<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_16_035213</id>
	<title>YouTube Hints At Support For Free/Open Formats With HTML5</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263666780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://dannydotpiccirilloatgmaildotcom/" rel="nofollow">shadowmage13</a> writes <i>"After the <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/2323210/YouTube-Revamp-Imminent">recent post about YouTube</a>, so many <a href="http://blog.thesilentnumber.me/2010/01/youtube-20-needs-your-input.html">votes were put in for HTML5 using Free and Open formats</a> that Google has already cleared them all out (to make space for others) and issued <a href="http://productideas.appspot.com/#8/e=3d60a">an official response</a> (requires Google login): 'We've heard a lot of feedback around supporting HTML5 and are working hard to meet your request, so stay tuned. We'll be following up when we have more information. We're answering this idea now because there are so many similar HTML5 ideas and we want to give other ideas a chance to be seen.' Now all the top ideas are concerning copyright and DMCA abuse."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>shadowmage13 writes " After the recent post about YouTube , so many votes were put in for HTML5 using Free and Open formats that Google has already cleared them all out ( to make space for others ) and issued an official response ( requires Google login ) : 'We 've heard a lot of feedback around supporting HTML5 and are working hard to meet your request , so stay tuned .
We 'll be following up when we have more information .
We 're answering this idea now because there are so many similar HTML5 ideas and we want to give other ideas a chance to be seen .
' Now all the top ideas are concerning copyright and DMCA abuse .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shadowmage13 writes "After the recent post about YouTube, so many votes were put in for HTML5 using Free and Open formats that Google has already cleared them all out (to make space for others) and issued an official response (requires Google login): 'We've heard a lot of feedback around supporting HTML5 and are working hard to meet your request, so stay tuned.
We'll be following up when we have more information.
We're answering this idea now because there are so many similar HTML5 ideas and we want to give other ideas a chance to be seen.
' Now all the top ideas are concerning copyright and DMCA abuse.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30790768</id>
	<title>Re:What is the problem with Flash?</title>
	<author>Narishma</author>
	<datestamp>1263661860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For one it needs a huge amount of resources to play a simple video, which is a problem in low powered devices like netbooks or smartphones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For one it needs a huge amount of resources to play a simple video , which is a problem in low powered devices like netbooks or smartphones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For one it needs a huge amount of resources to play a simple video, which is a problem in low powered devices like netbooks or smartphones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30790120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314</id>
	<title>Well then...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263584160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's a more polite way to say, "be more like Vimeo"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's a more polite way to say , " be more like Vimeo " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's a more polite way to say, "be more like Vimeo"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789012</id>
	<title>Terrible performance</title>
	<author>Inf0phreak</author>
	<datestamp>1263640980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not any time soon. Embedded Theora video in Firefox 3.5 still uses at least twice as much CPU as downloading the file and playing it with a proper video player. It's better than Flash which is even more greedy with your CPU cycles, but it is by no means anywhere near close to being called good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not any time soon .
Embedded Theora video in Firefox 3.5 still uses at least twice as much CPU as downloading the file and playing it with a proper video player .
It 's better than Flash which is even more greedy with your CPU cycles , but it is by no means anywhere near close to being called good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not any time soon.
Embedded Theora video in Firefox 3.5 still uses at least twice as much CPU as downloading the file and playing it with a proper video player.
It's better than Flash which is even more greedy with your CPU cycles, but it is by no means anywhere near close to being called good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30790120</id>
	<title>What is the problem with Flash?</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1263655380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Windows user, I have no problem viewing videos with Flash. I often have multiple Flash streams downloading and only one playing, so I don't have to wait for the next part of multipart videos.</p><p>So, what's exactly the problem with Flash?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Windows user , I have no problem viewing videos with Flash .
I often have multiple Flash streams downloading and only one playing , so I do n't have to wait for the next part of multipart videos.So , what 's exactly the problem with Flash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Windows user, I have no problem viewing videos with Flash.
I often have multiple Flash streams downloading and only one playing, so I don't have to wait for the next part of multipart videos.So, what's exactly the problem with Flash?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788716</id>
	<title>How about comments like NicoNico?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263635580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about timed comments showing up on the page like NicoNico Douga and also live streaming with live comments like ustream?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about timed comments showing up on the page like NicoNico Douga and also live streaming with live comments like ustream ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about timed comments showing up on the page like NicoNico Douga and also live streaming with live comments like ustream?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30790742</id>
	<title>Leading the way</title>
	<author>slashmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1263661440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This can only be a good thing, maybe when GooTube adopts the HTML5 video tag, browsers will then adopt a common standard and behaviour.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This can only be a good thing , maybe when GooTube adopts the HTML5 video tag , browsers will then adopt a common standard and behaviour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can only be a good thing, maybe when GooTube adopts the HTML5 video tag, browsers will then adopt a common standard and behaviour.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789534</id>
	<title>Re:Well then...</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1263648300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's a more polite way to say, "be more like Vimeo"?</p></div><p> <b>Please</b> be more like Vimeo</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's a more polite way to say , " be more like Vimeo " ?
