and associated JavaScript API's in HTML5. The video codec in Flash is ISO MPEG-4 H.264/AAC for some years now. The Web is already an ISO MPEG-4 player in HTML4. It will continue to be in HTML5 because that's the format all the video is stored in. Including YouTube, iTunes, Blu-Ray, and all the movies people are shooting with their camcorders.</p><p>In short, Ogg is out for technical reasons: it requires too much bandwidth, it doesn't exist in the players, it doesn't exist in the cameras, it doesn't exist in the editing tools, it is not in the game at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google already said that they ca n't do YouTube in Ogg because the Internet does not have enough bandwidth .
The back end of YouTube is MPEG-4 H.264 .
No matter what format you upload your video in , it 's converted to H.264 and that is the primary copy .
The upcoming YouTube redesign has also been revealed to be essentially porting the mobile version of YouTube to the desktop .
That means HTML5 and MPEG-4 , which is what mobiles all use.An ISO MPEG-4 audio video player is already built into EVERYTHING , there is no opportunity to change it now .
Blu-Ray , set-top boxes , smartphones , iPod and other media players , GPU 's , Adobe Flash , Apple QuickTime , iTunes , game consoles , Safari , and Chrome all have H.264 .
If you do n't publish MPEG-4 , you might as well send your video encrypted with AES-256 and do n't send the key .
Nobody can play it if it 's not MPEG-4 .
Ogg is a hobbyist format , suitable for ripping your CD/DVD onto a Linux box and watching them yourself , not suitable for sharing .
Sharing requires that you use the community codec , which is what MPEG is all about for 20 years now.Also , aside from the players , there is the whole professional toolchain of cameras , recorders , editing suites , encoders , servers .
All of it is MPEG-4 because it 's the standardization of QuickTime and that was already built into all the tools .
Tools that supported proprietary QuickTime were upgraded fairly easily and quickly to support open ISO MPEG-4 .
Audio video is bigger than the Web .
Audio video standardization is more successful than Web standardization .
The idea that the W3C is going to tell Pixar and Dolby and such how to make audio video is insane .
Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web , not the entire world.And if we want to close one eye to professional content producers , we can open the other to amateurs who have , for example , a Flip camcorder that creates MPEG-4 H.264 , or an iPhone camcorder that creates MPEG-4 H.264 and emails clips right from the iPhone .
Users are not going to do a round trip through a PC so they can convert that MPEG-4 to Ogg before they share it .
Especially not when all their video players have H.264 in their hardware already .
That is why an iPod can play more hours of MPEG-4 H.264 than many laptops : the iPod has an " MPEG-4 CPU " so to speak , a dedicated chip that decodes the video with maximum efficiency .
It does n't have a big general purpose CPU like a PC .
Multiple codecs is an AUTHORING side thing , not a consumer side thing .
You use various codecs on a workstation to get your editing done , you do n't demand that the consumer have a dozen codecs in their video player , it 's not practical .
The community agrees on one consumer codec and we all use it , just like CD/DVD , and everybody wins .
Not the Linux community , the free software community , or the Web community ... the audio video community : MPEG.This whole debate happened 10 years ago already .
You 're way too late to change the consumer audio video standard to something other than MPEG-4 H.264/AAC .
And you certainly ca n't change it to something that is n't at least technically superior .
Consider that Adobe Flash was the de facto HTML4 video player that is being replaced by the audio and video tags and associated JavaScript API 's in HTML5 .
The video codec in Flash is ISO MPEG-4 H.264/AAC for some years now .
The Web is already an ISO MPEG-4 player in HTML4 .
It will continue to be in HTML5 because that 's the format all the video is stored in .
Including YouTube , iTunes , Blu-Ray , and all the movies people are shooting with their camcorders.In short , Ogg is out for technical reasons : it requires too much bandwidth , it does n't exist in the players , it does n't exist in the cameras , it does n't exist in the editing tools , it is not in the game at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google already said that they can't do YouTube in Ogg because the Internet does not have enough bandwidth.
The back end of YouTube is MPEG-4 H.264.
No matter what format you upload your video in, it's converted to H.264 and that is the primary copy.
The upcoming YouTube redesign has also been revealed to be essentially porting the mobile version of YouTube to the desktop.
That means HTML5 and MPEG-4, which is what mobiles all use.An ISO MPEG-4 audio video player is already built into EVERYTHING, there is no opportunity to change it now.
Blu-Ray, set-top boxes, smartphones, iPod and other media players, GPU's, Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, iTunes, game consoles, Safari, and Chrome all have H.264.
If you don't publish MPEG-4, you might as well send your video encrypted with AES-256 and don't send the key.
Nobody can play it if it's not MPEG-4.
Ogg is a hobbyist format, suitable for ripping your CD/DVD onto a Linux box and watching them yourself, not suitable for sharing.
Sharing requires that you use the community codec, which is what MPEG is all about for 20 years now.Also, aside from the players, there is the whole professional toolchain of cameras, recorders, editing suites, encoders, servers.
All of it is MPEG-4 because it's the standardization of QuickTime and that was already built into all the tools.
Tools that supported proprietary QuickTime were upgraded fairly easily and quickly to support open ISO MPEG-4.
Audio video is bigger than the Web.
Audio video standardization is more successful than Web standardization.
The idea that the W3C is going to tell Pixar and Dolby and such how to make audio video is insane.
Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, not the entire world.And if we want to close one eye to professional content producers, we can open the other to amateurs who have, for example, a Flip camcorder that creates MPEG-4 H.264, or an iPhone camcorder that creates MPEG-4 H.264 and emails clips right from the iPhone.
Users are not going to do a round trip through a PC so they can convert that MPEG-4 to Ogg before they share it.
Especially not when all their video players have H.264 in their hardware already.
That is why an iPod can play more hours of MPEG-4 H.264 than many laptops: the iPod has an "MPEG-4 CPU" so to speak, a dedicated chip that decodes the video with maximum efficiency.
It doesn't have a big general purpose CPU like a PC.
Multiple codecs is an AUTHORING side thing, not a consumer side thing.
You use various codecs on a workstation to get your editing done, you don't demand that the consumer have a dozen codecs in their video player, it's not practical.
The community agrees on one consumer codec and we all use it, just like CD/DVD, and everybody wins.
Not the Linux community, the free software community, or the Web community ... the audio video community: MPEG.This whole debate happened 10 years ago already.
You're way too late to change the consumer audio video standard to something other than MPEG-4 H.264/AAC.
And you certainly can't change it to something that isn't at least technically superior.
Consider that Adobe Flash was the de facto HTML4 video player that is being replaced by the audio and video tags and associated JavaScript API's in HTML5.
The video codec in Flash is ISO MPEG-4 H.264/AAC for some years now.
The Web is already an ISO MPEG-4 player in HTML4.
It will continue to be in HTML5 because that's the format all the video is stored in.
Including YouTube, iTunes, Blu-Ray, and all the movies people are shooting with their camcorders.In short, Ogg is out for technical reasons: it requires too much bandwidth, it doesn't exist in the players, it doesn't exist in the cameras, it doesn't exist in the editing tools, it is not in the game at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761462</id>
	<title>Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons</title>
	<author>Idiot with a gun</author>
	<datestamp>1263411600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MPEG-4 is still patent encumbered. So if we switch to it, we aren't really gaining that much. How about we finally go to audio/video standards that people can use without worrying about being sued?</htmltext>
<tokenext>MPEG-4 is still patent encumbered .
So if we switch to it , we are n't really gaining that much .
How about we finally go to audio/video standards that people can use without worrying about being sued ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MPEG-4 is still patent encumbered.
So if we switch to it, we aren't really gaining that much.
How about we finally go to audio/video standards that people can use without worrying about being sued?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761162</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>alvinrod</author>
	<datestamp>1263408000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ideally yes, but for everyone with a smart phone or other device that can't afford to waste CPU (And by extension battery life.) on decoding video when it has a perfectly good H.264 hardware decoder, Ogg is not a good solution.
<br> <br>
Linux desktop market share is maybe 1\% at most. Linux actually has a good showing in the mobile phone space, but these devices all include H.264 hardware decoders so they don't run into the same issues as desktop Linux.
<br> <br>
The only place Theora makes any real amount of sense is on the desktop and Linux is largely an also ran in that space at the current time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideally yes , but for everyone with a smart phone or other device that ca n't afford to waste CPU ( And by extension battery life .
) on decoding video when it has a perfectly good H.264 hardware decoder , Ogg is not a good solution .
Linux desktop market share is maybe 1 \ % at most .
Linux actually has a good showing in the mobile phone space , but these devices all include H.264 hardware decoders so they do n't run into the same issues as desktop Linux .
The only place Theora makes any real amount of sense is on the desktop and Linux is largely an also ran in that space at the current time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideally yes, but for everyone with a smart phone or other device that can't afford to waste CPU (And by extension battery life.
) on decoding video when it has a perfectly good H.264 hardware decoder, Ogg is not a good solution.
Linux desktop market share is maybe 1\% at most.
Linux actually has a good showing in the mobile phone space, but these devices all include H.264 hardware decoders so they don't run into the same issues as desktop Linux.
The only place Theora makes any real amount of sense is on the desktop and Linux is largely an also ran in that space at the current time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30764598</id>
	<title>Re:The homepage.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263486360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out "Feather". They are advertising it on the main page. It's a minimalist, fast-to-load version of youtube. No Javascript I believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out " Feather " .
They are advertising it on the main page .
It 's a minimalist , fast-to-load version of youtube .
No Javascript I believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out "Feather".
They are advertising it on the main page.
It's a minimalist, fast-to-load version of youtube.
No Javascript I believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761056</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1263406920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If YouTube were to implement HTML5 support with, say, h.264 in an mp4 container, they'd have to do no transcoding, probably not even re-encapsulating. It would Just Work on Chrome and Safari, and there's no technological reason it couldn't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support, even in countries which don't respect software patents. If IE ever decides to support HTML5 at all, I very much doubt that Microsoft doesn't have h.264 licenses. Only Opera really has an excuse here.</p></div><p>Really?  What exactly is Opera's excuse?  Not enough revenue?  I doubt that.  They probably aren't making much on their desktop browser, but their mobile browsers, combined with their deal with Nintendo to provide their technology for the DS and Wii, should make them more than enough to secure a license with MPEG-LA.</p><p>Firefox, however, can not provide AVC support because of legal hurdles.  I haven't read the MPL, but I know that the GPL and the LGPL have an all-or-nothing stance about patents.  Either MPEG-LA needs to allow all instances of Firefox, including the downstream versions and forks, a license for AVC, or the project is not allowed to secure one at all.  What happens if Mozilla gets MPEG-LA sanctioned AVC support for the upstream version only depends on whether they hold the copyright for all of their code.  If they do, then anyone who distributes Mozilla's browser further must remove the codecs or risk a license violation (assuming the MPL has a similar patent clause), effectively making it proprietary for anyone who doesn't know how to, or doesn't want to, alter the browser code.  If Mozilla doesn't hold all of the copyright to the browser, then they themselves are in violation of the license, and are ironically prohibited by copyright law from distributing their own browser.</p><p>Google can take a rather unique approach to this problem.  Chrome has AVC and Theora support, but Chrome is actually proprietary, licensed under the Google TOS.  The free Chromium code on which it is based, however, does not contain any AVC support.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If YouTube were to implement HTML5 support with , say , h.264 in an mp4 container , they 'd have to do no transcoding , probably not even re-encapsulating .
It would Just Work on Chrome and Safari , and there 's no technological reason it could n't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support , even in countries which do n't respect software patents .
If IE ever decides to support HTML5 at all , I very much doubt that Microsoft does n't have h.264 licenses .
Only Opera really has an excuse here.Really ?
What exactly is Opera 's excuse ?
Not enough revenue ?
I doubt that .
They probably are n't making much on their desktop browser , but their mobile browsers , combined with their deal with Nintendo to provide their technology for the DS and Wii , should make them more than enough to secure a license with MPEG-LA.Firefox , however , can not provide AVC support because of legal hurdles .
I have n't read the MPL , but I know that the GPL and the LGPL have an all-or-nothing stance about patents .
Either MPEG-LA needs to allow all instances of Firefox , including the downstream versions and forks , a license for AVC , or the project is not allowed to secure one at all .
What happens if Mozilla gets MPEG-LA sanctioned AVC support for the upstream version only depends on whether they hold the copyright for all of their code .
If they do , then anyone who distributes Mozilla 's browser further must remove the codecs or risk a license violation ( assuming the MPL has a similar patent clause ) , effectively making it proprietary for anyone who does n't know how to , or does n't want to , alter the browser code .
If Mozilla does n't hold all of the copyright to the browser , then they themselves are in violation of the license , and are ironically prohibited by copyright law from distributing their own browser.Google can take a rather unique approach to this problem .
Chrome has AVC and Theora support , but Chrome is actually proprietary , licensed under the Google TOS .
The free Chromium code on which it is based , however , does not contain any AVC support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If YouTube were to implement HTML5 support with, say, h.264 in an mp4 container, they'd have to do no transcoding, probably not even re-encapsulating.
It would Just Work on Chrome and Safari, and there's no technological reason it couldn't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support, even in countries which don't respect software patents.
If IE ever decides to support HTML5 at all, I very much doubt that Microsoft doesn't have h.264 licenses.
Only Opera really has an excuse here.Really?
What exactly is Opera's excuse?
Not enough revenue?
I doubt that.
They probably aren't making much on their desktop browser, but their mobile browsers, combined with their deal with Nintendo to provide their technology for the DS and Wii, should make them more than enough to secure a license with MPEG-LA.Firefox, however, can not provide AVC support because of legal hurdles.
I haven't read the MPL, but I know that the GPL and the LGPL have an all-or-nothing stance about patents.
Either MPEG-LA needs to allow all instances of Firefox, including the downstream versions and forks, a license for AVC, or the project is not allowed to secure one at all.
What happens if Mozilla gets MPEG-LA sanctioned AVC support for the upstream version only depends on whether they hold the copyright for all of their code.
If they do, then anyone who distributes Mozilla's browser further must remove the codecs or risk a license violation (assuming the MPL has a similar patent clause), effectively making it proprietary for anyone who doesn't know how to, or doesn't want to, alter the browser code.
If Mozilla doesn't hold all of the copyright to the browser, then they themselves are in violation of the license, and are ironically prohibited by copyright law from distributing their own browser.Google can take a rather unique approach to this problem.
Chrome has AVC and Theora support, but Chrome is actually proprietary, licensed under the Google TOS.
The free Chromium code on which it is based, however, does not contain any AVC support.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760288</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1263399060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For all your rambling, the codec listed in the HTML5 draft matters a great deal less than the codecs present in the major browsers, and for the time being that means that they will continue to serve flash for IE, but they can also serve whatever formats are supported in Firefox, Safari and Chrome (if serving something other than flash actually makes sense).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all your rambling , the codec listed in the HTML5 draft matters a great deal less than the codecs present in the major browsers , and for the time being that means that they will continue to serve flash for IE , but they can also serve whatever formats are supported in Firefox , Safari and Chrome ( if serving something other than flash actually makes sense ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all your rambling, the codec listed in the HTML5 draft matters a great deal less than the codecs present in the major browsers, and for the time being that means that they will continue to serve flash for IE, but they can also serve whatever formats are supported in Firefox, Safari and Chrome (if serving something other than flash actually makes sense).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760264</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1263398820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really rocket science. It should work basically like an image. There is the autoplay issue, but Google is more than capable of handling the (minor) headache of serving different content to different browsers.</p><p>The only conceivable issue is that Ogg Theora content will likely be degraded, since it will doubtless be transcoded from H.264.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really rocket science .
It should work basically like an image .
There is the autoplay issue , but Google is more than capable of handling the ( minor ) headache of serving different content to different browsers.The only conceivable issue is that Ogg Theora content will likely be degraded , since it will doubtless be transcoded from H.264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really rocket science.
It should work basically like an image.
There is the autoplay issue, but Google is more than capable of handling the (minor) headache of serving different content to different browsers.The only conceivable issue is that Ogg Theora content will likely be degraded, since it will doubtless be transcoded from H.264.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760842</id>
	<title>Re:DMCA Reform</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1263403920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's doing what the DMCA requires... what would be nice is if they had to provide proof they hold a copyright on something, and therefore reveal their identity so false claims could be taken to court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's doing what the DMCA requires... what would be nice is if they had to provide proof they hold a copyright on something , and therefore reveal their identity so false claims could be taken to court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's doing what the DMCA requires... what would be nice is if they had to provide proof they hold a copyright on something, and therefore reveal their identity so false claims could be taken to court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762086</id>
	<title>Re:They should ditch comments entirely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263465120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Popular videos attract bad comments. Niche videos attract on-topic, interesting comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Popular videos attract bad comments .
Niche videos attract on-topic , interesting comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Popular videos attract bad comments.
Niche videos attract on-topic, interesting comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760950</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263405240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.</p></div><p>how about WMV through Silverlight</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that , given Youtube 's weight , any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.how about WMV through Silverlight</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.how about WMV through Silverlight
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30768040</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263497400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.</p></div><p>I'd like to think so, but just don't think it is true. Important players/components in the video over the Web market include:</p><ul> <li>porn purveyers</li><li>Hulu</li><li>iTunes Store</li><li>Netflix</li><li>Windows</li><li>OS X</li><li>other broadcast networks' Web sites</li></ul><p>YouTube lone is no longer the only player that matters. If Netflix and Hulu both chose the same format and it worked well on Windows and OS X, that might be enough to win the war. The iPhone is not to be neglected either as everyone wants to be delivering video to that market, but Apple has more control over it than other device and OS providers do. MS can't really prevent users from downloading software to watch YouTube over the internet via any format that is winning. Apple can prevent the same for iPhone users.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that , given Youtube 's weight , any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.I 'd like to think so , but just do n't think it is true .
Important players/components in the video over the Web market include : porn purveyersHuluiTunes StoreNetflixWindowsOS Xother broadcast networks ' Web sitesYouTube lone is no longer the only player that matters .
If Netflix and Hulu both chose the same format and it worked well on Windows and OS X , that might be enough to win the war .
The iPhone is not to be neglected either as everyone wants to be delivering video to that market , but Apple has more control over it than other device and OS providers do .
MS ca n't really prevent users from downloading software to watch YouTube over the internet via any format that is winning .
Apple can prevent the same for iPhone users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.I'd like to think so, but just don't think it is true.
Important players/components in the video over the Web market include: porn purveyersHuluiTunes StoreNetflixWindowsOS Xother broadcast networks' Web sitesYouTube lone is no longer the only player that matters.
If Netflix and Hulu both chose the same format and it worked well on Windows and OS X, that might be enough to win the war.
The iPhone is not to be neglected either as everyone wants to be delivering video to that market, but Apple has more control over it than other device and OS providers do.
MS can't really prevent users from downloading software to watch YouTube over the internet via any format that is winning.
Apple can prevent the same for iPhone users.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30773218</id>
	<title>On the note of content</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1263474660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's a shame that the submitter failed to notice that the 2nd most common response was with regard to the DMCA. Apparently a lot of uploaders are unhappy about that fact that their videos get taken down by false DMCA claims. It seems that DMCA and HTML5 form ~90\% of suggestions/complaints.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's a shame that the submitter failed to notice that the 2nd most common response was with regard to the DMCA .
Apparently a lot of uploaders are unhappy about that fact that their videos get taken down by false DMCA claims .
It seems that DMCA and HTML5 form ~ 90 \ % of suggestions/complaints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's a shame that the submitter failed to notice that the 2nd most common response was with regard to the DMCA.
Apparently a lot of uploaders are unhappy about that fact that their videos get taken down by false DMCA claims.
It seems that DMCA and HTML5 form ~90\% of suggestions/complaints.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762576</id>
	<title>Re:DMCA Reform</title>
	<author>rozeboosje</author>
	<datestamp>1263472680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The DMCA issue has been a huge problem for at least 2 years now. That, and the way people have been abusing the site's Flagging system.

