<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_22_1747220</id>
	<title>Concrete Comparisons of Theora Vs. Mpeg-4</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245694260000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~nick/" rel="nofollow">icknay</a> writes <i>"With the upcoming Firefox 3.5 and HTML5 video, there's natural interest in Theora vs. Mpeg-4, but without much evidence either way. Here's <a href="http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~nick/theora-soccer/">clips encoded at various rates</a> to provide concrete comparison between Theora and Mpeg-4. Theora performs decently, but requires more bandwidth than Mpeg-4 (although this is a 1.1alpha release of Theora and Theora has a much better license than Mpeg-4). The quality comparisons are very subjective, but you can try the clips yourself and see how it breaks down. There was an <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/14/1649237/YouTube-HTML5-and-Comparing-H264-With-Theora">earlier discussion</a> about this, but it lacked much concrete evidence. (Disclosure: it's my page.)"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>icknay writes " With the upcoming Firefox 3.5 and HTML5 video , there 's natural interest in Theora vs. Mpeg-4 , but without much evidence either way .
Here 's clips encoded at various rates to provide concrete comparison between Theora and Mpeg-4 .
Theora performs decently , but requires more bandwidth than Mpeg-4 ( although this is a 1.1alpha release of Theora and Theora has a much better license than Mpeg-4 ) .
The quality comparisons are very subjective , but you can try the clips yourself and see how it breaks down .
There was an earlier discussion about this , but it lacked much concrete evidence .
( Disclosure : it 's my page .
) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>icknay writes "With the upcoming Firefox 3.5 and HTML5 video, there's natural interest in Theora vs. Mpeg-4, but without much evidence either way.
Here's clips encoded at various rates to provide concrete comparison between Theora and Mpeg-4.
Theora performs decently, but requires more bandwidth than Mpeg-4 (although this is a 1.1alpha release of Theora and Theora has a much better license than Mpeg-4).
The quality comparisons are very subjective, but you can try the clips yourself and see how it breaks down.
There was an earlier discussion about this, but it lacked much concrete evidence.
(Disclosure: it's my page.
)"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429983</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245669120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is this a joke going over my head?  spending time with women would inform you to the presence of (the very successful) Ugg boots.  spending time with anyone under the age of 40 would inform of the presence of the (also successful, but stupidly-named) Wii.</p><p>awkward names are not alone a barrier to a successful product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is this a joke going over my head ?
spending time with women would inform you to the presence of ( the very successful ) Ugg boots .
spending time with anyone under the age of 40 would inform of the presence of the ( also successful , but stupidly-named ) Wii.awkward names are not alone a barrier to a successful product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is this a joke going over my head?
spending time with women would inform you to the presence of (the very successful) Ugg boots.
spending time with anyone under the age of 40 would inform of the presence of the (also successful, but stupidly-named) Wii.awkward names are not alone a barrier to a successful product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429735</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1245668040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>CPU hell... if you want HD. But then with ~2000kps we are *not* talking about HD now are we*. <br> <br>
Dirac is for high end quality where you burn bits.  Here even h.264 is not really better than mpeg2 and not better than xvid.
<br> <br>
* I have decided most people must be quite blind to find these kind of things acceptable to watch. Even for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CPU hell... if you want HD .
But then with ~ 2000kps we are * not * talking about HD now are we * .
Dirac is for high end quality where you burn bits .
Here even h.264 is not really better than mpeg2 and not better than xvid .
* I have decided most people must be quite blind to find these kind of things acceptable to watch .
Even for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CPU hell... if you want HD.
But then with ~2000kps we are *not* talking about HD now are we*.
Dirac is for high end quality where you burn bits.
Here even h.264 is not really better than mpeg2 and not better than xvid.
* I have decided most people must be quite blind to find these kind of things acceptable to watch.
Even for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426257</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245699720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apache? An argument can be made for Firefox vs IE too.  Yeh open source sucks so much that Apple built OS X from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apache ?
An argument can be made for Firefox vs IE too .
Yeh open source sucks so much that Apple built OS X from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apache?
An argument can be made for Firefox vs IE too.
Yeh open source sucks so much that Apple built OS X from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426493</id>
	<title>Re:I thought Theora was GPL-ed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hah, aren't you a total gnutard. Consumers are actually quite rational and choose the formats with the best device and software support. Thedora is DOA for the exact same reason windows media and that other vendor-specific crap isn't catching on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hah , are n't you a total gnutard .
Consumers are actually quite rational and choose the formats with the best device and software support .
Thedora is DOA for the exact same reason windows media and that other vendor-specific crap is n't catching on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hah, aren't you a total gnutard.
Consumers are actually quite rational and choose the formats with the best device and software support.
Thedora is DOA for the exact same reason windows media and that other vendor-specific crap isn't catching on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431797</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245675720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is "ogg" really that different to "google"? It is only because you are used to "mp3". However, referring to multiple song files as "mp3s" is easier than "ogg vorbis format sound files". I cannot imagine people referring to their music as "oggs", it sounds a little too similar to "eggs".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is " ogg " really that different to " google " ?
It is only because you are used to " mp3 " .
However , referring to multiple song files as " mp3s " is easier than " ogg vorbis format sound files " .
I can not imagine people referring to their music as " oggs " , it sounds a little too similar to " eggs " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is "ogg" really that different to "google"?
It is only because you are used to "mp3".
However, referring to multiple song files as "mp3s" is easier than "ogg vorbis format sound files".
I cannot imagine people referring to their music as "oggs", it sounds a little too similar to "eggs".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429119</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245665880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll give you an example. Back in the day, we were designing what came out to be the first real-time news image site for mobile phones in a place with a lot of advanced mobile phones.</p><p>The assholes who were running the biggest service with the most subscribers have made an unfortunate choice for default image format (mostly because the format decision was made by a marketing bitch with little understanding of technology and a lot of stock at the time when that particular format ruled the web).  For them, of course, it didn't matter much, because they were not making neither the sites that needed to generate images, nor the phones that needed to display them. But they could decide on the format.</p><p>As a result, we (and a lot of other people) were made to jump though hoops and incur unnecessary to satisfy the ridiculous license requirements of the patent holder quite a few years until the older phones were retired.</p><p>I hear that these days, PNG is supported, and is the preferred format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll give you an example .
Back in the day , we were designing what came out to be the first real-time news image site for mobile phones in a place with a lot of advanced mobile phones.The assholes who were running the biggest service with the most subscribers have made an unfortunate choice for default image format ( mostly because the format decision was made by a marketing bitch with little understanding of technology and a lot of stock at the time when that particular format ruled the web ) .
For them , of course , it did n't matter much , because they were not making neither the sites that needed to generate images , nor the phones that needed to display them .
But they could decide on the format.As a result , we ( and a lot of other people ) were made to jump though hoops and incur unnecessary to satisfy the ridiculous license requirements of the patent holder quite a few years until the older phones were retired.I hear that these days , PNG is supported , and is the preferred format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll give you an example.
Back in the day, we were designing what came out to be the first real-time news image site for mobile phones in a place with a lot of advanced mobile phones.The assholes who were running the biggest service with the most subscribers have made an unfortunate choice for default image format (mostly because the format decision was made by a marketing bitch with little understanding of technology and a lot of stock at the time when that particular format ruled the web).
For them, of course, it didn't matter much, because they were not making neither the sites that needed to generate images, nor the phones that needed to display them.
But they could decide on the format.As a result, we (and a lot of other people) were made to jump though hoops and incur unnecessary to satisfy the ridiculous license requirements of the patent holder quite a few years until the older phones were retired.I hear that these days, PNG is supported, and is the preferred format.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426305</id>
	<title>Re:I thought Theora was GPL-ed?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1245699840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would you think Theora was GPL'd?  It's from the Xiph foundation, and all of their code is BSD-licensed to encourage widespread adoption.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you think Theora was GPL 'd ?
It 's from the Xiph foundation , and all of their code is BSD-licensed to encourage widespread adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you think Theora was GPL'd?
It's from the Xiph foundation, and all of their code is BSD-licensed to encourage widespread adoption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426495</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out, please</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1245700560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not "a little better", it's:</p><p>- available to be implemented by anyone and everyone without paying a cent or even asking for permission, with a BSD implementation available to all for free.</p><p>vs</p><p>- full of patents held by the big names of the industry, available under per-user licensing fees and any implementation not blessed by them exposes itself and anyone who uses it to big, very costly lawsuits in the US.</p><p>And when we're talking about a proposed standard for the entirety of the world wide web, things like that do matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not " a little better " , it 's : - available to be implemented by anyone and everyone without paying a cent or even asking for permission , with a BSD implementation available to all for free.vs- full of patents held by the big names of the industry , available under per-user licensing fees and any implementation not blessed by them exposes itself and anyone who uses it to big , very costly lawsuits in the US.And when we 're talking about a proposed standard for the entirety of the world wide web , things like that do matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not "a little better", it's:- available to be implemented by anyone and everyone without paying a cent or even asking for permission, with a BSD implementation available to all for free.vs- full of patents held by the big names of the industry, available under per-user licensing fees and any implementation not blessed by them exposes itself and anyone who uses it to big, very costly lawsuits in the US.And when we're talking about a proposed standard for the entirety of the world wide web, things like that do matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426043</id>
	<title>Re:Theora sucks a nut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245698940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, can you tell us how you really feel about Theora?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , can you tell us how you really feel about Theora ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, can you tell us how you really feel about Theora?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426865</id>
	<title>Re:Theora sucks a nut</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1245701940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't get it then make sure you are reading at +1 and above. Otherwise you will just hurt your little head.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't get it then make sure you are reading at + 1 and above .