Please be more like Vimeo</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's a more polite way to say, "be more like Vimeo"?
Please be more like Vimeo
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30790288</id>
	<title>Re:Can we dump flash now?</title>
	<author>infiniphonic</author>
	<datestamp>1263657360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or on any PPC processor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or on any PPC processor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or on any PPC processor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788388</id>
	<title>Re:is html5 going to provide faster better video?</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1263584940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Video tags are easier to accelerate. They can be handled by just about anything. That means rather than being locked to Flash, it can be played with Xine/GStreamer on Linux, Quicktime on OSX, DirectShow on Windows, DSP codecs on your phone, etc.; it might also be possible to use VLC on any platform, although that defeats the "accelerate" part.</p><p>And of course, you've always got Flash as a fallback.</p><p>P.S. Posted before, but this might be of interest to someone: Javascript-free HTML5/Flash video embedding, which works on desktops as well as devices like the iPhone:  <a href="http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody" title="camendesign.com">http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody</a> [camendesign.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Video tags are easier to accelerate .
They can be handled by just about anything .
That means rather than being locked to Flash , it can be played with Xine/GStreamer on Linux , Quicktime on OSX , DirectShow on Windows , DSP codecs on your phone , etc .
; it might also be possible to use VLC on any platform , although that defeats the " accelerate " part.And of course , you 've always got Flash as a fallback.P.S .
Posted before , but this might be of interest to someone : Javascript-free HTML5/Flash video embedding , which works on desktops as well as devices like the iPhone : http : //camendesign.com/code/video \ _for \ _everybody [ camendesign.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video tags are easier to accelerate.
They can be handled by just about anything.
That means rather than being locked to Flash, it can be played with Xine/GStreamer on Linux, Quicktime on OSX, DirectShow on Windows, DSP codecs on your phone, etc.
; it might also be possible to use VLC on any platform, although that defeats the "accelerate" part.And of course, you've always got Flash as a fallback.P.S.
Posted before, but this might be of interest to someone: Javascript-free HTML5/Flash video embedding, which works on desktops as well as devices like the iPhone:  http://camendesign.com/code/video\_for\_everybody [camendesign.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789950</id>
	<title>Re:is html5 going to provide faster better video?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1263653340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you explain why it would be a mistake?  If we were to assume for a second that performance on the client end would be exactly the same, then what would be the mistake in using standards instead of a proprietary stuff?
</p><p>But anyway, it will provide some benefits.  They're already encoding all their video in h264, but they're using Flash as the player, which is pretty inefficient.  For one thing, Flash means no hardware decoding.  Also, Flash itself can be a bit of a resource hog.  Providing the same video stream but allowing the browser to hand it off to a better decoder will be much better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you explain why it would be a mistake ?
If we were to assume for a second that performance on the client end would be exactly the same , then what would be the mistake in using standards instead of a proprietary stuff ?
But anyway , it will provide some benefits .
They 're already encoding all their video in h264 , but they 're using Flash as the player , which is pretty inefficient .
For one thing , Flash means no hardware decoding .
Also , Flash itself can be a bit of a resource hog .
Providing the same video stream but allowing the browser to hand it off to a better decoder will be much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you explain why it would be a mistake?
If we were to assume for a second that performance on the client end would be exactly the same, then what would be the mistake in using standards instead of a proprietary stuff?
But anyway, it will provide some benefits.
They're already encoding all their video in h264, but they're using Flash as the player, which is pretty inefficient.
For one thing, Flash means no hardware decoding.
Also, Flash itself can be a bit of a resource hog.
Providing the same video stream but allowing the browser to hand it off to a better decoder will be much better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30794078</id>
	<title>The three worlds.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263643200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It&rsquo;s weird. I see two &ldquo;sides&rdquo;, presented as &ldquo;fighting&rdquo; (of course the are not&gt;). And both of them are not connected to reality at all.</p><p>First we have what&rsquo;s there right now: Flash, some proprietary container, H.264, MP3.<br>Then we have the open source evangelists (as opposed to the normal friends of open source): HTML5, Theora, OGG, Vorbis.</p><p>Meanwhile, here in the real world, everybody who distributes modern videos, does it in: Matroska container, AC3, Vorbis, AAC or MP3, perhaps subtitles, via torrents or just an (X)HTML &lt;object&gt; tag ((X)HTML5 in the future).<br>(Before HD and 5.1 it used to be AVI.)</p><p>Both &ldquo;sides&rdquo;: Get down to the real world!</p><p>YouTube! Implement the most obvious thing: A HTML5 &lt;video&gt; tag, Matroska, H.264, and MP3/Vorbis/AC3 (depending on what the uploader chose). You can of course add Theora. But nearly nobody will care because it will look crappy when hitting the same size/bitrate limitation.</p><p>Firefox! Connect your &lt;video&gt; tag to ffmpeg plus libmatroska, and be done with it! They are open source, on every open source OS, on every OS that downloads movies from the net (so basically: everyone), and most importantly: Support aaalll the above formats, plus a ton more.</p><p>There. Easy peasy.<br>Or do I really have to wait for a Russian cracker team to beat some sense into us and release a Firefox extension later??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It    s weird .