see <a href="http://www.censortube.eu/" title="censortube.eu" rel="nofollow">http://www.censortube.eu/</a> [censortube.eu]

Of course there are problems with the DMCA law itself, but that is another fight in an entirely different arena. YouTube, in the mean time, could have made a few relatively minor changes that would have eased the pain of this abuse considerably, whilst still conforming to the requirements of the law. For example, when it comes to DMCA claims it is, of course, required by law to take down the video whilst claimant and recipient sort out their dispute in court, but there is no legal requirement for the "strikes" that YouTube imposes automatically on the recipient of any DMCA claim. THAT is an internal matter of how the site is operated. YouTube could, quite easily, implement a policy in which DMCA claims that are NOT accompanied by confirmed personal details of the claimant will not proceed beyond taking down the video. No strikes. No penalties against the YouTube account of the recipient. And they could also implement a minor change to their procedures that would ensure that personal details sent to them in a COUNTER claim are only forwarded to a confirmed physical location such as a home address, thus ensuring that a recipient of a false DMCA claim can proceed to sue the claimant if they refuse to follow on the claim by legal proceedings - something they committed to when they made the original claim, or report the claimant for committing perjury - something they had to indicate they understood when they made the claim. The problem with the current YouTube implementation of the DMCA system is the lack of accountability imposed on the claimant.

Similarly, flagging can be handled differently. YouTube claim that they review all flags, so in what follows I will argue on the basis that humans in YouTube WILL review flagged content. At the moment it's too black and white. If a flag is rejected, nothing will happen, if it's upheld, you receive a strike against the account. It would not be too hard to implement a system in which flaggers could opt to accept accountability for their decisions, and punitive action (i.e. strikes against the account) is only taken if flags are made by people who do so. Anonymous flags may still be upheld, but can at most result in a take down of an individual video. Again, not a HUGE change in procedure, but one that takes the "anonymous coward" element away.