Otherwise you will just hurt your little head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't get it then make sure you are reading at +1 and above.
Otherwise you will just hurt your little head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428873</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245664980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha, that's funny assumption. These:<br>http://images.google.com/images?q=ugg<br>are very popular in the areas that sometimes have snow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha , that 's funny assumption .
These : http : //images.google.com/images ? q = uggare very popular in the areas that sometimes have snow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha, that's funny assumption.
These:http://images.google.com/images?q=uggare very popular in the areas that sometimes have snow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429549</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1245667380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a problem with most FOSS projects. GIMP anybody? WINE (not as bad, but still)? Silly, humorous names are amusing to the geek, but only that. It might work for small unix programs that will be bundled with better-sounding products anyway. But give a product a stupid name, and people will treat it like a stupid product, and won't give it a second thought.</p><p>The name is usually a person's first impression for software. A good name will stay in somebody's head. A bad name will be dismissed, and the person will not so much as think of it again. And even if the name comes with an explanation, it's quite useless to just recall the purpose of the product but be left scratching as to what the name should be.</p><p>Divx and Xvid are good names ('vid'--short for 'video'--spelt backwards with X at the end and 'divx' backwards, respectively). Ogg, Vorbis, and Theora are not. Oh, BTW, the presence of an 'X' making things much more marketable may be a running gag in some circles, but it's very true. It has to do with 'X' connoctations--extreme, express, expert, experienced, extra, excellence. 'I' might be the new buzzletter, while 'E' is the washed out one (you'll automatically get outdated connoctations if you start a product with 'E'), but 'X' has been around for decades and is still going strong.</p><p>Of course, putting in the 'X' has to be tasteful. Puns ("X-Treme", "Aerobix", etc.) tend to scream of trying too hard, and leaving it alone ("X-windows", "Code-X") sounds forced.</p><p>Anyway, a name doesn't need 'X' to be good, but it does need to be good for the masses to be conscious of it. And a lot of FOSS projects are missing exactly that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a problem with most FOSS projects .
GIMP anybody ?
WINE ( not as bad , but still ) ?
Silly , humorous names are amusing to the geek , but only that .
It might work for small unix programs that will be bundled with better-sounding products anyway .
But give a product a stupid name , and people will treat it like a stupid product , and wo n't give it a second thought.The name is usually a person 's first impression for software .
A good name will stay in somebody 's head .
A bad name will be dismissed , and the person will not so much as think of it again .
And even if the name comes with an explanation , it 's quite useless to just recall the purpose of the product but be left scratching as to what the name should be.Divx and Xvid are good names ( 'vid'--short for 'video'--spelt backwards with X at the end and 'divx ' backwards , respectively ) .
Ogg , Vorbis , and Theora are not .
Oh , BTW , the presence of an 'X ' making things much more marketable may be a running gag in some circles , but it 's very true .
It has to do with 'X ' connoctations--extreme , express , expert , experienced , extra , excellence .
'I ' might be the new buzzletter , while 'E ' is the washed out one ( you 'll automatically get outdated connoctations if you start a product with 'E ' ) , but 'X ' has been around for decades and is still going strong.Of course , putting in the 'X ' has to be tasteful .
Puns ( " X-Treme " , " Aerobix " , etc .
) tend to scream of trying too hard , and leaving it alone ( " X-windows " , " Code-X " ) sounds forced.Anyway , a name does n't need 'X ' to be good , but it does need to be good for the masses to be conscious of it .
And a lot of FOSS projects are missing exactly that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a problem with most FOSS projects.
GIMP anybody?
WINE (not as bad, but still)?
Silly, humorous names are amusing to the geek, but only that.
It might work for small unix programs that will be bundled with better-sounding products anyway.
But give a product a stupid name, and people will treat it like a stupid product, and won't give it a second thought.The name is usually a person's first impression for software.
A good name will stay in somebody's head.
A bad name will be dismissed, and the person will not so much as think of it again.
And even if the name comes with an explanation, it's quite useless to just recall the purpose of the product but be left scratching as to what the name should be.Divx and Xvid are good names ('vid'--short for 'video'--spelt backwards with X at the end and 'divx' backwards, respectively).
Ogg, Vorbis, and Theora are not.
Oh, BTW, the presence of an 'X' making things much more marketable may be a running gag in some circles, but it's very true.
It has to do with 'X' connoctations--extreme, express, expert, experienced, extra, excellence.
'I' might be the new buzzletter, while 'E' is the washed out one (you'll automatically get outdated connoctations if you start a product with 'E'), but 'X' has been around for decades and is still going strong.Of course, putting in the 'X' has to be tasteful.
Puns ("X-Treme", "Aerobix", etc.
) tend to scream of trying too hard, and leaving it alone ("X-windows", "Code-X") sounds forced.Anyway, a name doesn't need 'X' to be good, but it does need to be good for the masses to be conscious of it.
And a lot of FOSS projects are missing exactly that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426475</id>
	<title>Re:I thought Theora was GPL-ed?</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1245700440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>They just don't care.  They want what yields the best results, and don't really care about licensing.  I can't really blame them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They just do n't care .
They want what yields the best results , and do n't really care about licensing .
I ca n't really blame them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just don't care.
They want what yields the best results, and don't really care about licensing.
I can't really blame them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427059</id>
	<title>Re:Theora sucks a nut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who is this 'Anonymous Cowardon' who keeps posting?  Somewhere behind my computer a small pile of spaces seems to have leaked out...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is this 'Anonymous Cowardon ' who keeps posting ?
Somewhere behind my computer a small pile of spaces seems to have leaked out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is this 'Anonymous Cowardon' who keeps posting?
Somewhere behind my computer a small pile of spaces seems to have leaked out...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427681</id>
	<title>Re:I thought Theora was GPL-ed?</title>
	<author>CatOne</author>
	<datestamp>1245704220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never been charged for watching a video on my Mac, Apple TV, or iPhone.  And I've ripped a number of them to H.264 using Handbrake.</p><p>So if there are costs, I'm not paying them.  If they're being passed along to me, I'm not seeing them.  And it works!</p><p>I fail to see the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never been charged for watching a video on my Mac , Apple TV , or iPhone .
And I 've ripped a number of them to H.264 using Handbrake.So if there are costs , I 'm not paying them .
If they 're being passed along to me , I 'm not seeing them .
And it works ! I fail to see the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never been charged for watching a video on my Mac, Apple TV, or iPhone.
And I've ripped a number of them to H.264 using Handbrake.So if there are costs, I'm not paying them.
If they're being passed along to me, I'm not seeing them.
And it works!I fail to see the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429063</id>
	<title>Re:License</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1245665640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why many games today use Vorbis for sound. To not pay MP3 patent royalties.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why many games today use Vorbis for sound .
To not pay MP3 patent royalties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why many games today use Vorbis for sound.
To not pay MP3 patent royalties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427329</id>
	<title>More Importantly...</title>
	<author>petermartin</author>
	<datestamp>1245703260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will someone just get to the point and tell me how this will affect my porn-watching experience?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will someone just get to the point and tell me how this will affect my porn-watching experience ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will someone just get to the point and tell me how this will affect my porn-watching experience?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28432099</id>
	<title>Fiasco! The fractal codec</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1245677100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone remember it? The author screwed up and coded parts of it on university time so had to revoke the GPL license since they could not prove which parts were or were not university property.</p><p>I spent a month compressing a highly scaled video clip and was able to put about 20 seconds on a floppy. I could compress a complex jpeg with the static compressor into 4 - 20k.</p><p><a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4367" title="linuxjournal.com">http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4367</a> [linuxjournal.com]</p><p>Bandwidth wise it's marvelous, it's the number crunching to compress it that's the killer. I'm not a coder and his paper is marginally comprehensible but there is no way I could recreate the codec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone remember it ?
The author screwed up and coded parts of it on university time so had to revoke the GPL license since they could not prove which parts were or were not university property.I spent a month compressing a highly scaled video clip and was able to put about 20 seconds on a floppy .
I could compress a complex jpeg with the static compressor into 4 - 20k.http : //www.linuxjournal.com/article/4367 [ linuxjournal.com ] Bandwidth wise it 's marvelous , it 's the number crunching to compress it that 's the killer .
I 'm not a coder and his paper is marginally comprehensible but there is no way I could recreate the codec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone remember it?
The author screwed up and coded parts of it on university time so had to revoke the GPL license since they could not prove which parts were or were not university property.I spent a month compressing a highly scaled video clip and was able to put about 20 seconds on a floppy.
