<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_17_1935200</id>
	<title>Wikipedia's Assault On Patent-Encumbered Codecs</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268815440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The <a href="http://openvideoalliance.org/2010/03/lets-get-video-on-wikipedia/">Open Video Alliance</a> is launching a campaign today called <a href="http://www.videoonwikipedia.org/">Let's Get Video on Wikipedia</a>, asking people to create and post videos to Wikipedia articles. (Good, encyclopedia-style videos only!)  Because all video must be in patent-free codecs (theora for now), this will make Wikipedia by far the most likely site for an average internet user to have a truly free and open video experience.  The campaign seeks to '<a href="http://www.getmiro.com/blog/2010/03/launching-video-on-wikipedia-fighting-back-for-open-codecs/">strike a blow for freedom</a>' against a wave of h.264 adoption in otherwise open HTML5 video implementations."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The Open Video Alliance is launching a campaign today called Let 's Get Video on Wikipedia , asking people to create and post videos to Wikipedia articles .
( Good , encyclopedia-style videos only !
) Because all video must be in patent-free codecs ( theora for now ) , this will make Wikipedia by far the most likely site for an average internet user to have a truly free and open video experience .
The campaign seeks to 'strike a blow for freedom ' against a wave of h.264 adoption in otherwise open HTML5 video implementations .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The Open Video Alliance is launching a campaign today called Let's Get Video on Wikipedia, asking people to create and post videos to Wikipedia articles.
(Good, encyclopedia-style videos only!
)  Because all video must be in patent-free codecs (theora for now), this will make Wikipedia by far the most likely site for an average internet user to have a truly free and open video experience.
The campaign seeks to 'strike a blow for freedom' against a wave of h.264 adoption in otherwise open HTML5 video implementations.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515412</id>
	<title>Re:the non-free part isn't so bad</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1268820720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that patent encumbered codecs make it difficult for some users to create or view content *now,* which is the problem.  Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone, including people who cannot obtain patented codecs (such people do exist), both for viewing and for creating the videos.  I would certainly not encourage Wikipedia's users to violate patent law in their respective localities -- the last thing Wikipedia needs is a lawsuit to deal with.<br> <br>

It is not a question of compromise, it is a question of the goal of Wikipedia, which is to be as accessible as possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that patent encumbered codecs make it difficult for some users to create or view content * now , * which is the problem .
Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone , including people who can not obtain patented codecs ( such people do exist ) , both for viewing and for creating the videos .
I would certainly not encourage Wikipedia 's users to violate patent law in their respective localities -- the last thing Wikipedia needs is a lawsuit to deal with .
It is not a question of compromise , it is a question of the goal of Wikipedia , which is to be as accessible as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that patent encumbered codecs make it difficult for some users to create or view content *now,* which is the problem.
Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone, including people who cannot obtain patented codecs (such people do exist), both for viewing and for creating the videos.
I would certainly not encourage Wikipedia's users to violate patent law in their respective localities -- the last thing Wikipedia needs is a lawsuit to deal with.
It is not a question of compromise, it is a question of the goal of Wikipedia, which is to be as accessible as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517832</id>
	<title>Re:the non-free part isn't so bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268835300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After ~14-21 years, the content path is free.</p></div><p>We've seen copyrights perpetually extended.  Who's to say that the same thing won't happen with patents?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After ~ 14-21 years , the content path is free.We 've seen copyrights perpetually extended .
Who 's to say that the same thing wo n't happen with patents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After ~14-21 years, the content path is free.We've seen copyrights perpetually extended.
Who's to say that the same thing won't happen with patents?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31518458</id>
	<title>Re:And...</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1268841000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because YouTube is now primarily H.264, I think Google--who owns YouTube and is one of the big proponents for HTML 5.0--will end up making H.264 as the primary video codec standard for HTML 5.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because YouTube is now primarily H.264 , I think Google--who owns YouTube and is one of the big proponents for HTML 5.0--will end up making H.264 as the primary video codec standard for HTML 5.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because YouTube is now primarily H.264, I think Google--who owns YouTube and is one of the big proponents for HTML 5.0--will end up making H.264 as the primary video codec standard for HTML 5.0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515046</id>
	<title>Um, no</title>
	<author>eweu</author>
	<datestamp>1268819520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> this will make Wikipedia by far the most likely site for an average internet user to have a truly free and open video experience</i></p><p>Yes. An experience of videos that won't play in the average internet user's browser. It's easier to click the "close window" button than it is to care about broken video on a broken web site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this will make Wikipedia by far the most likely site for an average internet user to have a truly free and open video experienceYes .
An experience of videos that wo n't play in the average internet user 's browser .
It 's easier to click the " close window " button than it is to care about broken video on a broken web site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> this will make Wikipedia by far the most likely site for an average internet user to have a truly free and open video experienceYes.
An experience of videos that won't play in the average internet user's browser.
It's easier to click the "close window" button than it is to care about broken video on a broken web site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516012</id>
	<title>A long lost battle.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268823360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give us a real codec.<br>Linux beats the crap out of Windows.<br>Firefox beats the crap out of IE.<br>Vorbis beats the crap out of MP3.<br>And Theora should beat the crap out of H.264!</p><p>But right now it&rsquo;s a toothless tiger, slow, bad quality/size ratio, outdated technology...<br>Until that changes, well... frankly nobody in the real world cares for evangelical wars.<br>And I&rsquo;m saying that as someone who almost exclusively uses open source software, and is very very happy with it!</p><p>I wish I could write codecs. I&rsquo;t word night shifts to kick H.264s ass. ^^</p><p>But hey, as previously said: If Firefox just binds to generic facilities/libraries like ffmpeg, DirectMedia and CoreVideo, the whole discussion goes away, since everybody can choose what to use anyway.<br>Unfortunately right now they play little dictators, enforcing what they see as &ldquo;the one true codec&rdquo; in their holy war.<br>Maybe I can at least write a patch that creates these bindings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give us a real codec.Linux beats the crap out of Windows.Firefox beats the crap out of IE.Vorbis beats the crap out of MP3.And Theora should beat the crap out of H.264 ! But right now it    s a toothless tiger , slow , bad quality/size ratio , outdated technology...Until that changes , well... frankly nobody in the real world cares for evangelical wars.And I    m saying that as someone who almost exclusively uses open source software , and is very very happy with it ! I wish I could write codecs .
I    t word night shifts to kick H.264s ass .
^ ^ But hey , as previously said : If Firefox just binds to generic facilities/libraries like ffmpeg , DirectMedia and CoreVideo , the whole discussion goes away , since everybody can choose what to use anyway.Unfortunately right now they play little dictators , enforcing what they see as    the one true codec    in their holy war.Maybe I can at least write a patch that creates these bindings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give us a real codec.Linux beats the crap out of Windows.Firefox beats the crap out of IE.Vorbis beats the crap out of MP3.And Theora should beat the crap out of H.264!But right now it’s a toothless tiger, slow, bad quality/size ratio, outdated technology...Until that changes, well... frankly nobody in the real world cares for evangelical wars.And I’m saying that as someone who almost exclusively uses open source software, and is very very happy with it!I wish I could write codecs.
I’t word night shifts to kick H.264s ass.
^^But hey, as previously said: If Firefox just binds to generic facilities/libraries like ffmpeg, DirectMedia and CoreVideo, the whole discussion goes away, since everybody can choose what to use anyway.Unfortunately right now they play little dictators, enforcing what they see as “the one true codec” in their holy war.Maybe I can at least write a patch that creates these bindings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31527168</id>
	<title>Re:Quit embeding the codec support in the browser</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1268944800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let the OS handle it, and let the browser interact via plug-ins.</p><p>It's really not that complicated.</p></div><p>It's not that simple.  HTML5 video is first-class HTML content.  It has to interact with CSS and JS, including potentially things like rotations, other things overlapping it, resizing, etc., and all of these things changing at any time due to script.  Who says the OS is going to expose an API complicated enough to support all of HTML's features?

</p><p>In fact, notice that every browser that supports &gt;video&gt; uses a library entirely under their control.  Firefox uses libtheora and is contemplating GStreamer (at least for mobile); Chrome uses ffmpeg; Safari uses QuickTime; Opera uses GStreamer.  In every case, it's either open-source, or developed by the same company.  No one is relying on OS support except arguably Apple, and that only on Mac, which they control.  Because OS support isn't good enough.

</p><p>Disclaimer: I'm not a browser developer, but I do hang out around them a lot.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the OS handle it , and let the browser interact via plug-ins.It 's really not that complicated.It 's not that simple .
HTML5 video is first-class HTML content .
It has to interact with CSS and JS , including potentially things like rotations , other things overlapping it , resizing , etc. , and all of these things changing at any time due to script .
Who says the OS is going to expose an API complicated enough to support all of HTML 's features ?
In fact , notice that every browser that supports &gt; video &gt; uses a library entirely under their control .
Firefox uses libtheora and is contemplating GStreamer ( at least for mobile ) ; Chrome uses ffmpeg ; Safari uses QuickTime ; Opera uses GStreamer .
In every case , it 's either open-source , or developed by the same company .
No one is relying on OS support except arguably Apple , and that only on Mac , which they control .
Because OS support is n't good enough .
Disclaimer : I 'm not a browser developer , but I do hang out around them a lot .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the OS handle it, and let the browser interact via plug-ins.It's really not that complicated.It's not that simple.
HTML5 video is first-class HTML content.