Etcetera.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The DMCA issue has been a huge problem for at least 2 years now .
That , and the way people have been abusing the site 's Flagging system .
see http : //www.censortube.eu/ [ censortube.eu ] Of course there are problems with the DMCA law itself , but that is another fight in an entirely different arena .
YouTube , in the mean time , could have made a few relatively minor changes that would have eased the pain of this abuse considerably , whilst still conforming to the requirements of the law .
For example , when it comes to DMCA claims it is , of course , required by law to take down the video whilst claimant and recipient sort out their dispute in court , but there is no legal requirement for the " strikes " that YouTube imposes automatically on the recipient of any DMCA claim .
THAT is an internal matter of how the site is operated .
YouTube could , quite easily , implement a policy in which DMCA claims that are NOT accompanied by confirmed personal details of the claimant will not proceed beyond taking down the video .
No strikes .
No penalties against the YouTube account of the recipient .
And they could also implement a minor change to their procedures that would ensure that personal details sent to them in a COUNTER claim are only forwarded to a confirmed physical location such as a home address , thus ensuring that a recipient of a false DMCA claim can proceed to sue the claimant if they refuse to follow on the claim by legal proceedings - something they committed to when they made the original claim , or report the claimant for committing perjury - something they had to indicate they understood when they made the claim .
The problem with the current YouTube implementation of the DMCA system is the lack of accountability imposed on the claimant .
Similarly , flagging can be handled differently .
YouTube claim that they review all flags , so in what follows I will argue on the basis that humans in YouTube WILL review flagged content .
At the moment it 's too black and white .
If a flag is rejected , nothing will happen , if it 's upheld , you receive a strike against the account .
It would not be too hard to implement a system in which flaggers could opt to accept accountability for their decisions , and punitive action ( i.e .
strikes against the account ) is only taken if flags are made by people who do so .
Anonymous flags may still be upheld , but can at most result in a take down of an individual video .
Again , not a HUGE change in procedure , but one that takes the " anonymous coward " element away .
Etcetera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The DMCA issue has been a huge problem for at least 2 years now.
That, and the way people have been abusing the site's Flagging system.
see http://www.censortube.eu/ [censortube.eu]

Of course there are problems with the DMCA law itself, but that is another fight in an entirely different arena.
YouTube, in the mean time, could have made a few relatively minor changes that would have eased the pain of this abuse considerably, whilst still conforming to the requirements of the law.
For example, when it comes to DMCA claims it is, of course, required by law to take down the video whilst claimant and recipient sort out their dispute in court, but there is no legal requirement for the "strikes" that YouTube imposes automatically on the recipient of any DMCA claim.
THAT is an internal matter of how the site is operated.
YouTube could, quite easily, implement a policy in which DMCA claims that are NOT accompanied by confirmed personal details of the claimant will not proceed beyond taking down the video.
No strikes.
No penalties against the YouTube account of the recipient.
And they could also implement a minor change to their procedures that would ensure that personal details sent to them in a COUNTER claim are only forwarded to a confirmed physical location such as a home address, thus ensuring that a recipient of a false DMCA claim can proceed to sue the claimant if they refuse to follow on the claim by legal proceedings - something they committed to when they made the original claim, or report the claimant for committing perjury - something they had to indicate they understood when they made the claim.
The problem with the current YouTube implementation of the DMCA system is the lack of accountability imposed on the claimant.
Similarly, flagging can be handled differently.
YouTube claim that they review all flags, so in what follows I will argue on the basis that humans in YouTube WILL review flagged content.
At the moment it's too black and white.
If a flag is rejected, nothing will happen, if it's upheld, you receive a strike against the account.
It would not be too hard to implement a system in which flaggers could opt to accept accountability for their decisions, and punitive action (i.e.
strikes against the account) is only taken if flags are made by people who do so.
Anonymous flags may still be upheld, but can at most result in a take down of an individual video.
Again, not a HUGE change in procedure, but one that takes the "anonymous coward" element away.
Etcetera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760448</id>
	<title>I'm curious</title>
	<author>Whuffo</author>
	<datestamp>1263400260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many of you logged in and voted? Out of those, how many looked at the address bar to determine if you were on a Google site?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of you logged in and voted ?
Out of those , how many looked at the address bar to determine if you were on a Google site ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of you logged in and voted?
Out of those, how many looked at the address bar to determine if you were on a Google site?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760958</id>
	<title>Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263405480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't agree with your point of view.
<p>

An ISO MPEG-4 audio video player is already built into EVERYTHING, there is no opportunity to change it now

</p><p>
So? I don't see any reason why you can't just upgrade to a video player that can play Ogg Theora.
</p><p>

Ogg is a hobbyist format

</p><p>I could be wrong but console game makers use Ogg Vorbis for their audio files. Maybe not all of them, but I was pretty sure Lego Star Wars does.
</p><p>

there is the whole professional toolchain of cameras, recorders, editing suites, encoders, servers.

</p><p>
I and anybody else who uses Linux have a toolchain as well. It's called Linux. I mean what's so hard about taking funky video made by Joe User and then hitting it with ffmpeg2theora? So what if their toolchain isn't Linux? It's not as if it can't be transcoded to Ogg Theora.
</p><p>

The idea that the W3C is going to tell Pixar and Dolby and such how to make audio video is insane.

</p><p>
W3C concerns itself with web standards. It's up to Pixar and Dolby to decide if they want to comply with the web standards published by W3C. This doesn't have anything to do with why Ogg Theora can't be used by Google which is neither Pixar nor Dolby for that matter.
</p><p>

You use various codecs on a workstation to get your editing done, you don't demand that the consumer have a dozen codecs in their video player, it's not practical.

</p><p>
Sure I can. Step 1: Install Debian. Step 2: apt-get install "world". Done. Or, to make it more simply, if people don't want to use Linux, how about just downloading mplayer or vlc?  They run just fine on Windows and Apple as well. I mean it's not as if Adobe doesn't require people to *download* a plugin so that you can watch flash videos? Why is it reasonable for Adobe to be able to "force" people to download a flash plugin, but it's not reasonable to expect people to download mplayer or vlc to watch all sorts of video codecs?
</p><p>

That is why an iPod can play more hours of MPEG-4 H.264 than many laptops

</p><p>
I could be confused but I thought you could make ipods play Ogg Theora when running Linux on them. And it's not as if Apple, Inc. couldn't make a firmware update to the ipod OS so it can Ogg Theora.
</p><p>

This whole debate happened 10 years ago already.

</p><p>
No it didn't. Ogg theora wasn't around 10 years ago.
</p><p>

You're way too late to change the consumer audio video standard to something other than MPEG-4 H.264/AAC. And you certainly can't change it to something that isn't at least technically superior.

</p><p>
If I remember correctly mp3 is a standard that;s been around for 25 years? That was pushed by consumers, not manufacturers, especially not the likes of RIAA. Manufacturers had to scramble to provide support for a format that enough care wanted. I don't see how your argument changes that fact: if enough consumers demand it, then manufacturers who want to make a profit will provide a way. As to whether or not it's superior, I don't think flash was superior when youtube.com started using, and even if you don't agree, consider betamax vs. the VHS format. The inferior format won. So it's not a given to assume technically superior formats must win everytime, not saying that Ogg Theora is a superior or inferior format.
</p><p>

it requires too much bandwidth,

</p><p>
You keep going on about bandwidth. Do you think that Ogg Theora has worse compression than the flash that's being used now? Why then do you keep going on about it? Ogg Theora doesn't have to the best compression of all the video codecs. It just has to be good enough. And I haven't seen a convincing argument yet that it doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't agree with your point of view .
An ISO MPEG-4 audio video player is already built into EVERYTHING , there is no opportunity to change it now So ?
I do n't see any reason why you ca n't just upgrade to a video player that can play Ogg Theora .
Ogg is a hobbyist format I could be wrong but console game makers use Ogg Vorbis for their audio files .
Maybe not all of them , but I was pretty sure Lego Star Wars does .
there is the whole professional toolchain of cameras , recorders , editing suites , encoders , servers .
I and anybody else who uses Linux have a toolchain as well .
It 's called Linux .
I mean what 's so hard about taking funky video made by Joe User and then hitting it with ffmpeg2theora ?
So what if their toolchain is n't Linux ?
It 's not as if it ca n't be transcoded to Ogg Theora .
The idea that the W3C is going to tell Pixar and Dolby and such how to make audio video is insane .
W3C concerns itself with web standards .
It 's up to Pixar and Dolby to decide if they want to comply with the web standards published by W3C .
This does n't have anything to do with why Ogg Theora ca n't be used by Google which is neither Pixar nor Dolby for that matter .
You use various codecs on a workstation to get your editing done , you do n't demand that the consumer have a dozen codecs in their video player , it 's not practical .
Sure I can .
Step 1 : Install Debian .
Step 2 : apt-get install " world " .
Done. Or , to make it more simply , if people do n't want to use Linux , how about just downloading mplayer or vlc ?
They run just fine on Windows and Apple as well .
I mean it 's not as if Adobe does n't require people to * download * a plugin so that you can watch flash videos ?
Why is it reasonable for Adobe to be able to " force " people to download a flash plugin , but it 's not reasonable to expect people to download mplayer or vlc to watch all sorts of video codecs ?
That is why an iPod can play more hours of MPEG-4 H.264 than many laptops I could be confused but I thought you could make ipods play Ogg Theora when running Linux on them .
And it 's not as if Apple , Inc. could n't make a firmware update to the ipod OS so it can Ogg Theora .
This whole debate happened 10 years ago already .
No it did n't .
Ogg theora was n't around 10 years ago .
You 're way too late to change the consumer audio video standard to something other than MPEG-4 H.264/AAC .
And you certainly ca n't change it to something that is n't at least technically superior .
If I remember correctly mp3 is a standard that ; s been around for 25 years ?
That was pushed by consumers , not manufacturers , especially not the likes of RIAA .
Manufacturers had to scramble to provide support for a format that enough care wanted .
I do n't see how your argument changes that fact : if enough consumers demand it , then manufacturers who want to make a profit will provide a way .
As to whether or not it 's superior , I do n't think flash was superior when youtube.com started using , and even if you do n't agree , consider betamax vs. the VHS format .
The inferior format won .
So it 's not a given to assume technically superior formats must win everytime , not saying that Ogg Theora is a superior or inferior format .
it requires too much bandwidth , You keep going on about bandwidth .
Do you think that Ogg Theora has worse compression than the flash that 's being used now ?
Why then do you keep going on about it ?
Ogg Theora does n't have to the best compression of all the video codecs .
It just has to be good enough .
And I have n't seen a convincing argument yet that it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't agree with your point of view.
An ISO MPEG-4 audio video player is already built into EVERYTHING, there is no opportunity to change it now