I could compress a complex jpeg with the static compressor into 4 - 20k.http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4367 [linuxjournal.com]Bandwidth wise it's marvelous, it's the number crunching to compress it that's the killer.
I'm not a coder and his paper is marginally comprehensible but there is no way I could recreate the codec.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</id>
	<title>Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245699180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've asked this every time this topic comes up.  Can anyone name a SINGLE piece of open source software that does anything better than it's closest closed source (or otherwise "proprietary" via patents or whatever) counterpart?</p><p>Nope, you cannot.</p><p>Open Source should join the waterfall model and the "man month" on the scrap heap of failed faddy software development methodologies.  It has literally nothing going for it.</p><p>This post was written on a Mac, a product from a company PROUDLY providing closed source innovation since the dawn of the modern computer era!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've asked this every time this topic comes up .
Can anyone name a SINGLE piece of open source software that does anything better than it 's closest closed source ( or otherwise " proprietary " via patents or whatever ) counterpart ? Nope , you can not.Open Source should join the waterfall model and the " man month " on the scrap heap of failed faddy software development methodologies .
It has literally nothing going for it.This post was written on a Mac , a product from a company PROUDLY providing closed source innovation since the dawn of the modern computer era !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've asked this every time this topic comes up.
Can anyone name a SINGLE piece of open source software that does anything better than it's closest closed source (or otherwise "proprietary" via patents or whatever) counterpart?Nope, you cannot.Open Source should join the waterfall model and the "man month" on the scrap heap of failed faddy software development methodologies.
It has literally nothing going for it.This post was written on a Mac, a product from a company PROUDLY providing closed source innovation since the dawn of the modern computer era!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426393</id>
	<title>Re:License</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1245700200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really.  It's not as if no one can use licensed technologies on the internet.  Most people do for most of the stuff they use, and don't care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
It 's not as if no one can use licensed technologies on the internet .
Most people do for most of the stuff they use , and do n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
It's not as if no one can use licensed technologies on the internet.
Most people do for most of the stuff they use, and don't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28430339</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>gerddie</author>
	<datestamp>1245670380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This post was written on a Mac, a product from a company PROUDLY providing closed source innovation since the dawn of the modern computer era!</p></div><p>Oh, please remove everything that's based on free software from your OS X and let us see how you boot without the Darwin kernel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This post was written on a Mac , a product from a company PROUDLY providing closed source innovation since the dawn of the modern computer era ! Oh , please remove everything that 's based on free software from your OS X and let us see how you boot without the Darwin kernel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post was written on a Mac, a product from a company PROUDLY providing closed source innovation since the dawn of the modern computer era!Oh, please remove everything that's based on free software from your OS X and let us see how you boot without the Darwin kernel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426505</id>
	<title>Re:I thought Theora was GPL-ed?</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1245700560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>those of a patent holder who's gonna charge you every single time you watch a video</p></div></blockquote><p>When you pull it out of your ass like that, I agree.</p><p>Too bad that isn't reality, you'd have an ironclad argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>those of a patent holder who 's gon na charge you every single time you watch a videoWhen you pull it out of your ass like that , I agree.Too bad that is n't reality , you 'd have an ironclad argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>those of a patent holder who's gonna charge you every single time you watch a videoWhen you pull it out of your ass like that, I agree.Too bad that isn't reality, you'd have an ironclad argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28433727</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1245685560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's far from dead, and nobody on the real world cares about that. Seriously, stop beating that dead horse already, 'kay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's far from dead , and nobody on the real world cares about that .
Seriously , stop beating that dead horse already , 'kay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's far from dead, and nobody on the real world cares about that.
Seriously, stop beating that dead horse already, 'kay?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431187</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>JonathanBoyd</author>
	<datestamp>1245673380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeh open source sucks so much that Apple built OS X from it.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a bit of an exaggeration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeh open source sucks so much that Apple built OS X from it.That 's a bit of an exaggeration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeh open source sucks so much that Apple built OS X from it.That's a bit of an exaggeration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427641</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Guspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1245704100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vorbis did make some inroads into the game market, though. It's not all that rare that I see a copyright notice for Xiph in the opening of a game. The most recent example is Ghostbusters.</p><p>A list:</p><p><a href="http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/Games\_that\_use\_Vorbis" title="xiph.org">http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/Games\_that\_use\_Vorbis</a> [xiph.org]</p><p>Everything from Halo (Mac/PC) to Guitar Hero (II) and Rock Band to GTA to Quake4 / Doom 3 to Devil May Cry and all sorts of games in between.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vorbis did make some inroads into the game market , though .
It 's not all that rare that I see a copyright notice for Xiph in the opening of a game .
The most recent example is Ghostbusters.A list : http : //wiki.xiph.org/index.php/Games \ _that \ _use \ _Vorbis [ xiph.org ] Everything from Halo ( Mac/PC ) to Guitar Hero ( II ) and Rock Band to GTA to Quake4 / Doom 3 to Devil May Cry and all sorts of games in between .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vorbis did make some inroads into the game market, though.
It's not all that rare that I see a copyright notice for Xiph in the opening of a game.
The most recent example is Ghostbusters.A list:http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/Games\_that\_use\_Vorbis [xiph.org]Everything from Halo (Mac/PC) to Guitar Hero (II) and Rock Band to GTA to Quake4 / Doom 3 to Devil May Cry and all sorts of games in between.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429729</id>
	<title>Or, if we could get Quicktime for Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245668040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple seems to have paid for it all so you can get Quicktime for Windows and Mac.  The dlls/sos exist already on the pc so you can use THEM to render the video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple seems to have paid for it all so you can get Quicktime for Windows and Mac .
The dlls/sos exist already on the pc so you can use THEM to render the video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple seems to have paid for it all so you can get Quicktime for Windows and Mac.
The dlls/sos exist already on the pc so you can use THEM to render the video.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428177</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245662820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Can anyone name a SINGLE piece of open source software that does anything better than it's closest closed source (or otherwise "proprietary" via patents or whatever) counterpart?</p><p>Nope, you cannot.</p></div><p>The diametrically opposed POV. I think the only OSS I use that is worse than the closed alternative is OpenOffice. Even then I tend to use the far superior Lyx instead of writer whenever possible.<br>Firefox &gt; Internet explorer<br>Amarok &gt; iTunes, winamp etc.<br>7zip &gt; winzip<br>VLC media player - When it comes to playing anything and everything it can't be beaten<br>Notepad++ or Scite &gt;&gt;&gt; Notepad<br>open web standards &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Active X</p><p>Eclipse and Drupal I would point to as being better than the close source competition but I realise this probably personal taste.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone name a SINGLE piece of open source software that does anything better than it 's closest closed source ( or otherwise " proprietary " via patents or whatever ) counterpart ? Nope , you can not.The diametrically opposed POV .
I think the only OSS I use that is worse than the closed alternative is OpenOffice .
Even then I tend to use the far superior Lyx instead of writer whenever possible.Firefox &gt; Internet explorerAmarok &gt; iTunes , winamp etc.7zip &gt; winzipVLC media player - When it comes to playing anything and everything it ca n't be beatenNotepad + + or Scite &gt; &gt; &gt; Notepadopen web standards &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Active XEclipse and Drupal I would point to as being better than the close source competition but I realise this probably personal taste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Can anyone name a SINGLE piece of open source software that does anything better than it's closest closed source (or otherwise "proprietary" via patents or whatever) counterpart?Nope, you cannot.The diametrically opposed POV.
I think the only OSS I use that is worse than the closed alternative is OpenOffice.
Even then I tend to use the far superior Lyx instead of writer whenever possible.Firefox &gt; Internet explorerAmarok &gt; iTunes, winamp etc.7zip &gt; winzipVLC media player - When it comes to playing anything and everything it can't be beatenNotepad++ or Scite &gt;&gt;&gt; Notepadopen web standards &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Active XEclipse and Drupal I would point to as being better than the close source competition but I realise this probably personal taste.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426877</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not a codec fanboy but I have to disagree.<br>Theora isn't as good as H.264.  It will have a very had time becoming a standard and that is with good reason.<br>Now what I wonder is how does Dirac shape up? Way too many people only seem to care about Theora when there is another free video codec that may actually be better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a codec fanboy but I have to disagree.Theora is n't as good as H.264 .
It will have a very had time becoming a standard and that is with good reason.Now what I wonder is how does Dirac shape up ?
Way too many people only seem to care about Theora when there is another free video codec that may actually be better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not a codec fanboy but I have to disagree.Theora isn't as good as H.264.
It will have a very had time becoming a standard and that is with good reason.Now what I wonder is how does Dirac shape up?
Way too many people only seem to care about Theora when there is another free video codec that may actually be better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427857</id>
	<title>Chips?</title>
	<author>sunderland56</author>
	<datestamp>1245661620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can buy off-the-shelf parts to decode MPEG4. Where are the chips to decode Theora available?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can buy off-the-shelf parts to decode MPEG4 .
Where are the chips to decode Theora available ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can buy off-the-shelf parts to decode MPEG4.