It has to interact with CSS and JS, including potentially things like rotations, other things overlapping it, resizing, etc., and all of these things changing at any time due to script.
Who says the OS is going to expose an API complicated enough to support all of HTML's features?
In fact, notice that every browser that supports &gt;video&gt; uses a library entirely under their control.
Firefox uses libtheora and is contemplating GStreamer (at least for mobile); Chrome uses ffmpeg; Safari uses QuickTime; Opera uses GStreamer.
In every case, it's either open-source, or developed by the same company.
No one is relying on OS support except arguably Apple, and that only on Mac, which they control.
Because OS support isn't good enough.
Disclaimer: I'm not a browser developer, but I do hang out around them a lot.
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516608</id>
	<title>Open codec or google is a traitor</title>
	<author>Mordocai</author>
	<datestamp>1268826300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I found it more convenient to post my thoughts on my blog, but basically it wraps down to this: Google will support an open codec or they are a traitor to the community they say they support. Here is the rest: <a href="http://fossstudent.blogspot.com/2010/03/googleyoutube-and-h264.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://fossstudent.blogspot.com/2010/03/googleyoutube-and-h264.html</a> [blogspot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I found it more convenient to post my thoughts on my blog , but basically it wraps down to this : Google will support an open codec or they are a traitor to the community they say they support .
Here is the rest : http : //fossstudent.blogspot.com/2010/03/googleyoutube-and-h264.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I found it more convenient to post my thoughts on my blog, but basically it wraps down to this: Google will support an open codec or they are a traitor to the community they say they support.
Here is the rest: http://fossstudent.blogspot.com/2010/03/googleyoutube-and-h264.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515170</id>
	<title>Re:the non-free part isn't so bad</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1268819940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They have. HTML5 doesn't specify a codec, so Theora is as valid (as far as W3C is concerned) as any other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have .
HTML5 does n't specify a codec , so Theora is as valid ( as far as W3C is concerned ) as any other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have.
HTML5 doesn't specify a codec, so Theora is as valid (as far as W3C is concerned) as any other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517662</id>
	<title>As much as I dislike Wikipedia...</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1268833920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... for all the usual reasons, I have to say... this takes balls.  Kudos to Wikipedia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... for all the usual reasons , I have to say... this takes balls .
Kudos to Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for all the usual reasons, I have to say... this takes balls.
Kudos to Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515016</id>
	<title>the non-free part isn't so bad</title>
	<author>Protonk</author>
	<datestamp>1268819400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>WP should just adopt html5 and give up on the FOSS posturing for once.  We already relented on the issue of fair use media--limited use for copyrighted material.  Patent protected material seems like a better place to compromise more widely because patents don't live forever.  After ~14-21 years, the content path is free.  If WP does plan to be around "forever", that isn't too long a time to wait.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WP should just adopt html5 and give up on the FOSS posturing for once .
We already relented on the issue of fair use media--limited use for copyrighted material .
Patent protected material seems like a better place to compromise more widely because patents do n't live forever .
After ~ 14-21 years , the content path is free .
If WP does plan to be around " forever " , that is n't too long a time to wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WP should just adopt html5 and give up on the FOSS posturing for once.
We already relented on the issue of fair use media--limited use for copyrighted material.
Patent protected material seems like a better place to compromise more widely because patents don't live forever.
After ~14-21 years, the content path is free.
If WP does plan to be around "forever", that isn't too long a time to wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517054</id>
	<title>JPEG</title>
	<author>wiredlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1268829480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JPEG images are patent encumbered too. There's just a gentleman's agreement among group members not to pursue royalties for "baseline" implementations of the standard. I don't see anyone scrambling to remove them from Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JPEG images are patent encumbered too .
There 's just a gentleman 's agreement among group members not to pursue royalties for " baseline " implementations of the standard .
I do n't see anyone scrambling to remove them from Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JPEG images are patent encumbered too.
There's just a gentleman's agreement among group members not to pursue royalties for "baseline" implementations of the standard.
I don't see anyone scrambling to remove them from Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515722</id>
	<title>Re:And...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268822220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Google, Microsoft and Apple are wrong.  HTML5 isn't a proprietary, pay-for-use standard, why should video used by HTML5 be?</p><p>It's that simple, logical, non-nonsense concept that somehow goes over the head of these companies and the people who have been conned into supporting them.  Use H.264 for your own videos played in your own video player, but on the web, Ogg Theora or shut your goddamn greedy mouth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Google , Microsoft and Apple are wrong .
HTML5 is n't a proprietary , pay-for-use standard , why should video used by HTML5 be ? It 's that simple , logical , non-nonsense concept that somehow goes over the head of these companies and the people who have been conned into supporting them .
Use H.264 for your own videos played in your own video player , but on the web , Ogg Theora or shut your goddamn greedy mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Google, Microsoft and Apple are wrong.
HTML5 isn't a proprietary, pay-for-use standard, why should video used by HTML5 be?It's that simple, logical, non-nonsense concept that somehow goes over the head of these companies and the people who have been conned into supporting them.
Use H.264 for your own videos played in your own video player, but on the web, Ogg Theora or shut your goddamn greedy mouth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515240</id>
	<title>Dirac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268820120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been playing around with schroedinger 1.0.9 and it's output is nearly indistinguishable from baseline x264.  If dirac had even half the resources that have been invested into h.264 encoders, it's possible that quality, compression, and encode/decode speed could be equal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been playing around with schroedinger 1.0.9 and it 's output is nearly indistinguishable from baseline x264 .
If dirac had even half the resources that have been invested into h.264 encoders , it 's possible that quality , compression , and encode/decode speed could be equal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been playing around with schroedinger 1.0.9 and it's output is nearly indistinguishable from baseline x264.
If dirac had even half the resources that have been invested into h.264 encoders, it's possible that quality, compression, and encode/decode speed could be equal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516280</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App?</title>
	<author>Jay L</author>
	<datestamp>1268824560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Besides, if video on Wikipedia is anything like images on Wikipedia, when you click on it, it won't play the video. Instead, it'll take you to a page of details about the resolution, frame rate, codec, etc. On that page will be a bunch of text links that take you to a page that plays the video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , if video on Wikipedia is anything like images on Wikipedia , when you click on it , it wo n't play the video .
Instead , it 'll take you to a page of details about the resolution , frame rate , codec , etc .
On that page will be a bunch of text links that take you to a page that plays the video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, if video on Wikipedia is anything like images on Wikipedia, when you click on it, it won't play the video.
Instead, it'll take you to a page of details about the resolution, frame rate, codec, etc.
On that page will be a bunch of text links that take you to a page that plays the video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31519298</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App?</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1268849400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm not sure I see Wikipedia as being the "killer app" for video standards.</i></p><p>I'm not sure that you see just how big Wikipedia actually is. It's not just a big driver of traffic, it's farking huge. According to Alexa, <a href="http://www.alexa.com/topsites" title="alexa.com">It's number 6 worldwide, after Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Youtube, and Live.com</a> [alexa.com]. Wikipedia pulls an astonishing 12-13\% of users worldwide!</p><p>For comparison:</p><p>MySpace is #18, with 3\% reach.</p><p>Twitter is #12, with 5\% reach.</p><p>Slashdot is #1,262, with 0.1\% reach.</p><p>Whatever you do, don't underestimate the gravity of this news - Wikipedia is one of the Internet TITANS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I see Wikipedia as being the " killer app " for video standards.I 'm not sure that you see just how big Wikipedia actually is .
It 's not just a big driver of traffic , it 's farking huge .
According to Alexa , It 's number 6 worldwide , after Google , Facebook , Yahoo , Youtube , and Live.com [ alexa.com ] .
Wikipedia pulls an astonishing 12-13 \ % of users worldwide ! For comparison : MySpace is # 18 , with 3 \ % reach.Twitter is # 12 , with 5 \ % reach.Slashdot is # 1,262 , with 0.1 \ % reach.Whatever you do , do n't underestimate the gravity of this news - Wikipedia is one of the Internet TITANS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I see Wikipedia as being the "killer app" for video standards.I'm not sure that you see just how big Wikipedia actually is.
It's not just a big driver of traffic, it's farking huge.
According to Alexa, It's number 6 worldwide, after Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Youtube, and Live.com [alexa.com].
Wikipedia pulls an astonishing 12-13\% of users worldwide!For comparison:MySpace is #18, with 3\% reach.Twitter is #12, with 5\% reach.Slashdot is #1,262, with 0.1\% reach.Whatever you do, don't underestimate the gravity of this news - Wikipedia is one of the Internet TITANS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31521826</id>
	<title>x86 instruction format</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1268922420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're lucky that the x86 instruction format is not patent-encumbered.</p><p>Imagine we'd have to pay Intel every time we compiled a program...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're lucky that the x86 instruction format is not patent-encumbered.Imagine we 'd have to pay Intel every time we compiled a program.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're lucky that the x86 instruction format is not patent-encumbered.Imagine we'd have to pay Intel every time we compiled a program...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515830</id>
	<title>Re:Quit embeding the codec support in the browser</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1268822580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Let the OS handle it, and let the browser interact via plug-ins.</p></div></blockquote><p>We tried that. It didn't work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the OS handle it , and let the browser interact via plug-ins.We tried that .
It did n't work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the OS handle it, and let the browser interact via plug-ins.We tried that.