So?
I don't see any reason why you can't just upgrade to a video player that can play Ogg Theora.
Ogg is a hobbyist format

I could be wrong but console game makers use Ogg Vorbis for their audio files.
Maybe not all of them, but I was pretty sure Lego Star Wars does.
there is the whole professional toolchain of cameras, recorders, editing suites, encoders, servers.
I and anybody else who uses Linux have a toolchain as well.
It's called Linux.
I mean what's so hard about taking funky video made by Joe User and then hitting it with ffmpeg2theora?
So what if their toolchain isn't Linux?
It's not as if it can't be transcoded to Ogg Theora.
The idea that the W3C is going to tell Pixar and Dolby and such how to make audio video is insane.
W3C concerns itself with web standards.
It's up to Pixar and Dolby to decide if they want to comply with the web standards published by W3C.
This doesn't have anything to do with why Ogg Theora can't be used by Google which is neither Pixar nor Dolby for that matter.
You use various codecs on a workstation to get your editing done, you don't demand that the consumer have a dozen codecs in their video player, it's not practical.
Sure I can.
Step 1: Install Debian.
Step 2: apt-get install "world".
Done. Or, to make it more simply, if people don't want to use Linux, how about just downloading mplayer or vlc?
They run just fine on Windows and Apple as well.
I mean it's not as if Adobe doesn't require people to *download* a plugin so that you can watch flash videos?
Why is it reasonable for Adobe to be able to "force" people to download a flash plugin, but it's not reasonable to expect people to download mplayer or vlc to watch all sorts of video codecs?
That is why an iPod can play more hours of MPEG-4 H.264 than many laptops


I could be confused but I thought you could make ipods play Ogg Theora when running Linux on them.
And it's not as if Apple, Inc. couldn't make a firmware update to the ipod OS so it can Ogg Theora.
This whole debate happened 10 years ago already.
No it didn't.
Ogg theora wasn't around 10 years ago.
You're way too late to change the consumer audio video standard to something other than MPEG-4 H.264/AAC.
And you certainly can't change it to something that isn't at least technically superior.
If I remember correctly mp3 is a standard that;s been around for 25 years?
That was pushed by consumers, not manufacturers, especially not the likes of RIAA.
Manufacturers had to scramble to provide support for a format that enough care wanted.
I don't see how your argument changes that fact: if enough consumers demand it, then manufacturers who want to make a profit will provide a way.
As to whether or not it's superior, I don't think flash was superior when youtube.com started using, and even if you don't agree, consider betamax vs. the VHS format.
The inferior format won.
So it's not a given to assume technically superior formats must win everytime, not saying that Ogg Theora is a superior or inferior format.
it requires too much bandwidth,


You keep going on about bandwidth.
Do you think that Ogg Theora has worse compression than the flash that's being used now?
Why then do you keep going on about it?
Ogg Theora doesn't have to the best compression of all the video codecs.
It just has to be good enough.
And I haven't seen a convincing argument yet that it doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761866</id>
	<title>Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons</title>
	<author>tsj5j</author>
	<datestamp>1263461160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The above author clearly did not read the post fully, for it's clearly not "half-his-argument".

The main argument is that Youtube probably can't/won't convert their existing video collection, which is likely t be huge.
The second argument is that many viewing devices only support H264.
The third argument is that OGG uses more space and hence bandwidth, increasing pressure on ISPs and depleting your bandwidth cap faster.
The fourth argument is that it's already a standard adopted by many commercial devices, with shooting devices being one of them.