I see two    sides    , presented as    fighting    ( of course the are not &gt; ) .
And both of them are not connected to reality at all.First we have what    s there right now : Flash , some proprietary container , H.264 , MP3.Then we have the open source evangelists ( as opposed to the normal friends of open source ) : HTML5 , Theora , OGG , Vorbis.Meanwhile , here in the real world , everybody who distributes modern videos , does it in : Matroska container , AC3 , Vorbis , AAC or MP3 , perhaps subtitles , via torrents or just an ( X ) HTML tag ( ( X ) HTML5 in the future ) .
( Before HD and 5.1 it used to be AVI .
) Both    sides    : Get down to the real world ! YouTube !
Implement the most obvious thing : A HTML5 tag , Matroska , H.264 , and MP3/Vorbis/AC3 ( depending on what the uploader chose ) .
You can of course add Theora .
But nearly nobody will care because it will look crappy when hitting the same size/bitrate limitation.Firefox !
Connect your tag to ffmpeg plus libmatroska , and be done with it !
They are open source , on every open source OS , on every OS that downloads movies from the net ( so basically : everyone ) , and most importantly : Support aaalll the above formats , plus a ton more.There .
Easy peasy.Or do I really have to wait for a Russian cracker team to beat some sense into us and release a Firefox extension later ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It’s weird.
I see two “sides”, presented as “fighting” (of course the are not&gt;).
And both of them are not connected to reality at all.First we have what’s there right now: Flash, some proprietary container, H.264, MP3.Then we have the open source evangelists (as opposed to the normal friends of open source): HTML5, Theora, OGG, Vorbis.Meanwhile, here in the real world, everybody who distributes modern videos, does it in: Matroska container, AC3, Vorbis, AAC or MP3, perhaps subtitles, via torrents or just an (X)HTML  tag ((X)HTML5 in the future).
(Before HD and 5.1 it used to be AVI.
)Both “sides”: Get down to the real world!YouTube!
Implement the most obvious thing: A HTML5  tag, Matroska, H.264, and MP3/Vorbis/AC3 (depending on what the uploader chose).
You can of course add Theora.
But nearly nobody will care because it will look crappy when hitting the same size/bitrate limitation.Firefox!
Connect your  tag to ffmpeg plus libmatroska, and be done with it!
They are open source, on every open source OS, on every OS that downloads movies from the net (so basically: everyone), and most importantly: Support aaalll the above formats, plus a ton more.There.
Easy peasy.Or do I really have to wait for a Russian cracker team to beat some sense into us and release a Firefox extension later?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789816</id>
	<title>How about "Could you please ban gaming videos?"</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1263651660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's a more polite way to say, "be more like Vimeo"?</p></div><p>
How about "I know a lot of people who, to put it mildly, aren't a fan of video games. Can you make subtle changes to your policy so that videos of video games end up all but banned?"
</p><p>
Background: Vimeo bans use of its service for commercial purposes; this rules out any video uploaded by the video game's publisher. Vimeo also rejects videos uploaded by anyone other than the author; this rules out videos of game play uploaded by anyone other than the video game's publisher because they're "derivative works".
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's a more polite way to say , " be more like Vimeo " ?
How about " I know a lot of people who , to put it mildly , are n't a fan of video games .
Can you make subtle changes to your policy so that videos of video games end up all but banned ?
" Background : Vimeo bans use of its service for commercial purposes ; this rules out any video uploaded by the video game 's publisher .
Vimeo also rejects videos uploaded by anyone other than the author ; this rules out videos of game play uploaded by anyone other than the video game 's publisher because they 're " derivative works " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's a more polite way to say, "be more like Vimeo"?
How about "I know a lot of people who, to put it mildly, aren't a fan of video games.
Can you make subtle changes to your policy so that videos of video games end up all but banned?
"

Background: Vimeo bans use of its service for commercial purposes; this rules out any video uploaded by the video game's publisher.
Vimeo also rejects videos uploaded by anyone other than the author; this rules out videos of game play uploaded by anyone other than the video game's publisher because they're "derivative works".