It didn't work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31530508</id>
	<title>ways you pay for being proprietary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268914380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a lot of mention about the cost being very small, or the concept that the end user never pays for this. This message is just for them...</p><p>I beg to ask these questions:<br>1) how is my O/S provider going to pay for this "small" cost? Especially since I don't pay my O/S provider any money for development.<br>2) what exactly is small about this cost? You take the total number of customers and divide it by the maximum licensing cost to reach a per-user cost??? This doesn't come out to a small number when the total number of users is smaller.</p><p>These questions become very real when you use an operating system that doesn't come pre-installed on your computer.</p><p>If you can for one moment, imagine that you are not a common computer user with a common operating system. You will see that the usage of proprietary licensed video formats is another mechanism to keep the large O/S providers in demand and to reduce or eliminate competition from alternate operating systems with a smaller user base. In other words, the status quo is one which encourages monopolistic positions and discourages competition.</p><p>I agree that these sorts of decisions and thought patterns may not interest the average computer consumer would can easily afford an additional $50 ish payment to an O/S provider to not have to deal with these issues each time they purchase new hardware. But please... think of the children and by that I mean think of those in countries with a lower standard of living.</p><p>If you can imagine that, then maybe you can start seeing the big picture. We have free and open alternatives to just about every digital storage format available. And yet we don't take the 2 seconds of time in order to set the Word document default to an open standard. What kind of world do we live in where we are so lazy that we would rather push proprietary requirements onto others? These proprietary formats being ones which require the end user to pay or commit a crime????</p><p>Who are these people? Why do they demand others to pay for their choices?</p><p>BTW: I will tell you that it is not the government. Because at least they are aware that such demands mostly effect the poor.</p><p>Also, I would just like to add that it is completely incorrect and ignorant to believe that open formats are not as good then their proprietary brother-en. I agree that they often have different and other characteristics... but I would be hard pressed to find such an instance where the obvious issue preventing a feature enhancement to an open product is not one which is not caused by a proprietary format (software/hardware) that is being withheld from the open source community. ie: if you see deficiencies in open source... the #1 suspect is underlying proprietary issues. Get rid of these issues and you will see how much better software could be.</p><p>Lastly, I want to say that I do not personally see the benefit of open source as one about cost. It just really is a better model for getting better software to the people... regardless of the channel used to deliver it. I am saying that open source is far better then any alternative out there for producing solid, secure and timely software. IMO: we will all consider this an obvious fact within a decade. Then all slashdot members will lament about how the death of windows is a bad thing... because that's what slashdot does: fight for the underdog.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a lot of mention about the cost being very small , or the concept that the end user never pays for this .
This message is just for them...I beg to ask these questions : 1 ) how is my O/S provider going to pay for this " small " cost ?
Especially since I do n't pay my O/S provider any money for development.2 ) what exactly is small about this cost ?
You take the total number of customers and divide it by the maximum licensing cost to reach a per-user cost ? ? ?
This does n't come out to a small number when the total number of users is smaller.These questions become very real when you use an operating system that does n't come pre-installed on your computer.If you can for one moment , imagine that you are not a common computer user with a common operating system .
You will see that the usage of proprietary licensed video formats is another mechanism to keep the large O/S providers in demand and to reduce or eliminate competition from alternate operating systems with a smaller user base .
In other words , the status quo is one which encourages monopolistic positions and discourages competition.I agree that these sorts of decisions and thought patterns may not interest the average computer consumer would can easily afford an additional $ 50 ish payment to an O/S provider to not have to deal with these issues each time they purchase new hardware .
But please... think of the children and by that I mean think of those in countries with a lower standard of living.If you can imagine that , then maybe you can start seeing the big picture .
We have free and open alternatives to just about every digital storage format available .
And yet we do n't take the 2 seconds of time in order to set the Word document default to an open standard .
What kind of world do we live in where we are so lazy that we would rather push proprietary requirements onto others ?
These proprietary formats being ones which require the end user to pay or commit a crime ? ? ?
? Who are these people ?
Why do they demand others to pay for their choices ? BTW : I will tell you that it is not the government .
Because at least they are aware that such demands mostly effect the poor.Also , I would just like to add that it is completely incorrect and ignorant to believe that open formats are not as good then their proprietary brother-en .
I agree that they often have different and other characteristics... but I would be hard pressed to find such an instance where the obvious issue preventing a feature enhancement to an open product is not one which is not caused by a proprietary format ( software/hardware ) that is being withheld from the open source community .
ie : if you see deficiencies in open source... the # 1 suspect is underlying proprietary issues .
Get rid of these issues and you will see how much better software could be.Lastly , I want to say that I do not personally see the benefit of open source as one about cost .
It just really is a better model for getting better software to the people... regardless of the channel used to deliver it .
I am saying that open source is far better then any alternative out there for producing solid , secure and timely software .
IMO : we will all consider this an obvious fact within a decade .
Then all slashdot members will lament about how the death of windows is a bad thing... because that 's what slashdot does : fight for the underdog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a lot of mention about the cost being very small, or the concept that the end user never pays for this.
This message is just for them...I beg to ask these questions:1) how is my O/S provider going to pay for this "small" cost?
Especially since I don't pay my O/S provider any money for development.2) what exactly is small about this cost?
You take the total number of customers and divide it by the maximum licensing cost to reach a per-user cost???
This doesn't come out to a small number when the total number of users is smaller.These questions become very real when you use an operating system that doesn't come pre-installed on your computer.If you can for one moment, imagine that you are not a common computer user with a common operating system.
You will see that the usage of proprietary licensed video formats is another mechanism to keep the large O/S providers in demand and to reduce or eliminate competition from alternate operating systems with a smaller user base.
In other words, the status quo is one which encourages monopolistic positions and discourages competition.I agree that these sorts of decisions and thought patterns may not interest the average computer consumer would can easily afford an additional $50 ish payment to an O/S provider to not have to deal with these issues each time they purchase new hardware.
But please... think of the children and by that I mean think of those in countries with a lower standard of living.If you can imagine that, then maybe you can start seeing the big picture.
We have free and open alternatives to just about every digital storage format available.
And yet we don't take the 2 seconds of time in order to set the Word document default to an open standard.
What kind of world do we live in where we are so lazy that we would rather push proprietary requirements onto others?
These proprietary formats being ones which require the end user to pay or commit a crime???
?Who are these people?
Why do they demand others to pay for their choices?BTW: I will tell you that it is not the government.
Because at least they are aware that such demands mostly effect the poor.Also, I would just like to add that it is completely incorrect and ignorant to believe that open formats are not as good then their proprietary brother-en.
I agree that they often have different and other characteristics... but I would be hard pressed to find such an instance where the obvious issue preventing a feature enhancement to an open product is not one which is not caused by a proprietary format (software/hardware) that is being withheld from the open source community.
ie: if you see deficiencies in open source... the #1 suspect is underlying proprietary issues.
Get rid of these issues and you will see how much better software could be.Lastly, I want to say that I do not personally see the benefit of open source as one about cost.
It just really is a better model for getting better software to the people... regardless of the channel used to deliver it.
I am saying that open source is far better then any alternative out there for producing solid, secure and timely software.
IMO: we will all consider this an obvious fact within a decade.
Then all slashdot members will lament about how the death of windows is a bad thing... because that's what slashdot does: fight for the underdog.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010</id>
	<title>And...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268819400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Google, Microsoft and Apple give out a collective *yawn*.  Youtube has more traffic than Wikipedia so if Google is pushing H.264 through there it will have far more impact than Wikipedia.  Not to mention that Facebook, who also has more traffic than wikipedia and also youtube, also uses H.264 for its video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Google , Microsoft and Apple give out a collective * yawn * .
Youtube has more traffic than Wikipedia so if Google is pushing H.264 through there it will have far more impact than Wikipedia .
Not to mention that Facebook , who also has more traffic than wikipedia and also youtube , also uses H.264 for its video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Google, Microsoft and Apple give out a collective *yawn*.
Youtube has more traffic than Wikipedia so if Google is pushing H.264 through there it will have far more impact than Wikipedia.
Not to mention that Facebook, who also has more traffic than wikipedia and also youtube, also uses H.264 for its video.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515408</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268820660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who said "killer app"?</p><p>Anyway the same things could be said about images or audio in Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who said " killer app " ? Anyway the same things could be said about images or audio in Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who said "killer app"?Anyway the same things could be said about images or audio in Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514922</id>
	<title>HTML5 Video</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268819040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all nice and all, but if open video technology really wants to win, they have to be technically better. There is no other way.</p><p>However it's nice to see Open Video Alliance trying to partner with Wikipedia. In addition to being technically better, that's another aspect you need to take care of. You need to make sure websites, TV, phone, computer and so on manufacturers support your technology. You have to work with them to get it supported - not just put it out there and hope it catches up because its "open", because that's not going to happen. Personally I would also hate to see technically inferior solution being used, as it would eat huge amount of bandwidth. Theora just isn't on the same table with H.264 for Internet video. Theora is based on VP5 from On2 and now that Google acquired them, they're going at VP8.</p><p>As far as having a single standard for HTML5 video goes, Theora lost. H.264 is and has been already everywhere and on every device. I also suspect majority of sites will use H.264, as that's what is being used with Flash already.</p><p>However, what I see happening (and hope) is HTML5 Video tag being released without requiring support for a single codec, just like img tag is. Then browsers can either implement their own support, use third party tool like gstreamer (like Opera does) or just depend on OS (what I suspect IE and Safari will do). Firefox is still having their ideological problems, but I'm pretty sure they will start using gstreamer too.</p><p>What I'm more worried about is that I cannot watch Wikipedia videos with any other device than my PC. Want to see a video clip of a place you're traveling on your phone? Not possible. Want to see videos from Wikipedia with your PS3/360? Not possible. It will create some serious problems, and I don't think Wikipedia is big enough to push the change alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all nice and all , but if open video technology really wants to win , they have to be technically better .