Well, sure, YouTube can convert them all, but isn't that a huge waste of CPU cycles on their part?
No point insisting on a format that cannot deliver in performance, compatibility and popularity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The above author clearly did not read the post fully , for it 's clearly not " half-his-argument " .
The main argument is that Youtube probably ca n't/wo n't convert their existing video collection , which is likely t be huge .
The second argument is that many viewing devices only support H264 .
The third argument is that OGG uses more space and hence bandwidth , increasing pressure on ISPs and depleting your bandwidth cap faster .
The fourth argument is that it 's already a standard adopted by many commercial devices , with shooting devices being one of them .
Well , sure , YouTube can convert them all , but is n't that a huge waste of CPU cycles on their part ?
No point insisting on a format that can not deliver in performance , compatibility and popularity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The above author clearly did not read the post fully, for it's clearly not "half-his-argument".
The main argument is that Youtube probably can't/won't convert their existing video collection, which is likely t be huge.
The second argument is that many viewing devices only support H264.
The third argument is that OGG uses more space and hence bandwidth, increasing pressure on ISPs and depleting your bandwidth cap faster.
The fourth argument is that it's already a standard adopted by many commercial devices, with shooting devices being one of them.
Well, sure, YouTube can convert them all, but isn't that a huge waste of CPU cycles on their part?
No point insisting on a format that cannot deliver in performance, compatibility and popularity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761470</id>
	<title>Stop being basement nerds</title>
	<author>Mr\_Plattz</author>
	<datestamp>1263411720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After going to vote, it's extremely obvious that slashdot crowd has taken reign over this voting page.    </p><p>Can you PLEASE STOP posting specific highly technical changes that the average user will not understand.</p><p>Sure, blabber on about H.6969 decoding formats while you're in your basement with your friends.  BUT LISTEN PEOPLE.  If you want Google and Youtube to change, and change for the good of the Open Source and Freedom of speed world, lets keep our suggestion to "Use HTML5 for video, not flash". or something similar.   The next "please use \this\ codec" I'm going to vote no.</p><p>All I want is to be able to download a free and open source Linux distribution, Install it and watch a video on Youtube.     Couldn't care less if it's HTML412.80211g or H.2342333(revision9).   </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After going to vote , it 's extremely obvious that slashdot crowd has taken reign over this voting page .
Can you PLEASE STOP posting specific highly technical changes that the average user will not understand.Sure , blabber on about H.6969 decoding formats while you 're in your basement with your friends .
BUT LISTEN PEOPLE .
If you want Google and Youtube to change , and change for the good of the Open Source and Freedom of speed world , lets keep our suggestion to " Use HTML5 for video , not flash " .
or something similar .
The next " please use \ this \ codec " I 'm going to vote no.All I want is to be able to download a free and open source Linux distribution , Install it and watch a video on Youtube .
Could n't care less if it 's HTML412.80211g or H.2342333 ( revision9 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After going to vote, it's extremely obvious that slashdot crowd has taken reign over this voting page.
Can you PLEASE STOP posting specific highly technical changes that the average user will not understand.Sure, blabber on about H.6969 decoding formats while you're in your basement with your friends.
BUT LISTEN PEOPLE.
If you want Google and Youtube to change, and change for the good of the Open Source and Freedom of speed world, lets keep our suggestion to "Use HTML5 for video, not flash".
or something similar.
The next "please use \this\ codec" I'm going to vote no.All I want is to be able to download a free and open source Linux distribution, Install it and watch a video on Youtube.
Couldn't care less if it's HTML412.80211g or H.2342333(revision9).   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760894</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1263404580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There currently isn't a free video codec that matches the proprietary ones, technologically</p></div><p>Sure, Theora is no H.264, but it handily beats the H.263 that YouTube currently uses for downlevel Flash Players and comes close to MPEG-4 ASP (e.g. DivX, Xvid).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>there's no technological reason it couldn't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support</p></div><p>You appear to have just called the members of MPEG-LA "political assholes".</p><p><div class="quote"><p>even in countries which don't respect software patents.</p></div><p>How much would it cost to move Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation out of the United States?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There currently is n't a free video codec that matches the proprietary ones , technologicallySure , Theora is no H.264 , but it handily beats the H.263 that YouTube currently uses for downlevel Flash Players and comes close to MPEG-4 ASP ( e.g .
DivX , Xvid ) .there 's no technological reason it could n't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such supportYou appear to have just called the members of MPEG-LA " political assholes " .even in countries which do n't respect software patents.How much would it cost to move Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation out of the United States ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There currently isn't a free video codec that matches the proprietary ones, technologicallySure, Theora is no H.264, but it handily beats the H.263 that YouTube currently uses for downlevel Flash Players and comes close to MPEG-4 ASP (e.g.
DivX, Xvid).there's no technological reason it couldn't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such supportYou appear to have just called the members of MPEG-LA "political assholes".even in countries which don't respect software patents.How much would it cost to move Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation out of the United States?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760584</id>
	<title>DMCA Notices on youtube</title>
	<author>DJLuc1d</author>
	<datestamp>1263401460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget how out of hand the DMCA notices have gotten. Videos that are clearly fair-use are have their entire audio tracks wiped out, even when audio is a major component of the video.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget how out of hand the DMCA notices have gotten .
Videos that are clearly fair-use are have their entire audio tracks wiped out , even when audio is a major component of the video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget how out of hand the DMCA notices have gotten.
Videos that are clearly fair-use are have their entire audio tracks wiped out, even when audio is a major component of the video.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760738</id>
	<title>Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1263402960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Half of your argument is that things are recorded in MPEG-4 and people aren't going to convert before uploading. But that doesn't matter. Youtube \_already\_ converts your video when you upload if it's in the wrong format. Hell even if it's in the right format I think they still convert it to make sure it's the right size and bitrate and such. So why does it matter if they're converting MPEG-4 into MPEG-4 or MPEG-4 into Ogg?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Half of your argument is that things are recorded in MPEG-4 and people are n't going to convert before uploading .
But that does n't matter .
Youtube \ _already \ _ converts your video when you upload if it 's in the wrong format .
Hell even if it 's in the right format I think they still convert it to make sure it 's the right size and bitrate and such .
So why does it matter if they 're converting MPEG-4 into MPEG-4 or MPEG-4 into Ogg ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Half of your argument is that things are recorded in MPEG-4 and people aren't going to convert before uploading.
But that doesn't matter.
Youtube \_already\_ converts your video when you upload if it's in the wrong format.
Hell even if it's in the right format I think they still convert it to make sure it's the right size and bitrate and such.
So why does it matter if they're converting MPEG-4 into MPEG-4 or MPEG-4 into Ogg?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1263399060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.</i> <br>
<br>
I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Standards are good... but we 're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now .
I think that , given Youtube 's weight , any codec Google chose would probably win the format war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.
I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760682</id>
	<title>Re:I'm curious</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1263402420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I logged in and voted and I didn't bother to check whether the site was owned by Google; but then I don't really use my Google account for anything, so it's not a highly-valued token for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I logged in and voted and I did n't bother to check whether the site was owned by Google ; but then I do n't really use my Google account for anything , so it 's not a highly-valued token for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I logged in and voted and I didn't bother to check whether the site was owned by Google; but then I don't really use my Google account for anything, so it's not a highly-valued token for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761758</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263502620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck no. Yeah, I know Ubuntu is the only thing that made the universe livable for you and your kind, but it's really not like that.</p><p>MP3 playback has historically been trivially available on Linux, thanks to a free-of-charge patent license extended to any and all playback software distributed free-of-charge. It was Red Hat et al. with their CYA legal teams who made things difficult for their users, but even then it was trivial to find non-crippled builds of all your media software.</p><p>The reason people want Vorbis is the more dubious licensing situation on the encoding side (note that this is utterly irrelevant when discussing what codecs digital media should be distributed). But encoding has *also* been trivially available, just not necessarily legal if you live in an evil patent-happy nation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck no .
Yeah , I know Ubuntu is the only thing that made the universe livable for you and your kind , but it 's really not like that.MP3 playback has historically been trivially available on Linux , thanks to a free-of-charge patent license extended to any and all playback software distributed free-of-charge .
It was Red Hat et al .
with their CYA legal teams who made things difficult for their users , but even then it was trivial to find non-crippled builds of all your media software.The reason people want Vorbis is the more dubious licensing situation on the encoding side ( note that this is utterly irrelevant when discussing what codecs digital media should be distributed ) .
But encoding has * also * been trivially available , just not necessarily legal if you live in an evil patent-happy nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck no.
Yeah, I know Ubuntu is the only thing that made the universe livable for you and your kind, but it's really not like that.MP3 playback has historically been trivially available on Linux, thanks to a free-of-charge patent license extended to any and all playback software distributed free-of-charge.
It was Red Hat et al.
with their CYA legal teams who made things difficult for their users, but even then it was trivial to find non-crippled builds of all your media software.The reason people want Vorbis is the more dubious licensing situation on the encoding side (note that this is utterly irrelevant when discussing what codecs digital media should be distributed).
But encoding has *also* been trivially available, just not necessarily legal if you live in an evil patent-happy nation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760276</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760728</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1263402780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now, technically, if they went with Theora, it could be supported everywhere -- every browser which supports HTML5 supports Theora out of the box, except Safari, and it's trivial to install a QuickTime plugin. But the question then becomes whether it's worth it for Google to do HTML5 at all, if they have to transcode everything to get the best browser coverage.</p></div><p>There we are. You need to tell YouTube to use Theora. As somebody else posted, if YouTube picks a codec, that codec will have enough support to win the format war that's currently raging. If you want to endorse HTML5 go ahead, but please tell them about Theora because that's much more important to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , technically , if they went with Theora , it could be supported everywhere -- every browser which supports HTML5 supports Theora out of the box , except Safari , and it 's trivial to install a QuickTime plugin .
But the question then becomes whether it 's worth it for Google to do HTML5 at all , if they have to transcode everything to get the best browser coverage.There we are .
You need to tell YouTube to use Theora .
As somebody else posted , if YouTube picks a codec , that codec will have enough support to win the format war that 's currently raging .
If you want to endorse HTML5 go ahead , but please tell them about Theora because that 's much more important to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, technically, if they went with Theora, it could be supported everywhere -- every browser which supports HTML5 supports Theora out of the box, except Safari, and it's trivial to install a QuickTime plugin.
But the question then becomes whether it's worth it for Google to do HTML5 at all, if they have to transcode everything to get the best browser coverage.There we are.