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788344</id>
	<title>is html5 going to provide faster better video?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263584400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>because if it doesn't, using it will be a mistake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>because if it does n't , using it will be a mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because if it doesn't, using it will be a mistake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788750</id>
	<title>So wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263636720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... you're telling me that I finally got Flash working on my 64-bit Ubuntu box for nothing??? (Admittedly, it wasn't really that difficult) To be honest though, it doesn't really matter for me since YouTube is still blocked in China, but it would be nice to see if this prompts the many streaming sites in China to embrace an open-standard such as this, but that will never happen since everyone continues to use IE6 here and I'm betting that IE will never implement HTML5 until it's long past finished...sooooo another 15 years before IE used HTML5? Bets anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... you 're telling me that I finally got Flash working on my 64-bit Ubuntu box for nothing ? ? ?
( Admittedly , it was n't really that difficult ) To be honest though , it does n't really matter for me since YouTube is still blocked in China , but it would be nice to see if this prompts the many streaming sites in China to embrace an open-standard such as this , but that will never happen since everyone continues to use IE6 here and I 'm betting that IE will never implement HTML5 until it 's long past finished...sooooo another 15 years before IE used HTML5 ?
Bets anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... you're telling me that I finally got Flash working on my 64-bit Ubuntu box for nothing???
(Admittedly, it wasn't really that difficult) To be honest though, it doesn't really matter for me since YouTube is still blocked in China, but it would be nice to see if this prompts the many streaming sites in China to embrace an open-standard such as this, but that will never happen since everyone continues to use IE6 here and I'm betting that IE will never implement HTML5 until it's long past finished...sooooo another 15 years before IE used HTML5?
Bets anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789532</id>
	<title>How long?</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1263648240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the next big question is, how long will it take for all the &#252;ber geeks at Google to make it happen?  I wonder if they can pull it off quicker than the time it takes to hire a new person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the next big question is , how long will it take for all the   ber geeks at Google to make it happen ?
I wonder if they can pull it off quicker than the time it takes to hire a new person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the next big question is, how long will it take for all the über geeks at Google to make it happen?
I wonder if they can pull it off quicker than the time it takes to hire a new person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788596</id>
	<title>Re:Can we dump flash now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263632520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I replaced Youtube's flash player with html5 a long time ago with a Chrome's add-on, and it's great.
Have another plugin to block all flash content, and we have a powerful browser</htmltext>
<tokenext>I replaced Youtube 's flash player with html5 a long time ago with a Chrome 's add-on , and it 's great .
Have another plugin to block all flash content , and we have a powerful browser</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I replaced Youtube's flash player with html5 a long time ago with a Chrome's add-on, and it's great.
Have another plugin to block all flash content, and we have a powerful browser</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788324</id>
	<title>Jew Tube</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263584280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just wish Jew Tube had video of Jew Liberman selling out his countrymen for insurance company profits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just wish Jew Tube had video of Jew Liberman selling out his countrymen for insurance company profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just wish Jew Tube had video of Jew Liberman selling out his countrymen for insurance company profits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30791120</id>
	<title>Apple should do the right move here</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1263664380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost everything already supports H.264 and AAC, they're both excellent CODECs and the *only* problem people have with it is the damn patents.</p><p>Apple should just buy all the rights to H.264 and AAC and then make them free to use/public domain.</p><p>Another solution would be to change the license requirements for software-only products (such as browsers), so that only hardware products require a license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost everything already supports H.264 and AAC , they 're both excellent CODECs and the * only * problem people have with it is the damn patents.Apple should just buy all the rights to H.264 and AAC and then make them free to use/public domain.Another solution would be to change the license requirements for software-only products ( such as browsers ) , so that only hardware products require a license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost everything already supports H.264 and AAC, they're both excellent CODECs and the *only* problem people have with it is the damn patents.Apple should just buy all the rights to H.264 and AAC and then make them free to use/public domain.Another solution would be to change the license requirements for software-only products (such as browsers), so that only hardware products require a license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788422</id>
	<title>Can we dump flash now?</title>
	<author>Djupblue</author>
	<datestamp>1263585540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Youtube is pretty much the only reason I need Flash. If it was possible to watch Youtube videos without plugins it would be great. No more choppiness or Flash using 100\% CPU. Playing some videos from internet shouldn't be rocket surgery so this is really about time. Flash seems almost purposefully bad on Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube is pretty much the only reason I need Flash .
If it was possible to watch Youtube videos without plugins it would be great .
No more choppiness or Flash using 100 \ % CPU .
Playing some videos from internet should n't be rocket surgery so this is really about time .
Flash seems almost purposefully bad on Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube is pretty much the only reason I need Flash.
If it was possible to watch Youtube videos without plugins it would be great.
No more choppiness or Flash using 100\% CPU.
Playing some videos from internet shouldn't be rocket surgery so this is really about time.
Flash seems almost purposefully bad on Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30791812</id>
	<title>Re:Apple should do the right move here</title>
	<author>True Grit</author>
	<datestamp>1263669120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple should just buy all the rights to H.264 and AAC</p></div><p>Apple is already one of the patent owners serviced by MPEG-LA.  They make money off of h264 themselves.  Thats why they're pushing it.  Its easy money in their pocket.</p><p>As for buying out all the other patent owners, I doubt anyone, not even Google, has that much money.  Those patent licenses are a huge cash-cow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple should just buy all the rights to H.264 and AACApple is already one of the patent owners serviced by MPEG-LA .