There is no other way.However it 's nice to see Open Video Alliance trying to partner with Wikipedia .
In addition to being technically better , that 's another aspect you need to take care of .
You need to make sure websites , TV , phone , computer and so on manufacturers support your technology .
You have to work with them to get it supported - not just put it out there and hope it catches up because its " open " , because that 's not going to happen .
Personally I would also hate to see technically inferior solution being used , as it would eat huge amount of bandwidth .
Theora just is n't on the same table with H.264 for Internet video .
Theora is based on VP5 from On2 and now that Google acquired them , they 're going at VP8.As far as having a single standard for HTML5 video goes , Theora lost .
H.264 is and has been already everywhere and on every device .
I also suspect majority of sites will use H.264 , as that 's what is being used with Flash already.However , what I see happening ( and hope ) is HTML5 Video tag being released without requiring support for a single codec , just like img tag is .
Then browsers can either implement their own support , use third party tool like gstreamer ( like Opera does ) or just depend on OS ( what I suspect IE and Safari will do ) .
Firefox is still having their ideological problems , but I 'm pretty sure they will start using gstreamer too.What I 'm more worried about is that I can not watch Wikipedia videos with any other device than my PC .
Want to see a video clip of a place you 're traveling on your phone ?
Not possible .
Want to see videos from Wikipedia with your PS3/360 ?
Not possible .
It will create some serious problems , and I do n't think Wikipedia is big enough to push the change alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all nice and all, but if open video technology really wants to win, they have to be technically better.
There is no other way.However it's nice to see Open Video Alliance trying to partner with Wikipedia.
In addition to being technically better, that's another aspect you need to take care of.
You need to make sure websites, TV, phone, computer and so on manufacturers support your technology.
You have to work with them to get it supported - not just put it out there and hope it catches up because its "open", because that's not going to happen.
Personally I would also hate to see technically inferior solution being used, as it would eat huge amount of bandwidth.
Theora just isn't on the same table with H.264 for Internet video.
Theora is based on VP5 from On2 and now that Google acquired them, they're going at VP8.As far as having a single standard for HTML5 video goes, Theora lost.
H.264 is and has been already everywhere and on every device.
I also suspect majority of sites will use H.264, as that's what is being used with Flash already.However, what I see happening (and hope) is HTML5 Video tag being released without requiring support for a single codec, just like img tag is.
Then browsers can either implement their own support, use third party tool like gstreamer (like Opera does) or just depend on OS (what I suspect IE and Safari will do).
Firefox is still having their ideological problems, but I'm pretty sure they will start using gstreamer too.What I'm more worried about is that I cannot watch Wikipedia videos with any other device than my PC.
Want to see a video clip of a place you're traveling on your phone?
Not possible.
Want to see videos from Wikipedia with your PS3/360?
Not possible.
It will create some serious problems, and I don't think Wikipedia is big enough to push the change alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31520266</id>
	<title>Re:A long lost battle.</title>
	<author>damaki</author>
	<datestamp>1268908080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Vorbis beats the crap out of MP3.</p></div><p>Used to. That's not even true anymore at transparency bitrates with lastest Lame improvements. -V5 and -V6 are transparent in most cases.<br>
You examples are quite meaningful of the general openness problem : better quality does not mean wider userbase. Typical users do not really care about quality because they do not know what quality is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vorbis beats the crap out of MP3.Used to .
That 's not even true anymore at transparency bitrates with lastest Lame improvements .
-V5 and -V6 are transparent in most cases .
You examples are quite meaningful of the general openness problem : better quality does not mean wider userbase .
Typical users do not really care about quality because they do not know what quality is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vorbis beats the crap out of MP3.Used to.
That's not even true anymore at transparency bitrates with lastest Lame improvements.
-V5 and -V6 are transparent in most cases.
You examples are quite meaningful of the general openness problem : better quality does not mean wider userbase.
Typical users do not really care about quality because they do not know what quality is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517664</id>
	<title>Re:Quit embeding the codec support in the browser</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1268833920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.Windows XP (and probably Windows Vista although I am not sure) dont ship H.264 with the OS. Windows 7 does but you cant rely on that. Getting a H.264 codec that can work on XP is not simple (I have tried and still cant find one that works)<br>2.A number of linux distros (mainly the more "commercial" ones like SLED and RHEL) ship builds of libraries like FFMPEG that have all the patented codecs disabled to avoid being sued. In some cases you can get the codecs from a repository but again you have to have the user specifically install it.<br>3.Mobile devices may not contain H.264 decoders or if they do, may not make them available for 3rd parties and browsers to use.</p><p>Other codecs such as VC-1 and Theora have even less OS support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1.Windows XP ( and probably Windows Vista although I am not sure ) dont ship H.264 with the OS .
Windows 7 does but you cant rely on that .
Getting a H.264 codec that can work on XP is not simple ( I have tried and still cant find one that works ) 2.A number of linux distros ( mainly the more " commercial " ones like SLED and RHEL ) ship builds of libraries like FFMPEG that have all the patented codecs disabled to avoid being sued .
In some cases you can get the codecs from a repository but again you have to have the user specifically install it.3.Mobile devices may not contain H.264 decoders or if they do , may not make them available for 3rd parties and browsers to use.Other codecs such as VC-1 and Theora have even less OS support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.Windows XP (and probably Windows Vista although I am not sure) dont ship H.264 with the OS.
Windows 7 does but you cant rely on that.
Getting a H.264 codec that can work on XP is not simple (I have tried and still cant find one that works)2.A number of linux distros (mainly the more "commercial" ones like SLED and RHEL) ship builds of libraries like FFMPEG that have all the patented codecs disabled to avoid being sued.
In some cases you can get the codecs from a repository but again you have to have the user specifically install it.3.Mobile devices may not contain H.264 decoders or if they do, may not make them available for 3rd parties and browsers to use.Other codecs such as VC-1 and Theora have even less OS support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516928</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268828460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Market share wise, web sites with H.264 support are significantly ahead right now (YouTube HTML5 demo).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Market share wise , web sites with H.264 support are significantly ahead right now ( YouTube HTML5 demo ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Market share wise, web sites with H.264 support are significantly ahead right now (YouTube HTML5 demo).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31531494</id>
	<title>Re:A long lost battle.</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1268920740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you saying that nobody in the real world cares about <i>obeying the law</i> in regards to software?</p><p>While that may be true, it seems a rather sad state of affairs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you saying that nobody in the real world cares about obeying the law in regards to software ? While that may be true , it seems a rather sad state of affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you saying that nobody in the real world cares about obeying the law in regards to software?While that may be true, it seems a rather sad state of affairs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31519946</id>
	<title>Re:And...</title>
	<author>Pecisk</author>
	<datestamp>1268903100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is somehow partly in this - Chrome supports Theora, but YouTube not (yet). I think one day it will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is somehow partly in this - Chrome supports Theora , but YouTube not ( yet ) .
I think one day it will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is somehow partly in this - Chrome supports Theora, but YouTube not (yet).
I think one day it will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517246</id>
	<title>So many people passing comment, so few understand.</title>
	<author>pslam</author>
	<datestamp>1268830560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardly a day goes by without HTML5/H.264/Theora popping up here. Here's the facts, not the fiction:
</p><ul>
<li>Theora is not as good as H.264, but it's not far off. People seem to turn this into huge issue. It's just not quite as good as H.264, but it's still perfectly usable (I would say better than just 'usable') as an alternative codec in pretty much every use case. A universally supported codec is far more useful than a slightly better but non-free codec.</li><li>Hardware support is a <b>RED HERRING</b>. You don't need hardware support in most of the cases mentioned. An iPhone is perfectly capable of playing 480p resolution Theora in realtime, in software only (yes I've tried this). Most of the newer Android handsets likewise (not tried this but they're similar or better spec). Please don't tell me you want 720p on your handset. Power consumption difference to hardware decode is noticeable, but it's not huge, and again - it works, and that's what matters.</li><li>Hardware support wouldn't involve re-inventing huge bits of codec. Theora is strikingly similar to the way MPEG-4 works in many ways. Most hardware codecs run configurable microcode anyway.</li><li>The bigger issue for most vendors is QA. Distributing software in the non-FOSS world isn't as simple as adding a library a flipping compiler switches. They'll have to support Theora from then on, test it for exploits, crashes, compliance, and keep on doing that every release. It's a support burden. It's chicken and egg: there isn't the demand, so they aren't supplying.</li><li>Mozilla can never include H.264 support as it would make the browser non-free-as-in-freedom, which is entirely against their mission. People suggesting they do this either do not understand the point of free software, are just selfish, or are (here anyway) trolls. Redistributors (Firefox) may be able to include H.264 support but it seems to be on shaky legal ground to me (IANAL).</li><li>Whether they can just support generic plug-ins is another issue altogether. My opinion: using system plug-ins is a bad idea because it takes the (presumably) well examined, mostly-exploit-free browser code and exposes it to (from experience) the much less well examined system plug-ins. But that argument is separate to everything else.</li></ul><p>I'm guessing from the number of people that think Theora is unusable, too slow, requires hardware to run on handsets, and H.264 can just be popped into Mozilla, that there's the usual troll:signal ratio problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly a day goes by without HTML5/H.264/Theora popping up here .