Where are the chips to decode Theora available?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28435855</id>
	<title>Re:The specific encoder matters too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245789420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, the vast majority of users are not using x264.  If you look at the h264 YouTube encoder...</p></div><p>Youtube uses x264. They just use pretty fast settings. One of the big social networking sites, I think Facebook also uses it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , the vast majority of users are not using x264 .
If you look at the h264 YouTube encoder...Youtube uses x264 .
They just use pretty fast settings .
One of the big social networking sites , I think Facebook also uses it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, the vast majority of users are not using x264.
If you look at the h264 YouTube encoder...Youtube uses x264.
They just use pretty fast settings.
One of the big social networking sites, I think Facebook also uses it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427375</id>
	<title>The specific encoder matters too</title>
	<author>xiphmont</author>
	<datestamp>1245703380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only one point I wanted to mention (since the article and comments have all been--- oddly balanced for Slashdot)</p><p>The article points out that current Thusnelda is not as high quality as the best available h264 encoder at high bitrate video and unlimited encoding time.  No argument there, it's true. Thusnelda still has a ways to go, despite the distance it's come; the current alpha still has no Adaptive Quant whatsoever, which will go in before final release.</p><p>However, the vast majority of users are not using x264.  If you look at the h264 YouTube encoder, which has been designed for speed rather than 'work as long as you like to optimize the output', suddenly Theora is exactly on-par.  In short--- Theora is every bit as good as the way that the real world is going to end up using h264 for the forseeable future.  And the users of that 'inferior' h264 encoder seem pretty happy with it.</p><p>Anyway, this isn't disagreeing with anything you've said, it's simply a practical way to look at the difference.</p><p>Monty</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only one point I wanted to mention ( since the article and comments have all been--- oddly balanced for Slashdot ) The article points out that current Thusnelda is not as high quality as the best available h264 encoder at high bitrate video and unlimited encoding time .
No argument there , it 's true .
Thusnelda still has a ways to go , despite the distance it 's come ; the current alpha still has no Adaptive Quant whatsoever , which will go in before final release.However , the vast majority of users are not using x264 .
If you look at the h264 YouTube encoder , which has been designed for speed rather than 'work as long as you like to optimize the output ' , suddenly Theora is exactly on-par .
In short--- Theora is every bit as good as the way that the real world is going to end up using h264 for the forseeable future .
And the users of that 'inferior ' h264 encoder seem pretty happy with it.Anyway , this is n't disagreeing with anything you 've said , it 's simply a practical way to look at the difference.Monty</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only one point I wanted to mention (since the article and comments have all been--- oddly balanced for Slashdot)The article points out that current Thusnelda is not as high quality as the best available h264 encoder at high bitrate video and unlimited encoding time.
No argument there, it's true.
Thusnelda still has a ways to go, despite the distance it's come; the current alpha still has no Adaptive Quant whatsoever, which will go in before final release.However, the vast majority of users are not using x264.
If you look at the h264 YouTube encoder, which has been designed for speed rather than 'work as long as you like to optimize the output', suddenly Theora is exactly on-par.
In short--- Theora is every bit as good as the way that the real world is going to end up using h264 for the forseeable future.
And the users of that 'inferior' h264 encoder seem pretty happy with it.Anyway, this isn't disagreeing with anything you've said, it's simply a practical way to look at the difference.Monty</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429071</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>siDDis</author>
	<datestamp>1245665700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy.....<br>When it comes to terminal based there are plenty but I'll mention some GUI based...</p><p>Notepad++ beats Notepad<br>Pidgin beats Trillian<br>SMPlayer beats Windows Media Player<br>Filezilla beats Cuteftp</p><p>And there are also some extraordinary open source software which doesn't have proprietary counterparts(at least not that I know of).</p><p>Synaptic Packet manager for easy installation and maintenance of software.<br>Synfig Vector animation studio.<br>Gobby a collaborative editor supporting multiple documents in one session.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy.....When it comes to terminal based there are plenty but I 'll mention some GUI based...Notepad + + beats NotepadPidgin beats TrillianSMPlayer beats Windows Media PlayerFilezilla beats CuteftpAnd there are also some extraordinary open source software which does n't have proprietary counterparts ( at least not that I know of ) .Synaptic Packet manager for easy installation and maintenance of software.Synfig Vector animation studio.Gobby a collaborative editor supporting multiple documents in one session .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy.....When it comes to terminal based there are plenty but I'll mention some GUI based...Notepad++ beats NotepadPidgin beats TrillianSMPlayer beats Windows Media PlayerFilezilla beats CuteftpAnd there are also some extraordinary open source software which doesn't have proprietary counterparts(at least not that I know of).Synaptic Packet manager for easy installation and maintenance of software.Synfig Vector animation studio.Gobby a collaborative editor supporting multiple documents in one session.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431401</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1245674100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeh open source sucks so much that Apple built OS X from it.</p></div><p>Unix was proprietary, and built by AT&amp;T. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix" title="wikipedia.org">Unix.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Nextstep used parts of FreeBSD and NetBSD, sure, but that was just the cheap path to Unix.<br>If you accept the GP's premis, his point is still valid.</p><p>Nice try though, kthxbye.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeh open source sucks so much that Apple built OS X from it.Unix was proprietary , and built by AT&amp;T .
Unix. [ wikipedia.org ] Nextstep used parts of FreeBSD and NetBSD , sure , but that was just the cheap path to Unix.If you accept the GP 's premis , his point is still valid.Nice try though , kthxbye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeh open source sucks so much that Apple built OS X from it.Unix was proprietary, and built by AT&amp;T.
Unix. [wikipedia.org]Nextstep used parts of FreeBSD and NetBSD, sure, but that was just the cheap path to Unix.If you accept the GP's premis, his point is still valid.Nice try though, kthxbye.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429897</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245668700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Wow. You actually created an application that a) Is largely useless on *nix and b) Could be scripted in about 10 seconds flat by any semi-competent *nix admin?<br>
<br>
<tt>$ ls | sort -fit . -k 2</tt> <br>
<br>
*sigh*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>lf ( 1 ) : it 's like ls ( 1 ) but sorts filenames by extension , tersely .
Wow. You actually created an application that a ) Is largely useless on * nix and b ) Could be scripted in about 10 seconds flat by any semi-competent * nix admin ?
$ ls | sort -fit .
-k 2 * sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely.
Wow. You actually created an application that a) Is largely useless on *nix and b) Could be scripted in about 10 seconds flat by any semi-competent *nix admin?
$ ls | sort -fit .
-k 2 

*sigh*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051</id>
	<title>Help me out, please</title>
	<author>Useful Wheat</author>
	<datestamp>1245698940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could somebody please explain to me why the license matters? I mean, I understand that if a license limits mpeg-4 encoding to a single  government computer running Windows ME that was lost 5 years ago, that the license is a HUGE barrier to entry to use the codec. However, in this case the license seems to be the only single category in which Theora wins. The compression is worse than mpeg-4. The compression takes more space. But look! The license is a little better! WINNER!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could somebody please explain to me why the license matters ?
I mean , I understand that if a license limits mpeg-4 encoding to a single government computer running Windows ME that was lost 5 years ago , that the license is a HUGE barrier to entry to use the codec .
However , in this case the license seems to be the only single category in which Theora wins .
The compression is worse than mpeg-4 .
The compression takes more space .
But look !
The license is a little better !
WINNER !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could somebody please explain to me why the license matters?
I mean, I understand that if a license limits mpeg-4 encoding to a single  government computer running Windows ME that was lost 5 years ago, that the license is a HUGE barrier to entry to use the codec.
However, in this case the license seems to be the only single category in which Theora wins.
The compression is worse than mpeg-4.
The compression takes more space.
But look!
The license is a little better!
WINNER!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426301</id>
	<title>Question:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245699840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does the licensing cost of serving a file under a royalty based license compare to the cost of the extra bandwidth?</p><p>I wouldn't think there would be much difference, but maybe someone knows.</p><p>If true, then the cost of license compliance and solicitor fees and compliance officer etc could easily swing the balance to Theora.</p><p>If it's still pretty neck-and-neck, the Theora solution still has a simpler implementation process (us it) compared to the mpeg4.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does the licensing cost of serving a file under a royalty based license compare to the cost of the extra bandwidth ? I would n't think there would be much difference , but maybe someone knows.If true , then the cost of license compliance and solicitor fees and compliance officer etc could easily swing the balance to Theora.If it 's still pretty neck-and-neck , the Theora solution still has a simpler implementation process ( us it ) compared to the mpeg4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does the licensing cost of serving a file under a royalty based license compare to the cost of the extra bandwidth?I wouldn't think there would be much difference, but maybe someone knows.If true, then the cost of license compliance and solicitor fees and compliance officer etc could easily swing the balance to Theora.If it's still pretty neck-and-neck, the Theora solution still has a simpler implementation process (us it) compared to the mpeg4.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426077</id>
	<title>Re:Surprisingly different</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245699060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I sort of knew Theora was a bit behind than Mpeg-4, but I didn't realize by how much.</p> </div><p>YEAH BUT IT'S OPEN SORES SO IT'S BETTER</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sort of knew Theora was a bit behind than Mpeg-4 , but I did n't realize by how much .