They make money off of h264 themselves .
Thats why they 're pushing it .
Its easy money in their pocket.As for buying out all the other patent owners , I doubt anyone , not even Google , has that much money .
Those patent licenses are a huge cash-cow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple should just buy all the rights to H.264 and AACApple is already one of the patent owners serviced by MPEG-LA.
They make money off of h264 themselves.
Thats why they're pushing it.
Its easy money in their pocket.As for buying out all the other patent owners, I doubt anyone, not even Google, has that much money.
Those patent licenses are a huge cash-cow.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30791120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30796172</id>
	<title>Re:How about "Could you please ban gaming videos?"</title>
	<author>novakreo</author>
	<datestamp>1263665880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about "I know a lot of people who, to put it mildly, aren't a fan of video games. Can you make subtle changes to your policy so that videos of video games end up all but banned?"</p></div><p>I don't get it, is someone forcing you to watch video game-related videos? Are you unable to find videos that interest you by yourself?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about " I know a lot of people who , to put it mildly , are n't a fan of video games .
Can you make subtle changes to your policy so that videos of video games end up all but banned ?
" I do n't get it , is someone forcing you to watch video game-related videos ?
Are you unable to find videos that interest you by yourself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about "I know a lot of people who, to put it mildly, aren't a fan of video games.
Can you make subtle changes to your policy so that videos of video games end up all but banned?
"I don't get it, is someone forcing you to watch video game-related videos?
Are you unable to find videos that interest you by yourself?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789594</id>
	<title>Re:Can we dump flash now?</title>
	<author>TBoon</author>
	<datestamp>1263648780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obligatory XKCD <a href="http://xkcd.com/676/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/676/</a> [xkcd.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obligatory XKCD http : //xkcd.com/676/ [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obligatory XKCD http://xkcd.com/676/ [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788702</id>
	<title>Re:Well then...</title>
	<author>davidphogan74</author>
	<datestamp>1263635280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be less like Fark's arbitrary bannings?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be less like Fark 's arbitrary bannings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be less like Fark's arbitrary bannings?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788498</id>
	<title>Re:Can we dump flash now?</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1263673260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you using the newest version? The current 64 bit version has been working great for me, no problems unless my browser has been up with lots of flash for a week. Admittedly, I  never use fullscreen.</p><p>I still agree that Flash should go away, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you using the newest version ?
The current 64 bit version has been working great for me , no problems unless my browser has been up with lots of flash for a week .
Admittedly , I never use fullscreen.I still agree that Flash should go away , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you using the newest version?
The current 64 bit version has been working great for me, no problems unless my browser has been up with lots of flash for a week.
Admittedly, I  never use fullscreen.I still agree that Flash should go away, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789550</id>
	<title>Re:Well then...</title>
	<author>gedw99</author>
	<datestamp>1263648420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many reasons why this is happening:</p><p>1. ACTA agreement and license fees are up for renewal.<br><a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx" title="mpegla.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx</a> [mpegla.com]<br>All OEM product makers and content encoders are now waiting on the 2010 agreement from the mpegla licensing aggregation company . It will be stiff fees apparently, although not confirmed yet. What is even stranger is that we are now in 2010, and they have still not released the new licensing terms. Very weird; What are they waiting on i wonder ? Maybe ACTA resolution ?<br>Most China OEMS don't pay the fees, and hence why ACTA is being "negotiated" so secretly also.<br><a href="http://www.eetasia.com/login.do?fromWhere=/ART\_8800463180\_499501\_NT\_5bb04467.HTM" title="eetasia.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eetasia.com/login.do?fromWhere=/ART\_8800463180\_499501\_NT\_5bb04467.HTM</a> [eetasia.com]<br>So this is a "double whammy" waiting to explode.</p><p>2. There are many other codecs around to choose from and why not test the water for others.<br>There is much discussion in this area. But its a chicken and Egg game.<br>You can make a fantastic codec, but you gotta have GPU support, otherwise its pointless.<br>See below for how this can happen in the Long Tail version.</p><p>3. Google knows that its Chrome OS is reaching a tipping point where they need to decide how they will handle video - they need to resolve this and get their ducks in a row.<br>They can do flash on ARM CPU now, but i am sure they wish they did not have to.<br>And they also know that with JavaScript and HTML\% coming through like a train, Flash days are definitely numbered. See Sproutcore JavaScript framework for example of one of the many "flash replacements".<br>And they have OpenGL covered with O3D and WebGl also moving forward very fast now with working implementations and even content conversion thinks to the Collada Open 3d format specification not fully entrenched.</p><p>they can do NACL (NativeClient), and have already implemented a NACL c language h264 decoder. This was one of the first libraries they did !!<br>Native Client FAQ: <a href="http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/wiki/FAQ" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/wiki/FAQ</a> [google.com]<br>H264 Implementation: <a href="http://geekglue.blogspot.com/2008/12/google-native-client.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://geekglue.blogspot.com/2008/12/google-native-client.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>So the cards on the table are all congealing based on the above factors, and its a good time for Google to see where the cards fall for them and their various business models.<br>So, why not ask the users too.</p><p>I think it will come down to the h264 licensing terms to be released, and the ability for GPU's and embedded GPUs to handle video decoding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many reasons why this is happening : 1 .