Here 's the facts , not the fiction : Theora is not as good as H.264 , but it 's not far off .
People seem to turn this into huge issue .
It 's just not quite as good as H.264 , but it 's still perfectly usable ( I would say better than just 'usable ' ) as an alternative codec in pretty much every use case .
A universally supported codec is far more useful than a slightly better but non-free codec.Hardware support is a RED HERRING .
You do n't need hardware support in most of the cases mentioned .
An iPhone is perfectly capable of playing 480p resolution Theora in realtime , in software only ( yes I 've tried this ) .
Most of the newer Android handsets likewise ( not tried this but they 're similar or better spec ) .
Please do n't tell me you want 720p on your handset .
Power consumption difference to hardware decode is noticeable , but it 's not huge , and again - it works , and that 's what matters.Hardware support would n't involve re-inventing huge bits of codec .
Theora is strikingly similar to the way MPEG-4 works in many ways .
Most hardware codecs run configurable microcode anyway.The bigger issue for most vendors is QA .
Distributing software in the non-FOSS world is n't as simple as adding a library a flipping compiler switches .
They 'll have to support Theora from then on , test it for exploits , crashes , compliance , and keep on doing that every release .
It 's a support burden .
It 's chicken and egg : there is n't the demand , so they are n't supplying.Mozilla can never include H.264 support as it would make the browser non-free-as-in-freedom , which is entirely against their mission .
People suggesting they do this either do not understand the point of free software , are just selfish , or are ( here anyway ) trolls .
Redistributors ( Firefox ) may be able to include H.264 support but it seems to be on shaky legal ground to me ( IANAL ) .Whether they can just support generic plug-ins is another issue altogether .
My opinion : using system plug-ins is a bad idea because it takes the ( presumably ) well examined , mostly-exploit-free browser code and exposes it to ( from experience ) the much less well examined system plug-ins .
But that argument is separate to everything else.I 'm guessing from the number of people that think Theora is unusable , too slow , requires hardware to run on handsets , and H.264 can just be popped into Mozilla , that there 's the usual troll : signal ratio problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly a day goes by without HTML5/H.264/Theora popping up here.
Here's the facts, not the fiction:

Theora is not as good as H.264, but it's not far off.
People seem to turn this into huge issue.
It's just not quite as good as H.264, but it's still perfectly usable (I would say better than just 'usable') as an alternative codec in pretty much every use case.
A universally supported codec is far more useful than a slightly better but non-free codec.Hardware support is a RED HERRING.
You don't need hardware support in most of the cases mentioned.
An iPhone is perfectly capable of playing 480p resolution Theora in realtime, in software only (yes I've tried this).
Most of the newer Android handsets likewise (not tried this but they're similar or better spec).
Please don't tell me you want 720p on your handset.
Power consumption difference to hardware decode is noticeable, but it's not huge, and again - it works, and that's what matters.Hardware support wouldn't involve re-inventing huge bits of codec.
Theora is strikingly similar to the way MPEG-4 works in many ways.
Most hardware codecs run configurable microcode anyway.The bigger issue for most vendors is QA.
Distributing software in the non-FOSS world isn't as simple as adding a library a flipping compiler switches.
They'll have to support Theora from then on, test it for exploits, crashes, compliance, and keep on doing that every release.
It's a support burden.
It's chicken and egg: there isn't the demand, so they aren't supplying.Mozilla can never include H.264 support as it would make the browser non-free-as-in-freedom, which is entirely against their mission.
People suggesting they do this either do not understand the point of free software, are just selfish, or are (here anyway) trolls.
Redistributors (Firefox) may be able to include H.264 support but it seems to be on shaky legal ground to me (IANAL).Whether they can just support generic plug-ins is another issue altogether.
My opinion: using system plug-ins is a bad idea because it takes the (presumably) well examined, mostly-exploit-free browser code and exposes it to (from experience) the much less well examined system plug-ins.
But that argument is separate to everything else.I'm guessing from the number of people that think Theora is unusable, too slow, requires hardware to run on handsets, and H.264 can just be popped into Mozilla, that there's the usual troll:signal ratio problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515828</id>
	<title>Re:Quit embeding the codec support in the browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268822580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why? Browsers don't let the OS handle HTML rendering and image decompression either. This would just cause unnecessary platform dependencies. These things belong in (ideally, portable) libraries, for example libavcodec for audio/video. Whether these libraries have to be bundled with the browser, or can shared among applications and handled by some package management depends on the OS, but doesn't really matter.</p><p>Plugins were a stupid idea from the beginning and still cause a lot of problem in browsers; for example by breaking keyboard shortcuts. I hope than one day we can forget about browser plugins altogether.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
Browsers do n't let the OS handle HTML rendering and image decompression either .
This would just cause unnecessary platform dependencies .
These things belong in ( ideally , portable ) libraries , for example libavcodec for audio/video .
Whether these libraries have to be bundled with the browser , or can shared among applications and handled by some package management depends on the OS , but does n't really matter.Plugins were a stupid idea from the beginning and still cause a lot of problem in browsers ; for example by breaking keyboard shortcuts .
I hope than one day we can forget about browser plugins altogether .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
Browsers don't let the OS handle HTML rendering and image decompression either.
This would just cause unnecessary platform dependencies.
These things belong in (ideally, portable) libraries, for example libavcodec for audio/video.
Whether these libraries have to be bundled with the browser, or can shared among applications and handled by some package management depends on the OS, but doesn't really matter.Plugins were a stupid idea from the beginning and still cause a lot of problem in browsers; for example by breaking keyboard shortcuts.
I hope than one day we can forget about browser plugins altogether.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517744</id>
	<title>Re:Quit embeding the codec support in the browser</title>
	<author>jareth-0205</author>
	<datestamp>1268834520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let the OS handle it, and let the browser interact via plug-ins.</p></div><p>Really? Extend that back, would it be better if there was no JPG renderer, and that was handled by a plugin? GIF too? PNG? All separate from the browser? For a consistent and performant experience, having stuff integrated is good...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the OS handle it , and let the browser interact via plug-ins.Really ?
Extend that back , would it be better if there was no JPG renderer , and that was handled by a plugin ?
GIF too ?
PNG ? All separate from the browser ?
For a consistent and performant experience , having stuff integrated is good.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the OS handle it, and let the browser interact via plug-ins.Really?
Extend that back, would it be better if there was no JPG renderer, and that was handled by a plugin?
GIF too?
PNG? All separate from the browser?
For a consistent and performant experience, having stuff integrated is good...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517430</id>
	<title>Re:A long lost battle.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268832120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Linux beats the crap out of Windows.</p></div><p>That isn't objectively true.  Its desktop usage share is still around 1\%, and that's counting dual-booters and all the communist countries where buying Apple or Windows products is a no-no.  And I'm still having more stability and usability problems with Ubuntu than for Windows 7 - Linux definitely ain't ready for grandma's computer just yet.  You might say that Linux beats Windows in specific deployment categories (most Web server situations, supercomputing, etc), but you need to qualify your statements as such.  And to make your arguments valid you'd also need to compare the leading FLOSS solution to a leading proprietary solution, which doesn't always come from Microsoft.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Firefox beats the crap out of IE.</p></div><p>Again an invalid comparison.  IE is not the best proprietary Web-browser in terms of quality (Opera, Safari, Chrome), but it is the most popular.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Vorbis beats the crap out of MP3.</p></div><p>MP3 is not the latest or best proprietary audio format.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And Theora should beat the crap out of H.264!</p></div><p>Yes, we want this to be the case, but it isn't a foregone conclusion.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Unfortunately right now they play little dictators [...]</p></div><p> <a href="http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19771" title="freestateproject.org" rel="nofollow">So do the GPL authors</a> [freestateproject.org].  Only the software that doesn't rely on government force is truly free!</p><p>(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux beats the crap out of Windows.That is n't objectively true .
Its desktop usage share is still around 1 \ % , and that 's counting dual-booters and all the communist countries where buying Apple or Windows products is a no-no .
And I 'm still having more stability and usability problems with Ubuntu than for Windows 7 - Linux definitely ai n't ready for grandma 's computer just yet .
You might say that Linux beats Windows in specific deployment categories ( most Web server situations , supercomputing , etc ) , but you need to qualify your statements as such .
And to make your arguments valid you 'd also need to compare the leading FLOSS solution to a leading proprietary solution , which does n't always come from Microsoft.Firefox beats the crap out of IE.Again an invalid comparison .
IE is not the best proprietary Web-browser in terms of quality ( Opera , Safari , Chrome ) , but it is the most popular.Vorbis beats the crap out of MP3.MP3 is not the latest or best proprietary audio format.And Theora should beat the crap out of H.264 ! Yes , we want this to be the case , but it is n't a foregone conclusion.Unfortunately right now they play little dictators [ ... ] So do the GPL authors [ freestateproject.org ] .
Only the software that does n't rely on government force is truly free !
( Signed : Alex Libman 's sock-puppet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux beats the crap out of Windows.That isn't objectively true.
Its desktop usage share is still around 1\%, and that's counting dual-booters and all the communist countries where buying Apple or Windows products is a no-no.
And I'm still having more stability and usability problems with Ubuntu than for Windows 7 - Linux definitely ain't ready for grandma's computer just yet.