You need to tell YouTube to use Theora.
As somebody else posted, if YouTube picks a codec, that codec will have enough support to win the format war that's currently raging.
If you want to endorse HTML5 go ahead, but please tell them about Theora because that's much more important to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762406</id>
	<title>Re:They should ditch comments entirely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263470340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you're a fa g.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're a fa g .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're a fa g.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1263399180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today.</p></div><p>Missing the point. Vorbis is not, and never was, about DRM. It's about having a patent-free codec. It's about having a format that works out of the box on something like Ubuntu, legally, anywhere in the world.</p><p>Contrast with MP3 -- it's actually very likely not legal to include mp3 support in open source software <i>at all</i>, at least if you're going to keep it free (as in beer).</p><p>The only technical reason to prefer MP3 to Vorbis is device support. The way to improve device support is to raise awareness about these issues and get people to actually use Vorbis.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Even worse, it's the same people behind it...</p></div><p>Who?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>that's still under debate.</p></div><p>Actually, the debate is pretty much over. HTML5's &lt;video&gt; tag specifies codec and format precisely as much as HTML4's &lt;img&gt; tag specifies image format -- that is, not at all.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>HTML5 doesn't solve Google's problems with YouTube.</p></div><p>Which problems would those be?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call.</p></div><p>Wow, even worse than BadAnalogyGuy. Really?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use,</p></div><p>No, I really don't.</p><p>I mean, yes, it might help to do so -- but that's unlikely to get anywhere. There currently isn't a free video codec that matches the proprietary ones, technologically, and even if there was, it seems incredibly unlikely that YouTube would go to the trouble of transcoding <i>all</i> of their video -- <i>again.</i></p><p>If YouTube were to implement HTML5 support with, say, h.264 in an mp4 container, they'd have to do no transcoding, probably not even re-encapsulating. It would Just Work on Chrome and Safari, and there's no technological reason it couldn't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support, even in countries which don't respect software patents. If IE ever decides to support HTML5 at all, I very much doubt that Microsoft doesn't have h.264 licenses. Only Opera really has an excuse here.</p><p>Now, technically, if they went with Theora, it could be supported everywhere -- every browser which supports HTML5 supports Theora out of the box, except Safari, and it's trivial to install a QuickTime plugin. But the question then becomes whether it's worth it for Google to do HTML5 at all, if they have to transcode everything to get the best browser coverage.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube while other sites use other codecs....and not make much of a change.</p></div><p>Surely you're joking.</p><p>There may be legal hurdles, but any browser that wants to could simply hook into a third-party codec library. On Windows, that's DirectShow. On OS X, it's QuickTime. On Linux, it's GStreamer, Xine, or ffmpeg. All of these support every codec that's even being considered for HTML5, and many more.</p><p>It would basically make it as easy to embed videos as it currently is to embed images. After all, &lt;img&gt; doesn't specify a format -- why aren't you waging a "codec war" about image formats?</p><p>It would also get us the ability to use purely open source software for our web browsing again, or at least for our YouTube -- no need for Flash. It'd also give us the ability to right-click and do something like "save video as", or click+drag a video to our desktop, or email. It'd also greatly simplify anything else which just wants the video -- for example, any sort of set-top box, etc, now only needs a web browser, or even just something that can scrape the YouTube HTML, instead of a web browser and a Flash port.</p><p>Do you honestly believe that HTML5, even without specifying a codec, would change nothing? Do I have to explicitly list all the reasons Flash sucks?</p><p>Every time I click anywhere in a Flash widget, the widget gets keyboard focus. I now can't scroll with the keyboard, because, say, YouTube wants to catch my arrow keys and turn them into volume and seek controls, or my spacebar turns into a play/pause. There is no way to transfer control back to the HTML without clicking somewhere in there with a mouse. But an HTML5 widget isn't a plugin, it's just HTML.</p><p>I mean, do I really have to go on?</p><p>One more, useless but fun: HTML5 video tags support Data URLs, which means you can do something like src="data:... followed by your video, Base64-encoded. Much less efficient, but it saves you a separate request, especially if it's small -- probably much more useful for audio.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM , and it 's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today.Missing the point .
Vorbis is not , and never was , about DRM .
It 's about having a patent-free codec .
It 's about having a format that works out of the box on something like Ubuntu , legally , anywhere in the world.Contrast with MP3 -- it 's actually very likely not legal to include mp3 support in open source software at all , at least if you 're going to keep it free ( as in beer ) .The only technical reason to prefer MP3 to Vorbis is device support .
The way to improve device support is to raise awareness about these issues and get people to actually use Vorbis.Even worse , it 's the same people behind it...Who ? that 's still under debate.Actually , the debate is pretty much over .
HTML5 's tag specifies codec and format precisely as much as HTML4 's tag specifies image format -- that is , not at all.HTML5 does n't solve Google 's problems with YouTube.Which problems would those be ? Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call.Wow , even worse than BadAnalogyGuy .
Really ? You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use,No , I really do n't.I mean , yes , it might help to do so -- but that 's unlikely to get anywhere .
There currently is n't a free video codec that matches the proprietary ones , technologically , and even if there was , it seems incredibly unlikely that YouTube would go to the trouble of transcoding all of their video -- again.If YouTube were to implement HTML5 support with , say , h.264 in an mp4 container , they 'd have to do no transcoding , probably not even re-encapsulating .
It would Just Work on Chrome and Safari , and there 's no technological reason it could n't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support , even in countries which do n't respect software patents .
If IE ever decides to support HTML5 at all , I very much doubt that Microsoft does n't have h.264 licenses .
Only Opera really has an excuse here.Now , technically , if they went with Theora , it could be supported everywhere -- every browser which supports HTML5 supports Theora out of the box , except Safari , and it 's trivial to install a QuickTime plugin .
But the question then becomes whether it 's worth it for Google to do HTML5 at all , if they have to transcode everything to get the best browser coverage.we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube while other sites use other codecs....and not make much of a change.Surely you 're joking.There may be legal hurdles , but any browser that wants to could simply hook into a third-party codec library .
On Windows , that 's DirectShow .
On OS X , it 's QuickTime .
On Linux , it 's GStreamer , Xine , or ffmpeg .
All of these support every codec that 's even being considered for HTML5 , and many more.It would basically make it as easy to embed videos as it currently is to embed images .
After all , does n't specify a format -- why are n't you waging a " codec war " about image formats ? It would also get us the ability to use purely open source software for our web browsing again , or at least for our YouTube -- no need for Flash .
It 'd also give us the ability to right-click and do something like " save video as " , or click + drag a video to our desktop , or email .
It 'd also greatly simplify anything else which just wants the video -- for example , any sort of set-top box , etc , now only needs a web browser , or even just something that can scrape the YouTube HTML , instead of a web browser and a Flash port.Do you honestly believe that HTML5 , even without specifying a codec , would change nothing ?
Do I have to explicitly list all the reasons Flash sucks ? Every time I click anywhere in a Flash widget , the widget gets keyboard focus .
I now ca n't scroll with the keyboard , because , say , YouTube wants to catch my arrow keys and turn them into volume and seek controls , or my spacebar turns into a play/pause .
There is no way to transfer control back to the HTML without clicking somewhere in there with a mouse .
But an HTML5 widget is n't a plugin , it 's just HTML.I mean , do I really have to go on ? One more , useless but fun : HTML5 video tags support Data URLs , which means you can do something like src = " data : ... followed by your video , Base64-encoded .
Much less efficient , but it saves you a separate request , especially if it 's small -- probably much more useful for audio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today.Missing the point.
Vorbis is not, and never was, about DRM.
It's about having a patent-free codec.
It's about having a format that works out of the box on something like Ubuntu, legally, anywhere in the world.Contrast with MP3 -- it's actually very likely not legal to include mp3 support in open source software at all, at least if you're going to keep it free (as in beer).The only technical reason to prefer MP3 to Vorbis is device support.
The way to improve device support is to raise awareness about these issues and get people to actually use Vorbis.Even worse, it's the same people behind it...Who?that's still under debate.Actually, the debate is pretty much over.
HTML5's  tag specifies codec and format precisely as much as HTML4's  tag specifies image format -- that is, not at all.HTML5 doesn't solve Google's problems with YouTube.Which problems would those be?Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call.Wow, even worse than BadAnalogyGuy.
Really?You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use,No, I really don't.I mean, yes, it might help to do so -- but that's unlikely to get anywhere.
There currently isn't a free video codec that matches the proprietary ones, technologically, and even if there was, it seems incredibly unlikely that YouTube would go to the trouble of transcoding all of their video -- again.If YouTube were to implement HTML5 support with, say, h.264 in an mp4 container, they'd have to do no transcoding, probably not even re-encapsulating.
It would Just Work on Chrome and Safari, and there's no technological reason it couldn't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support, even in countries which don't respect software patents.
If IE ever decides to support HTML5 at all, I very much doubt that Microsoft doesn't have h.264 licenses.
Only Opera really has an excuse here.Now, technically, if they went with Theora, it could be supported everywhere -- every browser which supports HTML5 supports Theora out of the box, except Safari, and it's trivial to install a QuickTime plugin.
But the question then becomes whether it's worth it for Google to do HTML5 at all, if they have to transcode everything to get the best browser coverage.we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube while other sites use other codecs....and not make much of a change.Surely you're joking.There may be legal hurdles, but any browser that wants to could simply hook into a third-party codec library.
On Windows, that's DirectShow.
On OS X, it's QuickTime.
On Linux, it's GStreamer, Xine, or ffmpeg.
All of these support every codec that's even being considered for HTML5, and many more.It would basically make it as easy to embed videos as it currently is to embed images.
After all,  doesn't specify a format -- why aren't you waging a "codec war" about image formats?It would also get us the ability to use purely open source software for our web browsing again, or at least for our YouTube -- no need for Flash.
It'd also give us the ability to right-click and do something like "save video as", or click+drag a video to our desktop, or email.
It'd also greatly simplify anything else which just wants the video -- for example, any sort of set-top box, etc, now only needs a web browser, or even just something that can scrape the YouTube HTML, instead of a web browser and a Flash port.Do you honestly believe that HTML5, even without specifying a codec, would change nothing?
Do I have to explicitly list all the reasons Flash sucks?Every time I click anywhere in a Flash widget, the widget gets keyboard focus.
I now can't scroll with the keyboard, because, say, YouTube wants to catch my arrow keys and turn them into volume and seek controls, or my spacebar turns into a play/pause.
There is no way to transfer control back to the HTML without clicking somewhere in there with a mouse.
But an HTML5 widget isn't a plugin, it's just HTML.I mean, do I really have to go on?One more, useless but fun: HTML5 video tags support Data URLs, which means you can do something like src="data:... followed by your video, Base64-encoded.
Much less efficient, but it saves you a separate request, especially if it's small -- probably much more useful for audio.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30764684</id>
	<title>Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons</title>
	<author>Fwipp</author>
	<datestamp>1263486540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, Ogg theora *works* on a jailbroken iPhone.  But it's dog slow, because it's not hardware accelerated.  That's not something you can fix with a firmware update.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , Ogg theora * works * on a jailbroken iPhone .
But it 's dog slow , because it 's not hardware accelerated .
That 's not something you can fix with a firmware update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, Ogg theora *works* on a jailbroken iPhone.
But it's dog slow, because it's not hardware accelerated.
That's not something you can fix with a firmware update.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760276</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263398940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today.</p> </div><p>