ACTA agreement and license fees are up for renewal.http : //www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx [ mpegla.com ] All OEM product makers and content encoders are now waiting on the 2010 agreement from the mpegla licensing aggregation company .
It will be stiff fees apparently , although not confirmed yet .
What is even stranger is that we are now in 2010 , and they have still not released the new licensing terms .
Very weird ; What are they waiting on i wonder ?
Maybe ACTA resolution ? Most China OEMS do n't pay the fees , and hence why ACTA is being " negotiated " so secretly also.http : //www.eetasia.com/login.do ? fromWhere = /ART \ _8800463180 \ _499501 \ _NT \ _5bb04467.HTM [ eetasia.com ] So this is a " double whammy " waiting to explode.2 .
There are many other codecs around to choose from and why not test the water for others.There is much discussion in this area .
But its a chicken and Egg game.You can make a fantastic codec , but you got ta have GPU support , otherwise its pointless.See below for how this can happen in the Long Tail version.3 .
Google knows that its Chrome OS is reaching a tipping point where they need to decide how they will handle video - they need to resolve this and get their ducks in a row.They can do flash on ARM CPU now , but i am sure they wish they did not have to.And they also know that with JavaScript and HTML \ % coming through like a train , Flash days are definitely numbered .
See Sproutcore JavaScript framework for example of one of the many " flash replacements " .And they have OpenGL covered with O3D and WebGl also moving forward very fast now with working implementations and even content conversion thinks to the Collada Open 3d format specification not fully entrenched.they can do NACL ( NativeClient ) , and have already implemented a NACL c language h264 decoder .
This was one of the first libraries they did !
! Native Client FAQ : http : //code.google.com/p/nativeclient/wiki/FAQ [ google.com ] H264 Implementation : http : //geekglue.blogspot.com/2008/12/google-native-client.html [ blogspot.com ] So the cards on the table are all congealing based on the above factors , and its a good time for Google to see where the cards fall for them and their various business models.So , why not ask the users too.I think it will come down to the h264 licensing terms to be released , and the ability for GPU 's and embedded GPUs to handle video decoding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many reasons why this is happening:1.
ACTA agreement and license fees are up for renewal.http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/FAQ.aspx [mpegla.com]All OEM product makers and content encoders are now waiting on the 2010 agreement from the mpegla licensing aggregation company .
It will be stiff fees apparently, although not confirmed yet.
What is even stranger is that we are now in 2010, and they have still not released the new licensing terms.
Very weird; What are they waiting on i wonder ?
Maybe ACTA resolution ?Most China OEMS don't pay the fees, and hence why ACTA is being "negotiated" so secretly also.http://www.eetasia.com/login.do?fromWhere=/ART\_8800463180\_499501\_NT\_5bb04467.HTM [eetasia.com]So this is a "double whammy" waiting to explode.2.
There are many other codecs around to choose from and why not test the water for others.There is much discussion in this area.
But its a chicken and Egg game.You can make a fantastic codec, but you gotta have GPU support, otherwise its pointless.See below for how this can happen in the Long Tail version.3.
Google knows that its Chrome OS is reaching a tipping point where they need to decide how they will handle video - they need to resolve this and get their ducks in a row.They can do flash on ARM CPU now, but i am sure they wish they did not have to.And they also know that with JavaScript and HTML\% coming through like a train, Flash days are definitely numbered.
See Sproutcore JavaScript framework for example of one of the many "flash replacements".And they have OpenGL covered with O3D and WebGl also moving forward very fast now with working implementations and even content conversion thinks to the Collada Open 3d format specification not fully entrenched.they can do NACL (NativeClient), and have already implemented a NACL c language h264 decoder.
This was one of the first libraries they did !