YEAH BUT IT 'S OPEN SORES SO IT 'S BETTER</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sort of knew Theora was a bit behind than Mpeg-4, but I didn't realize by how much.
YEAH BUT IT'S OPEN SORES SO IT'S BETTER
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28442455</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>SiChemist</author>
	<datestamp>1245784920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox is much better than Internet Explorer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is much better than Internet Explorer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is much better than Internet Explorer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428501</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>julian67</author>
	<datestamp>1245663840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>pacpl vs any other batch audio transcoder
cdrdao (as used as EAC's burning engine)
mplayer
ffmpeg
any package management toolset/suite vs windows update
amule/emule vs edonkey/overnet (whose death kind of writes the judgement in stone)
bittorrent vs whatever awful crap the media industry concocted this week
truecrypt
enfcs
matroska
mousepad vs notepad ha ha ha
moc vs 300 crappy music players
thunar/konqueror/nautilus vs explorer
midnight commander vs 20 norton commander clones
vlc
linux kernel vs nt kernel (nt is ok but can it run my router and my nas....no)
screen
sshfs
gcc
dictd
sqlite
bash, bash-completion
busybox
cowsay<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
7-zip
kwm, xfwm even metacity vs microsoft window manager
lame vs frauenhofer
ok am bored now will stop.  Clearly the purpose and qualities of many of these tools will elude the inquirer, though the limitation is his, not the software's.  Nor am I claiming that every free software tool is equal to or superior to a similar proprietary tool, but many are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>pacpl vs any other batch audio transcoder cdrdao ( as used as EAC 's burning engine ) mplayer ffmpeg any package management toolset/suite vs windows update amule/emule vs edonkey/overnet ( whose death kind of writes the judgement in stone ) bittorrent vs whatever awful crap the media industry concocted this week truecrypt enfcs matroska mousepad vs notepad ha ha ha moc vs 300 crappy music players thunar/konqueror/nautilus vs explorer midnight commander vs 20 norton commander clones vlc linux kernel vs nt kernel ( nt is ok but can it run my router and my nas....no ) screen sshfs gcc dictd sqlite bash , bash-completion busybox cowsay : - ) 7-zip kwm , xfwm even metacity vs microsoft window manager lame vs frauenhofer ok am bored now will stop .
Clearly the purpose and qualities of many of these tools will elude the inquirer , though the limitation is his , not the software 's .
Nor am I claiming that every free software tool is equal to or superior to a similar proprietary tool , but many are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pacpl vs any other batch audio transcoder
cdrdao (as used as EAC's burning engine)
mplayer
ffmpeg
any package management toolset/suite vs windows update
amule/emule vs edonkey/overnet (whose death kind of writes the judgement in stone)
bittorrent vs whatever awful crap the media industry concocted this week
truecrypt
enfcs
matroska
mousepad vs notepad ha ha ha
moc vs 300 crappy music players
thunar/konqueror/nautilus vs explorer
midnight commander vs 20 norton commander clones
vlc
linux kernel vs nt kernel (nt is ok but can it run my router and my nas....no)
screen
sshfs
gcc
dictd
sqlite
bash, bash-completion
busybox
cowsay :-)
7-zip
kwm, xfwm even metacity vs microsoft window manager
lame vs frauenhofer
ok am bored now will stop.
Clearly the purpose and qualities of many of these tools will elude the inquirer, though the limitation is his, not the software's.
Nor am I claiming that every free software tool is equal to or superior to a similar proprietary tool, but many are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426381</id>
	<title>Re:I thought Theora was GPL-ed?</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1245700140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reference implementation of Theora, like that of Vorbis is under a BSD-style license to help it gain wider adoption, so your point is valid even for propietary browser makers such as Opera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reference implementation of Theora , like that of Vorbis is under a BSD-style license to help it gain wider adoption , so your point is valid even for propietary browser makers such as Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reference implementation of Theora, like that of Vorbis is under a BSD-style license to help it gain wider adoption, so your point is valid even for propietary browser makers such as Opera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426629</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1245701100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Samba v. Windows<br>Pidgin v. AOL Instant Messenger<br>Java v.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net<br>JBoss v. Websphere<br>MySQL v. SQL Server<br>OpenWRT v. any proprietary consumer grade router<br>vim v. any other text editor<br>tinydns v. Microsoft DNS<br>postfix v. Microsoft Exchange Server</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Samba v. WindowsPidgin v. AOL Instant MessengerJava v. .NetJBoss v. WebsphereMySQL v. SQL ServerOpenWRT v. any proprietary consumer grade routervim v. any other text editortinydns v. Microsoft DNSpostfix v. Microsoft Exchange Server</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Samba v. WindowsPidgin v. AOL Instant MessengerJava v. .NetJBoss v. WebsphereMySQL v. SQL ServerOpenWRT v. any proprietary consumer grade routervim v. any other text editortinydns v. Microsoft DNSpostfix v. Microsoft Exchange Server</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428351</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Open Source should join the waterfall model and the "man month" on the scrap heap of failed faddy <b>software development methodologies</b>.<br></i></p><p>Besides all the other fundamental misconceptions presented here, the most blatant may be this one: OS is not a SDM of any kind, and has little in common with actual methodologies.</p><p>Regarding "better than closed-source" aspect, all I can say is that within Java server-side stuff, it is more common to have open source libraries/frameworks that are better than commercial alternatives (if there are any) than vice versa. And certainly open sourced options are more widely used (more popular); which often leads to them becoming better even if that was initially not the case. Same is true for many other platforms.</p><p>But you are not a developer so anything other than end user apps probably don't count for your purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open Source should join the waterfall model and the " man month " on the scrap heap of failed faddy software development methodologies.Besides all the other fundamental misconceptions presented here , the most blatant may be this one : OS is not a SDM of any kind , and has little in common with actual methodologies.Regarding " better than closed-source " aspect , all I can say is that within Java server-side stuff , it is more common to have open source libraries/frameworks that are better than commercial alternatives ( if there are any ) than vice versa .
And certainly open sourced options are more widely used ( more popular ) ; which often leads to them becoming better even if that was initially not the case .
Same is true for many other platforms.But you are not a developer so anything other than end user apps probably do n't count for your purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open Source should join the waterfall model and the "man month" on the scrap heap of failed faddy software development methodologies.Besides all the other fundamental misconceptions presented here, the most blatant may be this one: OS is not a SDM of any kind, and has little in common with actual methodologies.Regarding "better than closed-source" aspect, all I can say is that within Java server-side stuff, it is more common to have open source libraries/frameworks that are better than commercial alternatives (if there are any) than vice versa.
And certainly open sourced options are more widely used (more popular); which often leads to them becoming better even if that was initially not the case.
Same is true for many other platforms.But you are not a developer so anything other than end user apps probably don't count for your purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427879</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ogg is the transport, Vorbis is the CODEC.
Are you saying that MP3 or MP4 are exciting?  At least there is differentiation for CODEC and transport.  How about the fact that mpeg 4 asp or AVC or H.264 can be in an avi, wmv, mp4, etc.?  A distinctive name seems better than all the overlapping nonsense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ogg is the transport , Vorbis is the CODEC .
Are you saying that MP3 or MP4 are exciting ?
At least there is differentiation for CODEC and transport .
How about the fact that mpeg 4 asp or AVC or H.264 can be in an avi , wmv , mp4 , etc. ?
A distinctive name seems better than all the overlapping nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ogg is the transport, Vorbis is the CODEC.
Are you saying that MP3 or MP4 are exciting?
At least there is differentiation for CODEC and transport.
How about the fact that mpeg 4 asp or AVC or H.264 can be in an avi, wmv, mp4, etc.?
A distinctive name seems better than all the overlapping nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429279</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245666420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um.. before you explain <em>how</em> Vorbis died, you might wanna think about <em>if</em> Vorbis died, because Vorbis sure <em>looks</em> like it's kicking everyone else's ass right now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um.. before you explain how Vorbis died , you might wan na think about if Vorbis died , because Vorbis sure looks like it 's kicking everyone else 's ass right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um.. before you explain how Vorbis died, you might wanna think about if Vorbis died, because Vorbis sure looks like it's kicking everyone else's ass right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429157</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245666060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure.  Because "empeethree" falls so much more trippingly off the tongue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure .
Because " empeethree " falls so much more trippingly off the tongue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure.