You might say that Linux beats Windows in specific deployment categories (most Web server situations, supercomputing, etc), but you need to qualify your statements as such.
And to make your arguments valid you'd also need to compare the leading FLOSS solution to a leading proprietary solution, which doesn't always come from Microsoft.Firefox beats the crap out of IE.Again an invalid comparison.
IE is not the best proprietary Web-browser in terms of quality (Opera, Safari, Chrome), but it is the most popular.Vorbis beats the crap out of MP3.MP3 is not the latest or best proprietary audio format.And Theora should beat the crap out of H.264!Yes, we want this to be the case, but it isn't a foregone conclusion.Unfortunately right now they play little dictators [...] So do the GPL authors [freestateproject.org].
Only the software that doesn't rely on government force is truly free!
(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31520368</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268909460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mhhm on the other hand, I am sure video will be really useful to improve the quality of other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two\_girls\_one\_cup" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">certain articles</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mhhm on the other hand , I am sure video will be really useful to improve the quality of other certain articles [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mhhm on the other hand, I am sure video will be really useful to improve the quality of other certain articles [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517334</id>
	<title>/.'s resident Anarcho-Capitalist troll approves!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268831220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way to go Wikipedia!  The quality, performance, and user convenience may not be 100\% yet, but HTML5 can meet and exceed its proprietary competitors very quickly, especially with the backing of a site like Wikipedia.</p><p>"Be the change you want to see in the world."  --Gandhi</p><p>(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to go Wikipedia !
The quality , performance , and user convenience may not be 100 \ % yet , but HTML5 can meet and exceed its proprietary competitors very quickly , especially with the backing of a site like Wikipedia .
" Be the change you want to see in the world .
" --Gandhi ( Signed : Alex Libman 's sock-puppet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to go Wikipedia!
The quality, performance, and user convenience may not be 100\% yet, but HTML5 can meet and exceed its proprietary competitors very quickly, especially with the backing of a site like Wikipedia.
"Be the change you want to see in the world.
"  --Gandhi(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31531540</id>
	<title>Re:A long lost battle.</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1268920980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Firefox just binds to generic facilities/libraries like ffmpeg, DirectMedia and CoreVideo, the whole discussion goes away, since everybody can choose what to use anyway.</p></div><p>No, they can't. <i>Not legally</i>. Not in the USA.</p><p><i>It is illegal to distribute a free H.264 player</i> in the USA.</p><p>The code exists. It is copyright-free. <i>But it is illegal to ship</i> due to software patents.</p><p>If you either a) don't particularly care if Linux provides H.264 support, or b) don't particularly care about obeying the law, this is not a problem. If, however, you want both of those, you have a legal problem.</p><p>The only way to remain <i>legal</i> is to NOT provide illegal H.264 support. If you also want to be able to watch videos, it would be nice if they weren't in a format that requires someone to break the law to give you the ability to watch.</p><p>Why is it so hard for people to understand that this has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with <i>obeying the law</i>?</p><p>Yes, the law is broken and should be changed. But since it hasn't...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Firefox just binds to generic facilities/libraries like ffmpeg , DirectMedia and CoreVideo , the whole discussion goes away , since everybody can choose what to use anyway.No , they ca n't .
Not legally .
Not in the USA.It is illegal to distribute a free H.264 player in the USA.The code exists .
It is copyright-free .
But it is illegal to ship due to software patents.If you either a ) do n't particularly care if Linux provides H.264 support , or b ) do n't particularly care about obeying the law , this is not a problem .
If , however , you want both of those , you have a legal problem.The only way to remain legal is to NOT provide illegal H.264 support .
If you also want to be able to watch videos , it would be nice if they were n't in a format that requires someone to break the law to give you the ability to watch.Why is it so hard for people to understand that this has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with obeying the law ? Yes , the law is broken and should be changed .
But since it has n't.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Firefox just binds to generic facilities/libraries like ffmpeg, DirectMedia and CoreVideo, the whole discussion goes away, since everybody can choose what to use anyway.No, they can't.
Not legally.
Not in the USA.It is illegal to distribute a free H.264 player in the USA.The code exists.
It is copyright-free.
But it is illegal to ship due to software patents.If you either a) don't particularly care if Linux provides H.264 support, or b) don't particularly care about obeying the law, this is not a problem.
If, however, you want both of those, you have a legal problem.The only way to remain legal is to NOT provide illegal H.264 support.
If you also want to be able to watch videos, it would be nice if they weren't in a format that requires someone to break the law to give you the ability to watch.Why is it so hard for people to understand that this has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with obeying the law?Yes, the law is broken and should be changed.
But since it hasn't...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515158</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1268819940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Has anyone tried to create a unicorn using a horse and a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narwhal" title="wikipedia.org">narwhal</a> [wikipedia.org]?  Why isn't there an island of Dr. Morrow anyway?  I think that would be cool.  Creating hybrid animals is cool.  We should do more experiments along these lines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone tried to create a unicorn using a horse and a narwhal [ wikipedia.org ] ?
Why is n't there an island of Dr. Morrow anyway ?
I think that would be cool .
Creating hybrid animals is cool .
We should do more experiments along these lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone tried to create a unicorn using a horse and a narwhal [wikipedia.org]?
Why isn't there an island of Dr. Morrow anyway?
I think that would be cool.
Creating hybrid animals is cool.
We should do more experiments along these lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516492</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App?</title>
	<author>city</author>
	<datestamp>1268825700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? I think this would a perfect article for video. Any video taken of this person would be in the public domain by now. Is there any video out there? I have no idea, but this kind of video doesn't preach to the youtube crowd so where else would you find it online? It's easy enough to find his picture. Wikimedia.org has becom a repository for these <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tom\_Crean.jpg#file" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">types of pictures</a> [wikipedia.org], you just need to cite the National Library of Australia as its source. This is exactly where wikipedia excells, getting all the library's public domain pictures from all over the world scanned and publish, why couldn't they do the same with public domain video and become a repository for it? There's got to be video of this guy out there somewhere, he's an explorer, that's what they do, get documented going somewhere. Unfortunately it's probably in a vault somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I think this would a perfect article for video .
Any video taken of this person would be in the public domain by now .
Is there any video out there ?
I have no idea , but this kind of video does n't preach to the youtube crowd so where else would you find it online ?
It 's easy enough to find his picture .
Wikimedia.org has becom a repository for these types of pictures [ wikipedia.org ] , you just need to cite the National Library of Australia as its source .
This is exactly where wikipedia excells , getting all the library 's public domain pictures from all over the world scanned and publish , why could n't they do the same with public domain video and become a repository for it ?
There 's got to be video of this guy out there somewhere , he 's an explorer , that 's what they do , get documented going somewhere .
Unfortunately it 's probably in a vault somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I think this would a perfect article for video.
Any video taken of this person would be in the public domain by now.
Is there any video out there?
I have no idea, but this kind of video doesn't preach to the youtube crowd so where else would you find it online?
It's easy enough to find his picture.
Wikimedia.org has becom a repository for these types of pictures [wikipedia.org], you just need to cite the National Library of Australia as its source.
This is exactly where wikipedia excells, getting all the library's public domain pictures from all over the world scanned and publish, why couldn't they do the same with public domain video and become a repository for it?
There's got to be video of this guy out there somewhere, he's an explorer, that's what they do, get documented going somewhere.
Unfortunately it's probably in a vault somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515274</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>arose</author>
	<datestamp>1268820240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Market share wise browsers with Theora support are actually ahead right now...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Market share wise browsers with Theora support are actually ahead right now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Market share wise browsers with Theora support are actually ahead right now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515386</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268820600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not sure how many articles would be really enhanced by the addition of video, <b>baring</b> in mind that video would need to be licenced under CC or similar,</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexi\_Belle" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Your</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia\_Saint" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Freudian</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoya" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">slip</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tera\_Patrick" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">gives</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasha\_Grey" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">me</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacie\_Heart" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">an</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna\_Angel" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">idea.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure how many articles would be really enhanced by the addition of video , baring in mind that video would need to be licenced under CC or similar,Your [ wikipedia.org ] Freudian [ wikipedia.org ] slip [ wikipedia.org ] gives [ wikipedia.org ] me [ wikipedia.org ] an [ wikipedia.org ] idea .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure how many articles would be really enhanced by the addition of video, baring in mind that video would need to be licenced under CC or similar,Your [wikipedia.org] Freudian [wikipedia.org] slip [wikipedia.org] gives [wikipedia.org] me [wikipedia.org] an [wikipedia.org] idea.
[wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516360</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268825040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not sure I see Wikipedia as being the "killer app" for video standards.</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not. It's a "not dead yet" app for videostandards. It's a very public stand for awareness of un-encumbered codecs, and even that there is something called "open source" &amp; attendant controversies that affect public use of the web.</p><p>Which is terrific. Open video codecs are just going to be sidelined if only some developers are aware. The problem needs to be publicized, and Wikipedia is an excellent foothold due to both broad use and closely partnered philosophy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I see Wikipedia as being the " killer app " for video standards.It 's not .
It 's a " not dead yet " app for videostandards .
It 's a very public stand for awareness of un-encumbered codecs , and even that there is something called " open source " &amp; attendant controversies that affect public use of the web.Which is terrific .
Open video codecs are just going to be sidelined if only some developers are aware .
The problem needs to be publicized , and Wikipedia is an excellent foothold due to both broad use and closely partnered philosophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I see Wikipedia as being the "killer app" for video standards.It's not.