!Native Client FAQ: http://code.google.com/p/nativeclient/wiki/FAQ [google.com]H264 Implementation: http://geekglue.blogspot.com/2008/12/google-native-client.html [blogspot.com]So the cards on the table are all congealing based on the above factors, and its a good time for Google to see where the cards fall for them and their various business models.So, why not ask the users too.I think it will come down to the h264 licensing terms to be released, and the ability for GPU's and embedded GPUs to handle video decoding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788468</id>
	<title>Re:is html5 going to provide faster better video?</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1263672720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>faster how? encoding? decoding? downloading?</p><p>HTML5 video doesn't inherently say anything about video "speed" or quality, because it does not define a codec.<br>Some browsers support h.264, which is an option in recent flash, but not yet the standard. Other browsers support Theora, and some support whatever gstreamer/directplay/quicktime support.</p><p>Of course, if Google opens up On2's VP8 codec, and pushes it on Youtube (with fallbacks, of course), browsers will be all over it, and Flash (for video), Theora and perhaps even h.264 will irrelevant just like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>faster how ?
encoding ? decoding ?
downloading ? HTML5 video does n't inherently say anything about video " speed " or quality , because it does not define a codec.Some browsers support h.264 , which is an option in recent flash , but not yet the standard .
Other browsers support Theora , and some support whatever gstreamer/directplay/quicktime support.Of course , if Google opens up On2 's VP8 codec , and pushes it on Youtube ( with fallbacks , of course ) , browsers will be all over it , and Flash ( for video ) , Theora and perhaps even h.264 will irrelevant just like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>faster how?
encoding? decoding?
downloading?HTML5 video doesn't inherently say anything about video "speed" or quality, because it does not define a codec.Some browsers support h.264, which is an option in recent flash, but not yet the standard.
Other browsers support Theora, and some support whatever gstreamer/directplay/quicktime support.Of course, if Google opens up On2's VP8 codec, and pushes it on Youtube (with fallbacks, of course), browsers will be all over it, and Flash (for video), Theora and perhaps even h.264 will irrelevant just like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30791562</id>
	<title>The DMCA stuff is important.</title>
	<author>SanityInAnarchy</author>
	<datestamp>1263667560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure to what extent this is "storm-in-a-teacup" status, but the DMCA has been frequently abused on YouTube as a means of censorship -- not just by corporations, but by individuals. So has "false flagging" -- a video says something you disagree with? Flag it as inappropriate.</p><p>Both of these seem to be handled somewhat mechanically by YouTube. For a good example, search for "What Islam Fears: Laughter," but it's much more common than that -- particularly, creationists like to use it to get atheist videos removed, when their votebots fail to reduce the video's score significantly.</p><p>Most recently, VenomFangX (remember him?) pulled a neat little trick in which he false-DMCA'd someone, then dropped it when a counter-notice was filed and accused this person of child molestation, using the personal information from the counter-notice to personally identify him.</p><p>So far, I see a ton of comments about HTML5, and that's well and good, open standards are important. But freedom of speech is more important. Granted, it is YouTube's right to censor whatever they wish, but this doesn't seem to be YouTube doing the censoring, or indeed a conscious choice on the part of any human at YouTube -- it's individuals abusing YouTube's flagging and DMCA notice system.</p><p>Of course, if Google notices this, expect the next wash of comments to be complaints about the new channel pages -- fair enough, given I don't know a single person who <i>prefers</i> it to the old system -- but not nearly as important as these two issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure to what extent this is " storm-in-a-teacup " status , but the DMCA has been frequently abused on YouTube as a means of censorship -- not just by corporations , but by individuals .
So has " false flagging " -- a video says something you disagree with ?
Flag it as inappropriate.Both of these seem to be handled somewhat mechanically by YouTube .
For a good example , search for " What Islam Fears : Laughter , " but it 's much more common than that -- particularly , creationists like to use it to get atheist videos removed , when their votebots fail to reduce the video 's score significantly.Most recently , VenomFangX ( remember him ?
) pulled a neat little trick in which he false-DMCA 'd someone , then dropped it when a counter-notice was filed and accused this person of child molestation , using the personal information from the counter-notice to personally identify him.So far , I see a ton of comments about HTML5 , and that 's well and good , open standards are important .
But freedom of speech is more important .
Granted , it is YouTube 's right to censor whatever they wish , but this does n't seem to be YouTube doing the censoring , or indeed a conscious choice on the part of any human at YouTube -- it 's individuals abusing YouTube 's flagging and DMCA notice system.Of course , if Google notices this , expect the next wash of comments to be complaints about the new channel pages -- fair enough , given I do n't know a single person who prefers it to the old system -- but not nearly as important as these two issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure to what extent this is "storm-in-a-teacup" status, but the DMCA has been frequently abused on YouTube as a means of censorship -- not just by corporations, but by individuals.
So has "false flagging" -- a video says something you disagree with?
Flag it as inappropriate.Both of these seem to be handled somewhat mechanically by YouTube.
For a good example, search for "What Islam Fears: Laughter," but it's much more common than that -- particularly, creationists like to use it to get atheist videos removed, when their votebots fail to reduce the video's score significantly.Most recently, VenomFangX (remember him?
) pulled a neat little trick in which he false-DMCA'd someone, then dropped it when a counter-notice was filed and accused this person of child molestation, using the personal information from the counter-notice to personally identify him.So far, I see a ton of comments about HTML5, and that's well and good, open standards are important.