Because "empeethree" falls so much more trippingly off the tongue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28436809</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1245757800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not coincidentally, most IT shops never consider Linux for anything outside of webserving.</p></div><p>Huh ?</p><p>Or :</p><ul><li>database hosting</li><li>number crunching</li><li>workstations<p>including</p><ul><li>visualisation</li><li>generic office work</li><li>development</li><li>etc.</li></ul></li><li>file servers</li><li>firewalls and various DMZ hosts</li><li>virtualisation hosts with or without thin clients</li><li>etc.</li></ul><p>All of those I've seen deployed everywhere.</p><p>I don't know what shops you've been to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not coincidentally , most IT shops never consider Linux for anything outside of webserving.Huh ? Or : database hostingnumber crunchingworkstationsincludingvisualisationgeneric office workdevelopmentetc.file serversfirewalls and various DMZ hostsvirtualisation hosts with or without thin clientsetc.All of those I 've seen deployed everywhere.I do n't know what shops you 've been to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not coincidentally, most IT shops never consider Linux for anything outside of webserving.Huh ?Or :database hostingnumber crunchingworkstationsincludingvisualisationgeneric office workdevelopmentetc.file serversfirewalls and various DMZ hostsvirtualisation hosts with or without thin clientsetc.All of those I've seen deployed everywhere.I don't know what shops you've been to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431643</id>
	<title>How does this compare to flash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245674940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know that has nothing to do with the article, but just out of curiosity I wonder how flash looks when using a similar file size.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know that has nothing to do with the article , but just out of curiosity I wonder how flash looks when using a similar file size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know that has nothing to do with the article, but just out of curiosity I wonder how flash looks when using a similar file size.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428753</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245664620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Theora may currently be worse than H.264/MPEG-4, but according to TFA by some measures it's already much better than the MPEG-2 that DVDs and your Satellite TV uses, so it's not exactly horrible.</p><p>As to whether you care about licencing, that depends on how you are planning to use it. The trouble with MPEG-4 is that not only do you need to pay for the encoder/decoder, but they also require you to pay them royalties if you're making money selling MPEG-4 encoded movies.</p><p>They have their "Participation Fees" listed here:</p><p><a href="http://www.mpegla.com/news/n\_03-11-17\_avc.html" title="mpegla.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mpegla.com/news/n\_03-11-17\_avc.html</a> [mpegla.com]</p><p>So basically MPEG-4 imposes a tax that:</p><p>1) Gets added to the cost of any consumer electronics you buy that uses it<br>2) You pay if you want to use your own videos commercially!</p><p>Remember that even if Theora didn't improve an iota from today, which it surely will (just as DivX, Xvid did) we're only talking about 60\% more bits for the same quality to MPEG-4. With communication speeds and memory capacities increasing like crazy, you'd have to be a fool to fuss about a 60\% hit today and prefer instead to pay a "participation" tax to the MPEG-4/H.262 consortium for the rest of your life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Theora may currently be worse than H.264/MPEG-4 , but according to TFA by some measures it 's already much better than the MPEG-2 that DVDs and your Satellite TV uses , so it 's not exactly horrible.As to whether you care about licencing , that depends on how you are planning to use it .
The trouble with MPEG-4 is that not only do you need to pay for the encoder/decoder , but they also require you to pay them royalties if you 're making money selling MPEG-4 encoded movies.They have their " Participation Fees " listed here : http : //www.mpegla.com/news/n \ _03-11-17 \ _avc.html [ mpegla.com ] So basically MPEG-4 imposes a tax that : 1 ) Gets added to the cost of any consumer electronics you buy that uses it2 ) You pay if you want to use your own videos commercially ! Remember that even if Theora did n't improve an iota from today , which it surely will ( just as DivX , Xvid did ) we 're only talking about 60 \ % more bits for the same quality to MPEG-4 .
With communication speeds and memory capacities increasing like crazy , you 'd have to be a fool to fuss about a 60 \ % hit today and prefer instead to pay a " participation " tax to the MPEG-4/H.262 consortium for the rest of your life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Theora may currently be worse than H.264/MPEG-4, but according to TFA by some measures it's already much better than the MPEG-2 that DVDs and your Satellite TV uses, so it's not exactly horrible.As to whether you care about licencing, that depends on how you are planning to use it.
The trouble with MPEG-4 is that not only do you need to pay for the encoder/decoder, but they also require you to pay them royalties if you're making money selling MPEG-4 encoded movies.They have their "Participation Fees" listed here:http://www.mpegla.com/news/n\_03-11-17\_avc.html [mpegla.com]So basically MPEG-4 imposes a tax that:1) Gets added to the cost of any consumer electronics you buy that uses it2) You pay if you want to use your own videos commercially!Remember that even if Theora didn't improve an iota from today, which it surely will (just as DivX, Xvid did) we're only talking about 60\% more bits for the same quality to MPEG-4.
With communication speeds and memory capacities increasing like crazy, you'd have to be a fool to fuss about a 60\% hit today and prefer instead to pay a "participation" tax to the MPEG-4/H.262 consortium for the rest of your life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428843</id>
	<title>Concrete? Not...one...bit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245664860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guy is using absolutely -none- of the baseline features that x264 offers to improve the video stream - and let's not mention what is offered in the more advanced profiles.</p><p>This comparison is anything but thorough. Poor job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy is using absolutely -none- of the baseline features that x264 offers to improve the video stream - and let 's not mention what is offered in the more advanced profiles.This comparison is anything but thorough .
Poor job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy is using absolutely -none- of the baseline features that x264 offers to improve the video stream - and let's not mention what is offered in the more advanced profiles.This comparison is anything but thorough.
Poor job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901</id>
	<title>Surprisingly different</title>
	<author>spud603</author>
	<datestamp>1245698340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sort of knew Theora was a bit behind than Mpeg-4, but I didn't realize by how much. The Theora clip that has a 60\% higher bitrate than the Mpeg-4 still looks fuzzier to my eyes (especially the moving grass).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sort of knew Theora was a bit behind than Mpeg-4 , but I did n't realize by how much .
The Theora clip that has a 60 \ % higher bitrate than the Mpeg-4 still looks fuzzier to my eyes ( especially the moving grass ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sort of knew Theora was a bit behind than Mpeg-4, but I didn't realize by how much.
The Theora clip that has a 60\% higher bitrate than the Mpeg-4 still looks fuzzier to my eyes (especially the moving grass).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429829</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out, please</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1245668400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if Mozilla or co pony up the money. MPEG-LA will not give them a license that allows their uses to redistribute a "licensed" product.  The sting is not just that you need a license with MPEG-LA, but that you must sign the contract.... With whatever they want to put in it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if Mozilla or co pony up the money .
MPEG-LA will not give them a license that allows their uses to redistribute a " licensed " product .
The sting is not just that you need a license with MPEG-LA , but that you must sign the contract.... With whatever they want to put in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if Mozilla or co pony up the money.
MPEG-LA will not give them a license that allows their uses to redistribute a "licensed" product.
The sting is not just that you need a license with MPEG-LA, but that you must sign the contract.... With whatever they want to put in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28437159</id>
	<title>1600kbps is too high for theora</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245762180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theora is I think better in comparisons at lower bitrates, say below 500kbps. And there's a new alpha released, after one used here. Poster mentioned in the article another recent comparison, albeit one using youtube's encoders for h.264, and including audio. Poster seems to think the choice of big bucks bunny made theora preform better. Yet, that comparison too concludes theora looses out beyond 500kbps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theora is I think better in comparisons at lower bitrates , say below 500kbps .
And there 's a new alpha released , after one used here .
Poster mentioned in the article another recent comparison , albeit one using youtube 's encoders for h.264 , and including audio .
Poster seems to think the choice of big bucks bunny made theora preform better .
Yet , that comparison too concludes theora looses out beyond 500kbps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theora is I think better in comparisons at lower bitrates, say below 500kbps.
And there's a new alpha released, after one used here.
Poster mentioned in the article another recent comparison, albeit one using youtube's encoders for h.264, and including audio.
Poster seems to think the choice of big bucks bunny made theora preform better.
Yet, that comparison too concludes theora looses out beyond 500kbps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429913</id>
	<title>Re:The specific encoder matters too</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1245668820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Theora had half the time the different OS implementations of xvid and h.264 encoders things would be a lot different I think.
<br> <br>
Unfortunately this is not the case... And I can see this ending up much like the gif situation.
<br> <br>
So thanks for at least giving us a debate about what to support and the option for real free beer and freedom. If there was no theora we would be stuck wounding just how much we could get shafted over this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Theora had half the time the different OS implementations of xvid and h.264 encoders things would be a lot different I think .
Unfortunately this is not the case... And I can see this ending up much like the gif situation .
So thanks for at least giving us a debate about what to support and the option for real free beer and freedom .
If there was no theora we would be stuck wounding just how much we could get shafted over this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Theora had half the time the different OS implementations of xvid and h.264 encoders things would be a lot different I think.
Unfortunately this is not the case... And I can see this ending up much like the gif situation.
So thanks for at least giving us a debate about what to support and the option for real free beer and freedom.
If there was no theora we would be stuck wounding just how much we could get shafted over this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429591</id>
	<title>Re:License</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1245667500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it will cost firefox 5 million + to have h.264 included per year....Are you going to foot the bill?<br> <br>
But wait theres more. In order to get a license you need to sign a contract. Now that contract has things like *all* playback implementations *must* support various DRM etc (aka zones). These strings make firefox or another implementation non free, lack freedom and generally incompatible with most GPL type licenses. <br> <br>
Oh and they are going to charge for content soon too.
<br> <br>
I find discussion of quality at these bit rates quite funny. I have decided most people must be blind....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it will cost firefox 5 million + to have h.264 included per year....Are you going to foot the bill ?
But wait theres more .
In order to get a license you need to sign a contract .