It's a "not dead yet" app for videostandards.
It's a very public stand for awareness of un-encumbered codecs, and even that there is something called "open source" &amp; attendant controversies that affect public use of the web.Which is terrific.
Open video codecs are just going to be sidelined if only some developers are aware.
The problem needs to be publicized, and Wikipedia is an excellent foothold due to both broad use and closely partnered philosophy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515402</id>
	<title>Re:the non-free part isn't so bad</title>
	<author>bersl2</author>
	<datestamp>1268820660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Question: Do you believe that, if what Wikipedia itself currently says about the subject is correct, various MP3 patents ought to persist into at least 2012 and possibly as late as 2017? If not, when do you believe all patents covering its design and implementation should expire or have expired?</p><p>I think that if we are to allow patents on algorithms, not only should obviousness standards be rigorously enforced (including the appropriate appropriations from Congress to make it happen), but that we should be talking about terms of no more than 5-7 years. And even then, I would like there to be less time than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question : Do you believe that , if what Wikipedia itself currently says about the subject is correct , various MP3 patents ought to persist into at least 2012 and possibly as late as 2017 ?
If not , when do you believe all patents covering its design and implementation should expire or have expired ? I think that if we are to allow patents on algorithms , not only should obviousness standards be rigorously enforced ( including the appropriate appropriations from Congress to make it happen ) , but that we should be talking about terms of no more than 5-7 years .
And even then , I would like there to be less time than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question: Do you believe that, if what Wikipedia itself currently says about the subject is correct, various MP3 patents ought to persist into at least 2012 and possibly as late as 2017?
If not, when do you believe all patents covering its design and implementation should expire or have expired?I think that if we are to allow patents on algorithms, not only should obviousness standards be rigorously enforced (including the appropriate appropriations from Congress to make it happen), but that we should be talking about terms of no more than 5-7 years.
And even then, I would like there to be less time than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515598</id>
	<title>Re:And...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268821560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>HTML5 video codec support is not a dichotomous decision.  There can be multiple supported video codecs for the video tag just like there are multiple supported image formats for the img tag.  Larger sites like Wikipedia supporting only theora will encourage other companies to add support for theora in their browsers...not replace H.264.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 video codec support is not a dichotomous decision .
There can be multiple supported video codecs for the video tag just like there are multiple supported image formats for the img tag .
Larger sites like Wikipedia supporting only theora will encourage other companies to add support for theora in their browsers...not replace H.264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 video codec support is not a dichotomous decision.
There can be multiple supported video codecs for the video tag just like there are multiple supported image formats for the img tag.
Larger sites like Wikipedia supporting only theora will encourage other companies to add support for theora in their browsers...not replace H.264.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516570</id>
	<title>Re:And...</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1268826120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woe is Wikipedia, it's only the sixth most visited site and youtube is fourth.</p><p><a href="http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org" title="alexa.com">http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org</a> [alexa.com]<br><a href="http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youtube.com" title="alexa.com">http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youtube.com</a> [alexa.com]</p><p>What we really need is Facebook and the 'adult' tube sites to support open video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woe is Wikipedia , it 's only the sixth most visited site and youtube is fourth.http : //www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org [ alexa.com ] http : //www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youtube.com [ alexa.com ] What we really need is Facebook and the 'adult ' tube sites to support open video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woe is Wikipedia, it's only the sixth most visited site and youtube is fourth.http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org [alexa.com]http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/youtube.com [alexa.com]What we really need is Facebook and the 'adult' tube sites to support open video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517346</id>
	<title>we just had this discussion on /.</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1268831340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1582066&amp;threshold=4&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=nested&amp;cid=31470926" title="slashdot.org">we just had this same discussion on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</a> [slashdot.org] concerning Flash vs HTML5, I said HTML5 was a clear winner, because it is not Flash, because it is not a proprietary tech.</p><p>Some disagreed.  I still say it is the only right way to go, towards the open standards, to be just like the rest of the Internet, which could not have survived without the open standards.  Don't care if Flash is 5 times faster and 10 times flashier.  We need an open standard, so that nobody owns the only allowed implementation, so that nobody can control the Internet through proprietary means.  Many people want to control the Internet, proprietary tech is the only way that they could, let's not lose our Internet to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we just had this same discussion on / .
[ slashdot.org ] concerning Flash vs HTML5 , I said HTML5 was a clear winner , because it is not Flash , because it is not a proprietary tech.Some disagreed .
I still say it is the only right way to go , towards the open standards , to be just like the rest of the Internet , which could not have survived without the open standards .
Do n't care if Flash is 5 times faster and 10 times flashier .
We need an open standard , so that nobody owns the only allowed implementation , so that nobody can control the Internet through proprietary means .
Many people want to control the Internet , proprietary tech is the only way that they could , let 's not lose our Internet to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we just had this same discussion on /.
[slashdot.org] concerning Flash vs HTML5, I said HTML5 was a clear winner, because it is not Flash, because it is not a proprietary tech.Some disagreed.
I still say it is the only right way to go, towards the open standards, to be just like the rest of the Internet, which could not have survived without the open standards.
Don't care if Flash is 5 times faster and 10 times flashier.
We need an open standard, so that nobody owns the only allowed implementation, so that nobody can control the Internet through proprietary means.
Many people want to control the Internet, proprietary tech is the only way that they could, let's not lose our Internet to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517322</id>
	<title>Who Died in 1938?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1268831160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of the folks who died in 1938:</p><p>Clarence S Darrow, attorney</p><p>Thomas Wolfe, author</p><p>Warner Oland, actor (Charlie Chan)</p><p>Pearl White, US actress/stunt woman (Perils of Pauline)</p><p>Benjamin Cardozo, American jurist</p><p>E.C. Segar, American cartoonist (Popeye)</p><p>Mustafa Kemal Atat&#252;rk, founder and the first President of Turkey</p><p>Typhoid Mary, carrier of the typhoid disease</p><p>Karel Capek, Czech author (R.U.R.)</p><p>Joe "King" Oliver, jazz cornet and bandleader</p><p><a href="http://www.historyorb.com/deaths/date/1938" title="historyorb.com">Famous Deaths for Year 1938</a> [historyorb.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the folks who died in 1938 : Clarence S Darrow , attorneyThomas Wolfe , authorWarner Oland , actor ( Charlie Chan ) Pearl White , US actress/stunt woman ( Perils of Pauline ) Benjamin Cardozo , American juristE.C .
Segar , American cartoonist ( Popeye ) Mustafa Kemal Atat   rk , founder and the first President of TurkeyTyphoid Mary , carrier of the typhoid diseaseKarel Capek , Czech author ( R.U.R .
) Joe " King " Oliver , jazz cornet and bandleaderFamous Deaths for Year 1938 [ historyorb.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the folks who died in 1938:Clarence S Darrow, attorneyThomas Wolfe, authorWarner Oland, actor (Charlie Chan)Pearl White, US actress/stunt woman (Perils of Pauline)Benjamin Cardozo, American juristE.C.
Segar, American cartoonist (Popeye)Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder and the first President of TurkeyTyphoid Mary, carrier of the typhoid diseaseKarel Capek, Czech author (R.U.R.
)Joe "King" Oliver, jazz cornet and bandleaderFamous Deaths for Year 1938 [historyorb.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516208</id>
	<title>Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268824200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fail - somehow inneficient implementation?, takes to much CPU, laggy experience makes me want the sht that works instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fail - somehow inneficient implementation ? , takes to much CPU , laggy experience makes me want the sht that works instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fail - somehow inneficient implementation?, takes to much CPU, laggy experience makes me want the sht that works instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516780</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268827500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recommend videos of blending of every single physical item listed on Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recommend videos of blending of every single physical item listed on Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recommend videos of blending of every single physical item listed on Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516434</id>
	<title>Re:And...</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1268825400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what?  McDonalds has a lot more traffic through than Blockbuster.  And Bed, Bath &amp; Beyond have more monthly sales than Max's Mercedes Motors.</p><p>They're different entities serving completely different purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what ?
McDonalds has a lot more traffic through than Blockbuster .
And Bed , Bath &amp; Beyond have more monthly sales than Max 's Mercedes Motors.They 're different entities serving completely different purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what?
McDonalds has a lot more traffic through than Blockbuster.
And Bed, Bath &amp; Beyond have more monthly sales than Max's Mercedes Motors.They're different entities serving completely different purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516524</id>
	<title>Strike a blow for Freedom, indeed!</title>
	<author>davevr</author>
	<datestamp>1268825820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Consumers are most interested in freedom from buggy, hard-to-install, hard-to-configure, don't-play-my-youtubes, unsupported-by-my-PC-maker codecs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consumers are most interested in freedom from buggy , hard-to-install , hard-to-configure , do n't-play-my-youtubes , unsupported-by-my-PC-maker codecs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consumers are most interested in freedom from buggy, hard-to-install, hard-to-configure, don't-play-my-youtubes, unsupported-by-my-PC-maker codecs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514956</id>
	<title>Quit embeding the codec support in the browser</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268819220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let the OS handle it, and let the browser interact via plug-ins.</p><p>It's really not that complicated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the OS handle it , and let the browser interact via plug-ins.It 's really not that complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the OS handle it, and let the browser interact via plug-ins.It's really not that complicated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516326</id>
	<title>How useful will these videos be?</title>
	<author>Alien1024</author>
	<datestamp>1268824860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think this will make much of a difference as the videos in Wikipedia will probably be of little value. Like almost every Internet user I often get a Wikipedia article when searching for something. The things I find useful in it are the external links and to a lesser extent, the text and images in the articles. But most OGG samples are rarely worth checking out. The same probably goes for their Theora videos. It's just not easy to produce or find informative and encyclopedic audios or videos that can be made available under Creative Commons. The text found in copyrighted sources can be reworded to present only the facts, which can't be copyrighted. But you can't do the same with audiovisual material.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this will make much of a difference as the videos in Wikipedia will probably be of little value .