A lot of the reason why people wanted OGG so badly is because OGG easily worked on Linux. In the days before Ubuntu, Fluendo and easy codec installation, finding, installing and using an MP3 codec was generally difficult and legally questionable. Now that it is really easy to install an MP3 codec in most Linux distros, people have toned down on the OGG evangelism for music. <br> <br>

Ideally, HTML5 standards would use an open, patent-free standard for use with video. The point of standards is to allow different systems to communicate effectively, the fact that it is open is a requirement of any standard meant for benefiting users. Right now, Theora is about the only major codec that seems to fit the bill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM , and it 's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today .
A lot of the reason why people wanted OGG so badly is because OGG easily worked on Linux .
In the days before Ubuntu , Fluendo and easy codec installation , finding , installing and using an MP3 codec was generally difficult and legally questionable .
Now that it is really easy to install an MP3 codec in most Linux distros , people have toned down on the OGG evangelism for music .
Ideally , HTML5 standards would use an open , patent-free standard for use with video .
The point of standards is to allow different systems to communicate effectively , the fact that it is open is a requirement of any standard meant for benefiting users .
Right now , Theora is about the only major codec that seems to fit the bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today.
A lot of the reason why people wanted OGG so badly is because OGG easily worked on Linux.
In the days before Ubuntu, Fluendo and easy codec installation, finding, installing and using an MP3 codec was generally difficult and legally questionable.
Now that it is really easy to install an MP3 codec in most Linux distros, people have toned down on the OGG evangelism for music.
Ideally, HTML5 standards would use an open, patent-free standard for use with video.
The point of standards is to allow different systems to communicate effectively, the fact that it is open is a requirement of any standard meant for benefiting users.
Right now, Theora is about the only major codec that seems to fit the bill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762598</id>
	<title>Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1263472920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, ogg is a container. Like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.avi and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mp4</p><p>You're talking about Theora (video) and Vorbis (audio)</p><p>Vorbis appears to be superior to everything but the most optimized AAC encoders - at least at semi low bitrates employed in streaming. Youtube sounds about like 40kbit vorbis. (really bad) But that also means they could shave almost 100kbit off their stream bandwidth by using it rather than mp3. The downside is it takes twice as long to encode.</p><p>Theora is another story. H.264 is so superior it's ridiculous - but if Google open sources VP7, there would be some real competition.</p><p>Youtube has few of the H.264 optimizations enabled, but once you crank everything to the max in x264, it's a thing of beauty. I've been experimenting with it a lot recently - it's amazing what it can do with 512kbits available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , ogg is a container .
Like .avi and .mp4You 're talking about Theora ( video ) and Vorbis ( audio ) Vorbis appears to be superior to everything but the most optimized AAC encoders - at least at semi low bitrates employed in streaming .
Youtube sounds about like 40kbit vorbis .
( really bad ) But that also means they could shave almost 100kbit off their stream bandwidth by using it rather than mp3 .
The downside is it takes twice as long to encode.Theora is another story .
H.264 is so superior it 's ridiculous - but if Google open sources VP7 , there would be some real competition.Youtube has few of the H.264 optimizations enabled , but once you crank everything to the max in x264 , it 's a thing of beauty .
I 've been experimenting with it a lot recently - it 's amazing what it can do with 512kbits available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, ogg is a container.
Like .avi and .mp4You're talking about Theora (video) and Vorbis (audio)Vorbis appears to be superior to everything but the most optimized AAC encoders - at least at semi low bitrates employed in streaming.
Youtube sounds about like 40kbit vorbis.
(really bad) But that also means they could shave almost 100kbit off their stream bandwidth by using it rather than mp3.
The downside is it takes twice as long to encode.Theora is another story.
H.264 is so superior it's ridiculous - but if Google open sources VP7, there would be some real competition.Youtube has few of the H.264 optimizations enabled, but once you crank everything to the max in x264, it's a thing of beauty.
I've been experimenting with it a lot recently - it's amazing what it can do with 512kbits available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762816</id>
	<title>Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1263476040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Things can change.  There is enough bandwidth NOW (wasn't a few years ago).  The real problem is Vorbis just isn't stable as a standard, yet.  They need to push to get a stable "Vorbis V1" and put future work into "Vorbis V2".  Youtube can simply offer the option of video formats based on the HTTP headers in the request.  Seems to me based on what you say, we only need TWO formats, anyway<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... one for corporate profits and one for the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things can change .
There is enough bandwidth NOW ( was n't a few years ago ) .
The real problem is Vorbis just is n't stable as a standard , yet .
They need to push to get a stable " Vorbis V1 " and put future work into " Vorbis V2 " .
Youtube can simply offer the option of video formats based on the HTTP headers in the request .
Seems to me based on what you say , we only need TWO formats , anyway ... one for corporate profits and one for the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things can change.
There is enough bandwidth NOW (wasn't a few years ago).
The real problem is Vorbis just isn't stable as a standard, yet.
They need to push to get a stable "Vorbis V1" and put future work into "Vorbis V2".
Youtube can simply offer the option of video formats based on the HTTP headers in the request.
Seems to me based on what you say, we only need TWO formats, anyway ... one for corporate profits and one for the people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761194</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263408360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be a very Microsoft thing to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be a very Microsoft thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be a very Microsoft thing to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760306</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263399120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fortunately, my operating system (Windows 7) supports open standards such as H.264, unlike Linux, which depends on proprietary Adobe Flash for web video support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortunately , my operating system ( Windows 7 ) supports open standards such as H.264 , unlike Linux , which depends on proprietary Adobe Flash for web video support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortunately, my operating system (Windows 7) supports open standards such as H.264, unlike Linux, which depends on proprietary Adobe Flash for web video support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761564</id>
	<title>Re:They should ditch comments entirely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263499260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Video posters can disable comments on their videos if they want, I've seen several that have done that.</p><p>As far as the comments section itself goes though, it is better then you think, it just depends on which video you watch. Videos on highly technical subjects like a Google engineer lecturing on Distributed Computing Architecture can have interesting comments pointing out problems for instance. On the other hand, a video about evolution will attract young-earth creationists posting head-meets-desk worthy comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Video posters can disable comments on their videos if they want , I 've seen several that have done that.As far as the comments section itself goes though , it is better then you think , it just depends on which video you watch .
Videos on highly technical subjects like a Google engineer lecturing on Distributed Computing Architecture can have interesting comments pointing out problems for instance .
On the other hand , a video about evolution will attract young-earth creationists posting head-meets-desk worthy comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video posters can disable comments on their videos if they want, I've seen several that have done that.As far as the comments section itself goes though, it is better then you think, it just depends on which video you watch.
Videos on highly technical subjects like a Google engineer lecturing on Distributed Computing Architecture can have interesting comments pointing out problems for instance.
On the other hand, a video about evolution will attract young-earth creationists posting head-meets-desk worthy comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30767994</id>
	<title>Re:I have 2 recommendations</title>
	<author>Smidge204</author>
	<datestamp>1263497280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Re: Duplicate videos</p><p>If the video is legitimately your creative content, you would be justified in filing a DMCA notice against people who re-upload your content without permission. It's even an option in the web form ("My YouTube video was reuploaded by another user").</p><p>If the video you uploaded is not your property to begin with, or you had no permission to post it, then you're SOL. Whatever right (or lack thereof) you had to post it, they have as well.</p><p>If you're just a third party, then the best you can do is notify the original uploader. It's up to them to enforce their property rights.</p><p>Re: Searching for your own posts</p><p>Yeah, they would be kinda nice... a history of comments would be useful providing it was (at least as an option) kept private.<br>=Smidge=</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : Duplicate videosIf the video is legitimately your creative content , you would be justified in filing a DMCA notice against people who re-upload your content without permission .
It 's even an option in the web form ( " My YouTube video was reuploaded by another user " ) .If the video you uploaded is not your property to begin with , or you had no permission to post it , then you 're SOL .
Whatever right ( or lack thereof ) you had to post it , they have as well.If you 're just a third party , then the best you can do is notify the original uploader .
It 's up to them to enforce their property rights.Re : Searching for your own postsYeah , they would be kinda nice... a history of comments would be useful providing it was ( at least as an option ) kept private. = Smidge =</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re: Duplicate videosIf the video is legitimately your creative content, you would be justified in filing a DMCA notice against people who re-upload your content without permission.
It's even an option in the web form ("My YouTube video was reuploaded by another user").If the video you uploaded is not your property to begin with, or you had no permission to post it, then you're SOL.
Whatever right (or lack thereof) you had to post it, they have as well.If you're just a third party, then the best you can do is notify the original uploader.
It's up to them to enforce their property rights.Re: Searching for your own postsYeah, they would be kinda nice... a history of comments would be useful providing it was (at least as an option) kept private.=Smidge=</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761590</id>
	<title>How about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263499860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about a way to contest bullshit Flags on your videos, or better yet, the bullshit Warnings on your account that occured due to not being able to contest bullshit Flaggings?  You can get flagged for nudity for showing a bit of sideboob, but it's apparently okay for Columbia Pictures to host Blue Lagoon completely uncensored.  Some fucking accountability for YouTube's administration and some CONSISTENCY in how they enforce rules is all I fucking ask for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about a way to contest bullshit Flags on your videos , or better yet , the bullshit Warnings on your account that occured due to not being able to contest bullshit Flaggings ?
You can get flagged for nudity for showing a bit of sideboob , but it 's apparently okay for Columbia Pictures to host Blue Lagoon completely uncensored .
Some fucking accountability for YouTube 's administration and some CONSISTENCY in how they enforce rules is all I fucking ask for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about a way to contest bullshit Flags on your videos, or better yet, the bullshit Warnings on your account that occured due to not being able to contest bullshit Flaggings?
You can get flagged for nudity for showing a bit of sideboob, but it's apparently okay for Columbia Pictures to host Blue Lagoon completely uncensored.
Some fucking accountability for YouTube's administration and some CONSISTENCY in how they enforce rules is all I fucking ask for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762466</id>
	<title>Re:They should ditch comments entirely</title>
	<author>BoppreH</author>
	<datestamp>1263471120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it's always useful to find out what the music playing in the video is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's always useful to find out what the music playing in the video is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's always useful to find out what the music playing in the video is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760582</id>
	<title>DMCA Reform</title>
	<author>DarkHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1263401460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about calling for reform of the DMCA system on YouTube?</p><p>Currently, it's possible for a content creator to have his or her video taken down for copyright infringement from what is functionally an anonymous party.  While YouTube's DMCA claim form DOES ask for name, phone number and address, none of these items are verified before YouTube goes ahead and takes these videos down.</p><p>Because of this, there's a lot of False DMCA action on the site from people who are only interested in suppressing others viewpoints.</p><p>Since people on slashdot for the most part care about Freedom of Speech, I urge you all to upvote the DMCA reform issue on there.</p><p>Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about calling for reform of the DMCA system on YouTube ? Currently , it 's possible for a content creator to have his or her video taken down for copyright infringement from what is functionally an anonymous party .
While YouTube 's DMCA claim form DOES ask for name , phone number and address , none of these items are verified before YouTube goes ahead and takes these videos down.Because of this , there 's a lot of False DMCA action on the site from people who are only interested in suppressing others viewpoints.Since people on slashdot for the most part care about Freedom of Speech , I urge you all to upvote the DMCA reform issue on there.Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about calling for reform of the DMCA system on YouTube?Currently, it's possible for a content creator to have his or her video taken down for copyright infringement from what is functionally an anonymous party.
While YouTube's DMCA claim form DOES ask for name, phone number and address, none of these items are verified before YouTube goes ahead and takes these videos down.Because of this, there's a lot of False DMCA action on the site from people who are only interested in suppressing others viewpoints.Since people on slashdot for the most part care about Freedom of Speech, I urge you all to upvote the DMCA reform issue on there.Thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761490</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>localman</author>
	<datestamp>1263412020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One man's junk is another man's favorite video of the week.</p><p>Also note that the addition/removal of a million videos you don't like doesn't have any effect at all on the number of videos you like.</p><p>Content filtering is a bad idea.</p><p>Cheers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One man 's junk is another man 's favorite video of the week.Also note that the addition/removal of a million videos you do n't like does n't have any effect at all on the number of videos you like.Content filtering is a bad idea.Cheers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One man's junk is another man's favorite video of the week.Also note that the addition/removal of a million videos you don't like doesn't have any effect at all on the number of videos you like.Content filtering is a bad idea.Cheers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760558</id>
	<title>Re:I'm curious</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1263401160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good point.  Too bad it the whois says it's owned by google.  I'd love for it to have been a trojan site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
Too bad it the whois says it 's owned by google .
I 'd love for it to have been a trojan site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
Too bad it the whois says it's owned by google.
I'd love for it to have been a trojan site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760522</id>
	<title>Oh please oh please oh please</title>
	<author>Idiot with a gun</author>
	<datestamp>1263400800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have been calling for Flash to be killed with fire for a long time. It's by far the worst internet technology still in use. It even beats out ActiveX (possibly even for vulnerabilities too!). I strongly hope google does this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been calling for Flash to be killed with fire for a long time .
It 's by far the worst internet technology still in use .
It even beats out ActiveX ( possibly even for vulnerabilities too ! ) .
I strongly hope google does this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been calling for Flash to be killed with fire for a long time.
It's by far the worst internet technology still in use.
It even beats out ActiveX (possibly even for vulnerabilities too!).
I strongly hope google does this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760722</id>
	<title>Ep!\!?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263402780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>approximhately 90\%</htmltext>
<tokenext>approximhately 90 \ %</tokentext>
<sentencetext>approximhately 90\%</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760962</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1263405540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Google's purchase of ON2, maybe the answer is for Google to release for free On2 VP6 or On2 VP7 or something and then make that the primary non-flash codec for Google.<br>Google can then make VP6 or VP7 or whatever (whichever one is file-size and quality competitive with h.264) the main codec for YouTube.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Google 's purchase of ON2 , maybe the answer is for Google to release for free On2 VP6 or On2 VP7 or something and then make that the primary non-flash codec for Google.Google can then make VP6 or VP7 or whatever ( whichever one is file-size and quality competitive with h.264 ) the main codec for YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Google's purchase of ON2, maybe the answer is for Google to release for free On2 VP6 or On2 VP7 or something and then make that the primary non-flash codec for Google.Google can then make VP6 or VP7 or whatever (whichever one is file-size and quality competitive with h.264) the main codec for YouTube.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761028</id>
	<title>Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons</title>
	<author>alvinrod</author>
	<datestamp>1263406560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It matters because the smart phones, iPods, and other small devices that are becoming a major way that people consume content don't have Ogg Theora hardware decoders. These devices do have H.264 hardware decoders and won't have to use the CPU to decode and playback the video, saving a lot of battery life.
<br> <br>
As far as I know, there aren't even any Theora hardware decoders in existence, or if there are they aren't being mass produced. There's also not a lot of point in making one either as Ogg isn't a widely used video codec so that hardware won't see much use. Do you see the vicious cycle that's been formed? Even if someone were to mass produce the chips and someone else were to actually include them in their hardware, by the time they reach any fragment of market share, the rest of the world will have moved on to H.265.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It matters because the smart phones , iPods , and other small devices that are becoming a major way that people consume content do n't have Ogg Theora hardware decoders .
These devices do have H.264 hardware decoders and wo n't have to use the CPU to decode and playback the video , saving a lot of battery life .
As far as I know , there are n't even any Theora hardware decoders in existence , or if there are they are n't being mass produced .
There 's also not a lot of point in making one either as Ogg is n't a widely used video codec so that hardware wo n't see much use .
Do you see the vicious cycle that 's been formed ?
Even if someone were to mass produce the chips and someone else were to actually include them in their hardware , by the time they reach any fragment of market share , the rest of the world will have moved on to H.265 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It matters because the smart phones, iPods, and other small devices that are becoming a major way that people consume content don't have Ogg Theora hardware decoders.
These devices do have H.264 hardware decoders and won't have to use the CPU to decode and playback the video, saving a lot of battery life.
As far as I know, there aren't even any Theora hardware decoders in existence, or if there are they aren't being mass produced.
There's also not a lot of point in making one either as Ogg isn't a widely used video codec so that hardware won't see much use.
Do you see the vicious cycle that's been formed?
Even if someone were to mass produce the chips and someone else were to actually include them in their hardware, by the time they reach any fragment of market share, the rest of the world will have moved on to H.265.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30767474</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>Sax Maniac</author>
	<datestamp>1263495660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't even have to click the freakin' widget!  I scroll my screen with the keyboard.  As soon as a Flash object scrolls *under* the mouse (which are basically everywhere), it proceeds to eat the keystrokes, and I can scroll no more.  It cannot tell the difference between a mouse that moves over the area to decide I am going to interact, it's merely sufficient for something to scroll underneath it.  This should be a two-second fix.</p><p>So many things do this now, that I have to carefully "park" the mouse over the damn scrollbar in order to scroll normally!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't even have to click the freakin ' widget !
I scroll my screen with the keyboard .
As soon as a Flash object scrolls * under * the mouse ( which are basically everywhere ) , it proceeds to eat the keystrokes , and I can scroll no more .
It can not tell the difference between a mouse that moves over the area to decide I am going to interact , it 's merely sufficient for something to scroll underneath it .
This should be a two-second fix.So many things do this now , that I have to carefully " park " the mouse over the damn scrollbar in order to scroll normally !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't even have to click the freakin' widget!
I scroll my screen with the keyboard.
As soon as a Flash object scrolls *under* the mouse (which are basically everywhere), it proceeds to eat the keystrokes, and I can scroll no more.
It cannot tell the difference between a mouse that moves over the area to decide I am going to interact, it's merely sufficient for something to scroll underneath it.
This should be a two-second fix.So many things do this now, that I have to carefully "park" the mouse over the damn scrollbar in order to scroll normally!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30770518</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1263462780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually there was a bit of a format war about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gif [gnu.org], which is why we have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.png [wikipedia.org] available.</p></div><p>There are two key points here.</p><p>bennomatic covered one already: The browser supports everything, and you don't have to worry about it. I can do this now for downloaded videos -- no matter what it is, I just open with VLC or mplayer, and it works. The only reason I can't do it for web videos is Firefox is being pissy about it, and Chrome actually has a fairly serious bug in their Linux video playback.</p><p>The other point is that PNG was actually much, much better than GIF. There was no way you could reasonably consider using GIF instead of PNG for anything that wasn't animated, other than browser support. So people did it anyway, and browser support followed. If this was the case, then yes, YouTube should support Theora and thus try to force IE to evolve.</p><p>The problem is, it's actually technically worse. H.264 licenses aren't cheap, but they're worth it to people who need to store and serve a lot of video.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually there was a bit of a format war about .gif [ gnu.org ] , which is why we have .png [ wikipedia.org ] available.There are two key points here.bennomatic covered one already : The browser supports everything , and you do n't have to worry about it .
I can do this now for downloaded videos -- no matter what it is , I just open with VLC or mplayer , and it works .
The only reason I ca n't do it for web videos is Firefox is being pissy about it , and Chrome actually has a fairly serious bug in their Linux video playback.The other point is that PNG was actually much , much better than GIF .
There was no way you could reasonably consider using GIF instead of PNG for anything that was n't animated , other than browser support .
So people did it anyway , and browser support followed .
If this was the case , then yes , YouTube should support Theora and thus try to force IE to evolve.The problem is , it 's actually technically worse .
H.264 licenses are n't cheap , but they 're worth it to people who need to store and serve a lot of video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually there was a bit of a format war about .gif [gnu.org], which is why we have .png [wikipedia.org] available.There are two key points here.bennomatic covered one already: The browser supports everything, and you don't have to worry about it.
I can do this now for downloaded videos -- no matter what it is, I just open with VLC or mplayer, and it works.
The only reason I can't do it for web videos is Firefox is being pissy about it, and Chrome actually has a fairly serious bug in their Linux video playback.The other point is that PNG was actually much, much better than GIF.
There was no way you could reasonably consider using GIF instead of PNG for anything that wasn't animated, other than browser support.
So people did it anyway, and browser support followed.
If this was the case, then yes, YouTube should support Theora and thus try to force IE to evolve.The problem is, it's actually technically worse.
H.264 licenses aren't cheap, but they're worth it to people who need to store and serve a lot of video.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760890</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760964</id>
	<title>The homepage.</title>
	<author>Akira Kogami</author>
	<datestamp>1263405540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about they fix the bloated, slow-to-load youtube.com homepage and replace it with something clean and simple like the Google homepage?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about they fix the bloated , slow-to-load youtube.com homepage and replace it with something clean and simple like the Google homepage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about they fix the bloated, slow-to-load youtube.com homepage and replace it with something clean and simple like the Google homepage?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760590</id>
	<title>Updates: Automated responses.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263401520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google will announce automated comment generation as a new feature, citing users' complaints that it is too time consuming to type out grammatically incorrect sentences and spam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google will announce automated comment generation as a new feature , citing users ' complaints that it is too time consuming to type out grammatically incorrect sentences and spam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google will announce automated comment generation as a new feature, citing users' complaints that it is too time consuming to type out grammatically incorrect sentences and spam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30794664</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1263647400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What exactly is Opera's excuse? Not enough revenue? I doubt that. They probably aren't making much on their desktop browser</p></div></blockquote><p>
The desktop browser is about 1/3 of Opera's total revenue. Opera's desktop revenue has more than doubled each quarter for the last few years.