Now that contract has things like * all * playback implementations * must * support various DRM etc ( aka zones ) .
These strings make firefox or another implementation non free , lack freedom and generally incompatible with most GPL type licenses .
Oh and they are going to charge for content soon too .
I find discussion of quality at these bit rates quite funny .
I have decided most people must be blind... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it will cost firefox 5 million + to have h.264 included per year....Are you going to foot the bill?
But wait theres more.
In order to get a license you need to sign a contract.
Now that contract has things like *all* playback implementations *must* support various DRM etc (aka zones).
These strings make firefox or another implementation non free, lack freedom and generally incompatible with most GPL type licenses.
Oh and they are going to charge for content soon too.
I find discussion of quality at these bit rates quite funny.
I have decided most people must be blind....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025</id>
	<title>Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>steveha</author>
	<datestamp>1245698820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The situation seems pretty clear to me.</p><p>Theora is just not as good as H.264; you can get better quality with the same bits in H.264, or similar quality in fewer bits.</p><p>Theora is, however, good enough for general use for Internet video.  It's at least as good as H.263, which actually has been used for years.  (Breathless claims that Theora would need twice as many bits as H.264 are just silly.)</p><p>Since Theora is free in all ways, browsers can just build it in, and sites like Wikipedia are going to use it.  Since H.264 is better, sites with money will pay the H.264 fees to save money on bandwidth.  And, if I had a web business, I'd hesitate to paint myself into a corner with H.264; the patent owners have the power to jack up the royalties if they decide to.</p><p>In short, both Theora and H.264 will be found on the Internet in the near future.  And we can all just get along.</p><p>(Now watch Theora fanboys and H.264 fanboys team up to mod this post down through the floor...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>P.S. Ogg Vorbis never toppled MP3 from the throne.  However, the existence of Vorbis may have exerted some downward pressure on the licensing fees for the paid codecs.  In a similar way, the existence of Theora may cause the patent holders for the other video formats to not try to charge quite as much.</p><p>steveha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The situation seems pretty clear to me.Theora is just not as good as H.264 ; you can get better quality with the same bits in H.264 , or similar quality in fewer bits.Theora is , however , good enough for general use for Internet video .
It 's at least as good as H.263 , which actually has been used for years .
( Breathless claims that Theora would need twice as many bits as H.264 are just silly .
) Since Theora is free in all ways , browsers can just build it in , and sites like Wikipedia are going to use it .
Since H.264 is better , sites with money will pay the H.264 fees to save money on bandwidth .
And , if I had a web business , I 'd hesitate to paint myself into a corner with H.264 ; the patent owners have the power to jack up the royalties if they decide to.In short , both Theora and H.264 will be found on the Internet in the near future .
And we can all just get along .
( Now watch Theora fanboys and H.264 fanboys team up to mod this post down through the floor... : - ) P.S. Ogg Vorbis never toppled MP3 from the throne .
However , the existence of Vorbis may have exerted some downward pressure on the licensing fees for the paid codecs .
In a similar way , the existence of Theora may cause the patent holders for the other video formats to not try to charge quite as much.steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The situation seems pretty clear to me.Theora is just not as good as H.264; you can get better quality with the same bits in H.264, or similar quality in fewer bits.Theora is, however, good enough for general use for Internet video.
It's at least as good as H.263, which actually has been used for years.
(Breathless claims that Theora would need twice as many bits as H.264 are just silly.
)Since Theora is free in all ways, browsers can just build it in, and sites like Wikipedia are going to use it.
Since H.264 is better, sites with money will pay the H.264 fees to save money on bandwidth.
And, if I had a web business, I'd hesitate to paint myself into a corner with H.264; the patent owners have the power to jack up the royalties if they decide to.In short, both Theora and H.264 will be found on the Internet in the near future.
And we can all just get along.
(Now watch Theora fanboys and H.264 fanboys team up to mod this post down through the floor... :-)P.S. Ogg Vorbis never toppled MP3 from the throne.
However, the existence of Vorbis may have exerted some downward pressure on the licensing fees for the paid codecs.
In a similar way, the existence of Theora may cause the patent holders for the other video formats to not try to charge quite as much.steveha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427339</id>
	<title>Re:Theora sucks a nut</title>
	<author>cheftw</author>
	<datestamp>1245703260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does that look like? A two-dimensional space, in 3-space...</p><p>But really, seconded. I keep thinking it's a particle.</p><p>To continue on this train of thought, where is my Large AnonymousCowardon Collider?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does that look like ?
A two-dimensional space , in 3-space...But really , seconded .
I keep thinking it 's a particle.To continue on this train of thought , where is my Large AnonymousCowardon Collider ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does that look like?
A two-dimensional space, in 3-space...But really, seconded.
I keep thinking it's a particle.To continue on this train of thought, where is my Large AnonymousCowardon Collider?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429563</id>
	<title>Re:The specific encoder matters too</title>
	<author>icknay</author>
	<datestamp>1245667440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey Monty -- when Thusnelda has made its next step up -- Adaptive Quant and what have you -- I'd be happy to do a followup article + I'm interested to get tips to make sure I'm using the right flags.

My instinct is that high output quality and minimizing bandwidth are the most important things, and encoding CPU use is less so, but I should at least be clear that the low-cpu niche is one some care about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey Monty -- when Thusnelda has made its next step up -- Adaptive Quant and what have you -- I 'd be happy to do a followup article + I 'm interested to get tips to make sure I 'm using the right flags .
My instinct is that high output quality and minimizing bandwidth are the most important things , and encoding CPU use is less so , but I should at least be clear that the low-cpu niche is one some care about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey Monty -- when Thusnelda has made its next step up -- Adaptive Quant and what have you -- I'd be happy to do a followup article + I'm interested to get tips to make sure I'm using the right flags.
My instinct is that high output quality and minimizing bandwidth are the most important things, and encoding CPU use is less so, but I should at least be clear that the low-cpu niche is one some care about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425877</id>
	<title>Disclosure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245698280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disclosure: I'm trying to stress test my server. Please nuke it into the slag of its constituent parts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclosure : I 'm trying to stress test my server .
Please nuke it into the slag of its constituent parts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclosure: I'm trying to stress test my server.
Please nuke it into the slag of its constituent parts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28430271</id>
	<title>Re:The specific encoder matters too</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1245670200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you mean "it's simply an incorrect and biased way to look at the difference". You can scream that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No\_true\_Scotsman" title="wikipedia.org">no true Real World situation</a> [wikipedia.org] would care about anything but speed until your throat hurts, but it doesn't change the fact that not everyone using a video codec is using it for some video sharing site, and a in lot of actual real world situations, encoding speed is a fairly distant second to quality. And on that front, Theora is always going to lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you mean " it 's simply an incorrect and biased way to look at the difference " .
You can scream that no true Real World situation [ wikipedia.org ] would care about anything but speed until your throat hurts , but it does n't change the fact that not everyone using a video codec is using it for some video sharing site , and a in lot of actual real world situations , encoding speed is a fairly distant second to quality .
And on that front , Theora is always going to lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you mean "it's simply an incorrect and biased way to look at the difference".
You can scream that no true Real World situation [wikipedia.org] would care about anything but speed until your throat hurts, but it doesn't change the fact that not everyone using a video codec is using it for some video sharing site, and a in lot of actual real world situations, encoding speed is a fairly distant second to quality.
And on that front, Theora is always going to lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28433873</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245686520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Never underestimate the power of a really terrible name to kill a product.</p></div><p>Hmmm. I think we heard that claim made quite forcefully when the Wii was announced. How did that <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/06/04/27/1625208/Nintendo-Revolution-Renamed-Wii?art\_pos=50" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">work out</a> [slashdot.org]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never underestimate the power of a really terrible name to kill a product.Hmmm .
I think we heard that claim made quite forcefully when the Wii was announced .
How did that work out [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never underestimate the power of a really terrible name to kill a product.Hmmm.
I think we heard that claim made quite forcefully when the Wii was announced.
How did that work out [slashdot.org]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426345</id>
	<title>Porn Industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let the porn industry sort it out.</p><p>Seeing as they are the only people that actually make real money on the web, we can count on them to pick the most cost effective and highest quality video technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the porn industry sort it out.Seeing as they are the only people that actually make real money on the web , we can count on them to pick the most cost effective and highest quality video technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the porn industry sort it out.Seeing as they are the only people that actually make real money on the web, we can count on them to pick the most cost effective and highest quality video technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426243</id>
	<title>Not comparing like with like</title>
	<author>Chris\_Jefferson</author>
	<datestamp>1245699660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>..although this is an 1.1alpha release of Theora..</i> </p><p>You say that as if it's against Theora. It's not -- otherwise they would have tested against a released version. There could well improvements in the various mpeg-4 codes if you dig around in developer repositories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..although this is an 1.1alpha release of Theora.. You say that as if it 's against Theora .
It 's not -- otherwise they would have tested against a released version .
There could well improvements in the various mpeg-4 codes if you dig around in developer repositories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..although this is an 1.1alpha release of Theora.. You say that as if it's against Theora.
It's not -- otherwise they would have tested against a released version.