Like almost every Internet user I often get a Wikipedia article when searching for something .
The things I find useful in it are the external links and to a lesser extent , the text and images in the articles .
But most OGG samples are rarely worth checking out .
The same probably goes for their Theora videos .
It 's just not easy to produce or find informative and encyclopedic audios or videos that can be made available under Creative Commons .
The text found in copyrighted sources can be reworded to present only the facts , which ca n't be copyrighted .
But you ca n't do the same with audiovisual material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this will make much of a difference as the videos in Wikipedia will probably be of little value.
Like almost every Internet user I often get a Wikipedia article when searching for something.
The things I find useful in it are the external links and to a lesser extent, the text and images in the articles.
But most OGG samples are rarely worth checking out.
The same probably goes for their Theora videos.
It's just not easy to produce or find informative and encyclopedic audios or videos that can be made available under Creative Commons.
The text found in copyrighted sources can be reworded to present only the facts, which can't be copyrighted.
But you can't do the same with audiovisual material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517406</id>
	<title>your mom won't use theora</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268831880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as a content producer, i see one of the biggest hurdles to open video standards adoption to be the lack of options in mainstream production tools. Until it is a "one-click" option to encode in ogg/theora, most FCP and Premiere users are not going to do it, especially when they have h.264 support built in with a one-click preset.</p><p>I asked Mozilla's Chris Blizzard about this part of the puzzle at SXSW this week, and he blew me off as being "cute." I think this is indicative of their non-realistic view of the situation. If they don't include the production side of the equation in their plans to push for an open standard, then they're pretty much ensuring that open video remains a fringe issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as a content producer , i see one of the biggest hurdles to open video standards adoption to be the lack of options in mainstream production tools .
Until it is a " one-click " option to encode in ogg/theora , most FCP and Premiere users are not going to do it , especially when they have h.264 support built in with a one-click preset.I asked Mozilla 's Chris Blizzard about this part of the puzzle at SXSW this week , and he blew me off as being " cute .
" I think this is indicative of their non-realistic view of the situation .
If they do n't include the production side of the equation in their plans to push for an open standard , then they 're pretty much ensuring that open video remains a fringe issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as a content producer, i see one of the biggest hurdles to open video standards adoption to be the lack of options in mainstream production tools.
Until it is a "one-click" option to encode in ogg/theora, most FCP and Premiere users are not going to do it, especially when they have h.264 support built in with a one-click preset.I asked Mozilla's Chris Blizzard about this part of the puzzle at SXSW this week, and he blew me off as being "cute.
" I think this is indicative of their non-realistic view of the situation.
If they don't include the production side of the equation in their plans to push for an open standard, then they're pretty much ensuring that open video remains a fringe issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31519802</id>
	<title>This is...</title>
	<author>abigsmurf</author>
	<datestamp>1268943780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Free as in use exactly what we want you to use and nothing else"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Free as in use exactly what we want you to use and nothing else " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Free as in use exactly what we want you to use and nothing else"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516294</id>
	<title>They're calling it the Magna Encarta</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1268824680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(good, encyclopedia style videos only!).</p></div><p>Odds on how many Mythbusters citations per page?  I'll bet 3.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( good , encyclopedia style videos only !
) .Odds on how many Mythbusters citations per page ?
I 'll bet 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(good, encyclopedia style videos only!
).Odds on how many Mythbusters citations per page?
I'll bet 3.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517320</id>
	<title>Re:Killer App?</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1268831160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Porn is. So putting porn videos on wikipedia would be the killer app.</p><p>Natalie Portman, naked, petrified, hot grits, now featured on the Elemental Chart on wikipedia. Nerd nirvana. Or if your feeling less pure, Mila Jovavich naked  and shellacked, covered in hot corn nuts doing a spread on the Actinide series. Though really, she's been naked in so much I don't even think that's porn anymore.</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Porn is .
So putting porn videos on wikipedia would be the killer app.Natalie Portman , naked , petrified , hot grits , now featured on the Elemental Chart on wikipedia .
Nerd nirvana .
Or if your feeling less pure , Mila Jovavich naked and shellacked , covered in hot corn nuts doing a spread on the Actinide series .
Though really , she 's been naked in so much I do n't even think that 's porn anymore. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Porn is.
So putting porn videos on wikipedia would be the killer app.Natalie Portman, naked, petrified, hot grits, now featured on the Elemental Chart on wikipedia.
Nerd nirvana.
Or if your feeling less pure, Mila Jovavich naked  and shellacked, covered in hot corn nuts doing a spread on the Actinide series.
Though really, she's been naked in so much I don't even think that's porn anymore.~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008</id>
	<title>Killer App?</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1268819400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I see Wikipedia as being the "killer app" for video standards. I'm not sure how many articles would be really enhanced by the addition of video, baring in mind that video would need to be licenced under CC or similar, so clips of TV shows / films would probably be out.</p><p>To take a random example (today's featured article) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom\_Crean\_(explorer)" title="wikipedia.org">. I'm not sure what video you could usefully add to that article? Especially since somebody who died in 1938 probably isn't featured in many video clips.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I see Wikipedia as being the " killer app " for video standards .
I 'm not sure how many articles would be really enhanced by the addition of video , baring in mind that video would need to be licenced under CC or similar , so clips of TV shows / films would probably be out.To take a random example ( today 's featured article ) .
I 'm not sure what video you could usefully add to that article ?
Especially since somebody who died in 1938 probably is n't featured in many video clips .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I see Wikipedia as being the "killer app" for video standards.
I'm not sure how many articles would be really enhanced by the addition of video, baring in mind that video would need to be licenced under CC or similar, so clips of TV shows / films would probably be out.To take a random example (today's featured article) .
I'm not sure what video you could usefully add to that article?
Especially since somebody who died in 1938 probably isn't featured in many video clips.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515202</id>
	<title>Good luck.</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1268820060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're so uptight about what pictures they'll accept (copyright, fair use), what makes anyone think that Wikipedia is going to become a giant video repository?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're so uptight about what pictures they 'll accept ( copyright , fair use ) , what makes anyone think that Wikipedia is going to become a giant video repository ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're so uptight about what pictures they'll accept (copyright, fair use), what makes anyone think that Wikipedia is going to become a giant video repository?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31527116</id>
	<title>Re:JPEG</title>
	<author>Simetrical</author>
	<datestamp>1268944620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>JPEG images are patent encumbered too. There's just a gentleman's agreement among group members not to pursue royalties for "baseline" implementations of the standard. I don't see anyone scrambling to remove them from Wikipedia.</p></div><p>JPEG has no known patents on it, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Patent\_issues" title="wikipedia.org">according to Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org].  A couple of companies have asserted patent rights on JPEG, but it's not at all clear that the patents are actually valid: some have already been overturned by the Patent Office, and others are undergoing review.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>JPEG images are patent encumbered too .
There 's just a gentleman 's agreement among group members not to pursue royalties for " baseline " implementations of the standard .
I do n't see anyone scrambling to remove them from Wikipedia.JPEG has no known patents on it , according to Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] .
A couple of companies have asserted patent rights on JPEG , but it 's not at all clear that the patents are actually valid : some have already been overturned by the Patent Office , and others are undergoing review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JPEG images are patent encumbered too.
There's just a gentleman's agreement among group members not to pursue royalties for "baseline" implementations of the standard.
I don't see anyone scrambling to remove them from Wikipedia.JPEG has no known patents on it, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
A couple of companies have asserted patent rights on JPEG, but it's not at all clear that the patents are actually valid: some have already been overturned by the Patent Office, and others are undergoing review.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514964</id>
	<title>Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Spy Handler</author>
	<datestamp>1268819220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The campaign seeks to 'strike a blow for freedom' against a wave of h.264 adoption in otherwise open HTML5 video implementations."</p></div><p>They can dream about unicorns and world peace too but doesn't mean it's gonna happen...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The campaign seeks to 'strike a blow for freedom ' against a wave of h.264 adoption in otherwise open HTML5 video implementations .
" They can dream about unicorns and world peace too but does n't mean it 's gon na happen.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The campaign seeks to 'strike a blow for freedom' against a wave of h.264 adoption in otherwise open HTML5 video implementations.
"They can dream about unicorns and world peace too but doesn't mean it's gonna happen...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515188</id>
	<title>Oh the irony..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268820000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why does an organization like openvideoalliance.org use flash for their videos?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why does an organization like openvideoalliance.org use flash for their videos ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why does an organization like openvideoalliance.org use flash for their videos?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31518458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31531494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31527168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31520266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31527116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31520368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31519298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31531540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_17_1935200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31519946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1935200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1935200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1935200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1935200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1935200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1935200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31527116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1935200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31527168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515828
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1935200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31531540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31520266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31531494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1935200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1935200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31514964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1935200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31518458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31519946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_17_1935200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31517320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31520368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31516492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31515386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_17_1935200.31519298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