</p><p>Opera's "excuse" is that they have always been fighting for a open and patent-free web, and they intent to continue to do so, I guess.

</p><p>Also the H.264 licensing costs are only going to increase in the coming years. They are already planning on charging more from 2011.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is Opera 's excuse ?
Not enough revenue ?
I doubt that .
They probably are n't making much on their desktop browser The desktop browser is about 1/3 of Opera 's total revenue .
Opera 's desktop revenue has more than doubled each quarter for the last few years .
Opera 's " excuse " is that they have always been fighting for a open and patent-free web , and they intent to continue to do so , I guess .
Also the H.264 licensing costs are only going to increase in the coming years .
They are already planning on charging more from 2011 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is Opera's excuse?
Not enough revenue?
I doubt that.
They probably aren't making much on their desktop browser
The desktop browser is about 1/3 of Opera's total revenue.
Opera's desktop revenue has more than doubled each quarter for the last few years.
Opera's "excuse" is that they have always been fighting for a open and patent-free web, and they intent to continue to do so, I guess.
Also the H.264 licensing costs are only going to increase in the coming years.
They are already planning on charging more from 2011.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760890</id>
	<title>Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec.</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1263404460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually there was a bit of a format war about<nobr> <wbr></nobr><a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html" title="gnu.org">.gif</a> [gnu.org], which is why we have<nobr> <wbr></nobr><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable\_Network\_Graphics#History\_and\_development" title="wikipedia.org">.png</a> [wikipedia.org] available.  Though, to be honest having support for ogm and mp4+avc (h.264) would probably mean decent coverage overall, which seems to be the two formats with the biggest support.  Though MS could pretty easily slip VC1 in there.  IIRC MS provides their codec implimentations of VC1 and mp4/h.264 for free (as in beer for windows, osx and linux).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually there was a bit of a format war about .gif [ gnu.org ] , which is why we have .png [ wikipedia.org ] available .
Though , to be honest having support for ogm and mp4 + avc ( h.264 ) would probably mean decent coverage overall , which seems to be the two formats with the biggest support .
Though MS could pretty easily slip VC1 in there .
IIRC MS provides their codec implimentations of VC1 and mp4/h.264 for free ( as in beer for windows , osx and linux ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually there was a bit of a format war about .gif [gnu.org], which is why we have .png [wikipedia.org] available.
Though, to be honest having support for ogm and mp4+avc (h.264) would probably mean decent coverage overall, which seems to be the two formats with the biggest support.
Though MS could pretty easily slip VC1 in there.
IIRC MS provides their codec implimentations of VC1 and mp4/h.264 for free (as in beer for windows, osx and linux).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30765114</id>
	<title>Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263487920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does not exists is a brain inside of your skull<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( You call the MPEG is a community codec!!! How wrong and foolish you are! MPEG is a patented codec and Theora is a free of patents codec for public to use. Do you provide us the patent coverage for MPEG for us to use MPEG? By using MPEG without patent coverage is breaking law. Using Theora does not break law. See this to understand your bandwidth lie: http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does not exists is a brain inside of your skull : ( You call the MPEG is a community codec ! ! !
How wrong and foolish you are !
MPEG is a patented codec and Theora is a free of patents codec for public to use .
Do you provide us the patent coverage for MPEG for us to use MPEG ?
By using MPEG without patent coverage is breaking law .
Using Theora does not break law .
See this to understand your bandwidth lie : http : //people.xiph.org/ ~ greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does not exists is a brain inside of your skull :( You call the MPEG is a community codec!!!
How wrong and foolish you are!
MPEG is a patented codec and Theora is a free of patents codec for public to use.
Do you provide us the patent coverage for MPEG for us to use MPEG?
By using MPEG without patent coverage is breaking law.
Using Theora does not break law.
See this to understand your bandwidth lie: http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760916</id>
	<title>I have 2 recommendations</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1263404880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, come up with a way to detect duplicate videos.  I'm so tired of thieves recopying videos and siphoning off hits from the original content provider.

Second, I'd love for a way to find my past comments.  There's currently no way to do this.

Yes, there's a lot of idiocy on YouTube but I love browsing videos for laughs and even the commercials have been kept to a respectable limit.  People get to post stupid, funny, cute, and creative movies that normally only family members or friends would get to enjoy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , come up with a way to detect duplicate videos .
I 'm so tired of thieves recopying videos and siphoning off hits from the original content provider .
Second , I 'd love for a way to find my past comments .
There 's currently no way to do this .
Yes , there 's a lot of idiocy on YouTube but I love browsing videos for laughs and even the commercials have been kept to a respectable limit .
People get to post stupid , funny , cute , and creative movies that normally only family members or friends would get to enjoy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, come up with a way to detect duplicate videos.
I'm so tired of thieves recopying videos and siphoning off hits from the original content provider.
Second, I'd love for a way to find my past comments.
There's currently no way to do this.
Yes, there's a lot of idiocy on YouTube but I love browsing videos for laughs and even the commercials have been kept to a respectable limit.
People get to post stupid, funny, cute, and creative movies that normally only family members or friends would get to enjoy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760492</id>
	<title>I have an idea</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1263400620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about improved content? Junk is still junk even if delivered via open standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about improved content ?
Junk is still junk even if delivered via open standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about improved content?
Junk is still junk even if delivered via open standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761864</id>
	<title>Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons</title>
	<author>indi0144</author>
	<datestamp>1263461160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So true, sadly, FOSS zealots will continue with the circle jerk moaning and screaming because their pet codec it's not on par with something THAT IS USED IN THE *REAL WORLD* by people and big business DOING *MONEY* WITH IT. Admit it, OGG failed, get over it and move on.<br><br>Do you really want aunt Betsy to return to IE6 after trying and failing to use Firefox on youtube? After all.. IF ITS WORKING WHY FIX IT? right?<br><br>I hope you get moded up to 11</htmltext>
<tokenext>So true , sadly , FOSS zealots will continue with the circle jerk moaning and screaming because their pet codec it 's not on par with something THAT IS USED IN THE * REAL WORLD * by people and big business DOING * MONEY * WITH IT .
Admit it , OGG failed , get over it and move on.Do you really want aunt Betsy to return to IE6 after trying and failing to use Firefox on youtube ?
After all.. IF ITS WORKING WHY FIX IT ?
right ? I hope you get moded up to 11</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So true, sadly, FOSS zealots will continue with the circle jerk moaning and screaming because their pet codec it's not on par with something THAT IS USED IN THE *REAL WORLD* by people and big business DOING *MONEY* WITH IT.
Admit it, OGG failed, get over it and move on.Do you really want aunt Betsy to return to IE6 after trying and failing to use Firefox on youtube?
After all.. IF ITS WORKING WHY FIX IT?
right?I hope you get moded up to 11</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30767474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30769298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30763712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30770518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30789428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30763620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30764684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30770724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30773218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30770098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30765114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30769836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30788994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30767994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30770558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30764598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30768040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30794664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30766552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30766992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30763504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_13_2323210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2323210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30764598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30789428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2323210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2323210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760614
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2323210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2323210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30788994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30764684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30765114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2323210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30763712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30766552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30770724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2323210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30766992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30773218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2323210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2323210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760890
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30770518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30763504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30767474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760894
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30770558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761056
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30794664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760286
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30768040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30769836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760962
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30763620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30762866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761162
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30770098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2323210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30760916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30767994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_13_2323210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30761470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_13_2323210.30769298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