But freedom of speech is more important.
Granted, it is YouTube's right to censor whatever they wish, but this doesn't seem to be YouTube doing the censoring, or indeed a conscious choice on the part of any human at YouTube -- it's individuals abusing YouTube's flagging and DMCA notice system.Of course, if Google notices this, expect the next wash of comments to be complaints about the new channel pages -- fair enough, given I don't know a single person who prefers it to the old system -- but not nearly as important as these two issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788860</id>
	<title>You always could.</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1263638760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you use zsh:</p><p>youplayer () {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mplayer "http://youtube.com/get\_video?"${${${"$(wget -o/dev/null -O- "${1}" | grep -e watch\_fullscreen)"}##*watch\_fullscreen\?}\%\%\&amp;fs=*}<br>}</p><p>If not:</p><p>youplayer() {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mplayer $(youtube-dl -g $1)<br>}</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use zsh : youplayer ( ) {                 mplayer " http : //youtube.com/get \ _video ?
" $ { $ { $ { " $ ( wget -o/dev/null -O- " $ { 1 } " | grep -e watch \ _fullscreen ) " } # # * watch \ _fullscreen \ ?
} \ % \ % \ &amp;fs = * } } If not : youplayer ( ) {                 mplayer $ ( youtube-dl -g $ 1 ) }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use zsh:youplayer () {
                mplayer "http://youtube.com/get\_video?
"${${${"$(wget -o/dev/null -O- "${1}" | grep -e watch\_fullscreen)"}##*watch\_fullscreen\?
}\%\%\&amp;fs=*}}If not:youplayer() {
                mplayer $(youtube-dl -g $1)}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788506</id>
	<title>Re:Well then...</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1263673620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vimeo? So You Tube would use flash?<br> <br>From Vimeo: <br>	object  class="swf\_holder"type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" data="/moogaloop\_local.swf?clip\_id=7129398&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;autoplay=0&amp;fullscreen=1&amp;show\_portrait=0&amp;show\_title=0&amp;show\_byline=0&amp;color=00ADEF&amp;context=user:2433314&amp;context\_id=&amp;hd\_off=0&amp;buildnum=32768"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vimeo ?
So You Tube would use flash ?
From Vimeo : object class = " swf \ _holder " type = " application/x-shockwave-flash " width = " 640 " height = " 360 " data = " /moogaloop \ _local.swf ? clip \ _id = 7129398&amp;server = vimeo.com&amp;autoplay = 0&amp;fullscreen = 1&amp;show \ _portrait = 0&amp;show \ _title = 0&amp;show \ _byline = 0&amp;color = 00ADEF&amp;context = user : 2433314&amp;context \ _id = &amp;hd \ _off = 0&amp;buildnum = 32768 "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vimeo?
So You Tube would use flash?
From Vimeo: 	object  class="swf\_holder"type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" data="/moogaloop\_local.swf?clip\_id=7129398&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;autoplay=0&amp;fullscreen=1&amp;show\_portrait=0&amp;show\_title=0&amp;show\_byline=0&amp;color=00ADEF&amp;context=user:2433314&amp;context\_id=&amp;hd\_off=0&amp;buildnum=32768"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788442</id>
	<title>Re:is html5 going to provide faster better video?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1263672240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VLC or more generally libavcodec, even if not using any latest hardware decoding support, would still be much better than Flash...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VLC or more generally libavcodec , even if not using any latest hardware decoding support , would still be much better than Flash.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VLC or more generally libavcodec, even if not using any latest hardware decoding support, would still be much better than Flash...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788976</id>
	<title>this is google after all</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1263640380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Another chance for them to redeem themselves and do some not evil shit.<br><br>Srsly when you see "don't be evil" think "Honest Google's Search Emporium".<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another chance for them to redeem themselves and do some not evil shit.Srsly when you see " do n't be evil " think " Honest Google 's Search Emporium " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another chance for them to redeem themselves and do some not evil shit.Srsly when you see "don't be evil" think "Honest Google's Search Emporium".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788616</id>
	<title>Re:Well then...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263633120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would prefer "be less like vimeo" because the only difference between them that affects me is that the youtube player decodes video efficiently enough that my processor can handle it, and vimeo is a browser locking slideshow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would prefer " be less like vimeo " because the only difference between them that affects me is that the youtube player decodes video efficiently enough that my processor can handle it , and vimeo is a browser locking slideshow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would prefer "be less like vimeo" because the only difference between them that affects me is that the youtube player decodes video efficiently enough that my processor can handle it, and vimeo is a browser locking slideshow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30790288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30790768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30790120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30791812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30791120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30796172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_035213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_035213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788750
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_035213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30790120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30790768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_035213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788716
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_035213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30790288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_035213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30796172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_035213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30791120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30791812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_035213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_035213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30789012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_035213.30788468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