There could well improvements in the various mpeg-4 codes if you dig around in developer repositories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426501</id>
	<title>Re:Porn Industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You pay for porn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You pay for porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pay for porn?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428973</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>fenring</author>
	<datestamp>1245665340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ogg Ponies!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ogg Ponies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ogg Ponies!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426411</id>
	<title>Re:My results</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should next compare black cocks to white cocks, and see which one most women prefer. Personally, I'd prefer a nice hard, throbbing black dick ramming me up my ass and then taking it out and shoving in deep down my throat, slobbering all over that meaty treat. God, my tiny pencil dick is hard, a full 2.5 inches!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should next compare black cocks to white cocks , and see which one most women prefer .
Personally , I 'd prefer a nice hard , throbbing black dick ramming me up my ass and then taking it out and shoving in deep down my throat , slobbering all over that meaty treat .
God , my tiny pencil dick is hard , a full 2.5 inches !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should next compare black cocks to white cocks, and see which one most women prefer.
Personally, I'd prefer a nice hard, throbbing black dick ramming me up my ass and then taking it out and shoving in deep down my throat, slobbering all over that meaty treat.
God, my tiny pencil dick is hard, a full 2.5 inches!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427877</id>
	<title>Re:Surprisingly different</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1245661680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still, the developers of Theora found several glaring mistakes in the reference implementation of VP3 which brought it immediately to the same quality and bit rate level as MPEG-2.  Everything since then has been vast improvements on both the encoder and the decoder.</p><p>It's like the LAME MP3 encoder.  The vast improvements made in the encoder reaped huge benefits without even changing the decoder.  With Theora, Ogg (and by extension, we) control both the encoder AND the decoder.</p><p>It's really not as bad as you think; it is actually quite better than you'd expect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still , the developers of Theora found several glaring mistakes in the reference implementation of VP3 which brought it immediately to the same quality and bit rate level as MPEG-2 .
Everything since then has been vast improvements on both the encoder and the decoder.It 's like the LAME MP3 encoder .
The vast improvements made in the encoder reaped huge benefits without even changing the decoder .
With Theora , Ogg ( and by extension , we ) control both the encoder AND the decoder.It 's really not as bad as you think ; it is actually quite better than you 'd expect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still, the developers of Theora found several glaring mistakes in the reference implementation of VP3 which brought it immediately to the same quality and bit rate level as MPEG-2.
Everything since then has been vast improvements on both the encoder and the decoder.It's like the LAME MP3 encoder.
The vast improvements made in the encoder reaped huge benefits without even changing the decoder.
With Theora, Ogg (and by extension, we) control both the encoder AND the decoder.It's really not as bad as you think; it is actually quite better than you'd expect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426265</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28436061</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245748560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean like the Wii? Or Bing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like the Wii ?
Or Bing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like the Wii?
Or Bing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28437153</id>
	<title>Re:Pears and apples</title>
	<author>Ginger Unicorn</author>
	<datestamp>1245762060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm genuinely curious - what on earth makes you use that font for your posts? It's horrifically painful to even look at, let alone try and read. What's wrong with the default font? Or, why not use a non-monospace alternative?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm genuinely curious - what on earth makes you use that font for your posts ?
It 's horrifically painful to even look at , let alone try and read .
What 's wrong with the default font ?
Or , why not use a non-monospace alternative ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm genuinely curious - what on earth makes you use that font for your posts?
It's horrifically painful to even look at, let alone try and read.
What's wrong with the default font?
Or, why not use a non-monospace alternative?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28430035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28443515</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1245788700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite my moniker I don't totally agree with you. Clearly there are probably specific features in F/OSS applications that are better than their closed source "equivalents".</p><p>What I find unfortunate about F/OSS is that despite the fact that the developers don't have legacy issues and don't have to worry about Wall Street's short-time thinking, most of their applications are still "me too" types. Why not create new OS's that don't bow down to UNIX or Windows or anything else? Why not create new standards that really support web apps and aren't afraid of ditching HTML and HTTP?</p><p>What good is "freedom" if you just do the same old same old?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite my moniker I do n't totally agree with you .
Clearly there are probably specific features in F/OSS applications that are better than their closed source " equivalents " .What I find unfortunate about F/OSS is that despite the fact that the developers do n't have legacy issues and do n't have to worry about Wall Street 's short-time thinking , most of their applications are still " me too " types .
Why not create new OS 's that do n't bow down to UNIX or Windows or anything else ?
Why not create new standards that really support web apps and are n't afraid of ditching HTML and HTTP ? What good is " freedom " if you just do the same old same old ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite my moniker I don't totally agree with you.
Clearly there are probably specific features in F/OSS applications that are better than their closed source "equivalents".What I find unfortunate about F/OSS is that despite the fact that the developers don't have legacy issues and don't have to worry about Wall Street's short-time thinking, most of their applications are still "me too" types.
Why not create new OS's that don't bow down to UNIX or Windows or anything else?
Why not create new standards that really support web apps and aren't afraid of ditching HTML and HTTP?What good is "freedom" if you just do the same old same old?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429143</id>
	<title>Re:License</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1245666000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm serious. Can someone explain why this matters?</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm amazed someone wouldn't understand that right off, but ok, let's assume you're serious.
</p><p>
Let's say you want to write an encoder or player.  Maybe you're selling PVRs.  Maybe you're creating the next youtube.  Whatever.
</p><p>
With Theora, you can Just Do It.  That's it.
</p><p>
With MPEG's stuff, you seek permission, make a deal, and then somehow pay the patent holders, along with paying for the accounting overhead of keeping track of those payments.  If you're distributing your product or content for free, then you are losing money on every copy.
</p><p>
<em>Or</em>, with MPEG's stuff, you don't do those things, but you open yourself to liabilities.  Hope that you are never too successful that you get noticed by the patent holders.  Live in fear.  On top of that, if you get caught, then you need to either do your very best to look like an idiot (unwittingly infringed) or pay treble damages (willfully infringed), and hope you don't come out looking like a fool <em>and</em> a crook.
</p><p>
Using open standards is the easiest and most profitable thing to do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm serious .
Can someone explain why this matters ?
I 'm amazed someone would n't understand that right off , but ok , let 's assume you 're serious .
Let 's say you want to write an encoder or player .
Maybe you 're selling PVRs .
Maybe you 're creating the next youtube .
Whatever . With Theora , you can Just Do It .
That 's it .
With MPEG 's stuff , you seek permission , make a deal , and then somehow pay the patent holders , along with paying for the accounting overhead of keeping track of those payments .
If you 're distributing your product or content for free , then you are losing money on every copy .
Or , with MPEG 's stuff , you do n't do those things , but you open yourself to liabilities .
Hope that you are never too successful that you get noticed by the patent holders .
Live in fear .
On top of that , if you get caught , then you need to either do your very best to look like an idiot ( unwittingly infringed ) or pay treble damages ( willfully infringed ) , and hope you do n't come out looking like a fool and a crook .
Using open standards is the easiest and most profitable thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm serious.
Can someone explain why this matters?
I'm amazed someone wouldn't understand that right off, but ok, let's assume you're serious.
Let's say you want to write an encoder or player.
Maybe you're selling PVRs.
Maybe you're creating the next youtube.
Whatever.

With Theora, you can Just Do It.
That's it.
With MPEG's stuff, you seek permission, make a deal, and then somehow pay the patent holders, along with paying for the accounting overhead of keeping track of those payments.
If you're distributing your product or content for free, then you are losing money on every copy.
Or, with MPEG's stuff, you don't do those things, but you open yourself to liabilities.
Hope that you are never too successful that you get noticed by the patent holders.
Live in fear.
On top of that, if you get caught, then you need to either do your very best to look like an idiot (unwittingly infringed) or pay treble damages (willfully infringed), and hope you don't come out looking like a fool and a crook.
Using open standards is the easiest and most profitable thing to do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427115</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like living in a place where software patents are not valid, personally. They can claim however many royalties they want (ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!!), and I'll not have to pay a cent, as long as I'm not using a copyrighted, pirated encoder or decoder - which, thanks to x264, I won't have to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like living in a place where software patents are not valid , personally .
They can claim however many royalties they want ( ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS ! !
) , and I 'll not have to pay a cent , as long as I 'm not using a copyrighted , pirated encoder or decoder - which , thanks to x264 , I wo n't have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like living in a place where software patents are not valid, personally.
They can claim however many royalties they want (ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!!
), and I'll not have to pay a cent, as long as I'm not using a copyrighted, pirated encoder or decoder - which, thanks to x264, I won't have to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047</id>
	<title>I thought Theora was GPL-ed?</title>
	<author>Klistvud</author>
	<datestamp>1245698940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were to choose between a proprietary, obfuscated, possibly patent-encumbered format and an open, free, community-geared format, I'd always choose the latter, without all that nitpicking about performance and technicalities. In the end, it all boils down to whose interests you want to support -- those of a patent holder who's gonna charge you every single time you watch a video, or your own.</p><p>On the other hand, consumers are strange and bewilderingly uninformed creatures. They rarely choose what's in their best interest (as shown by the mp3/ogg controversy, by the wide acceptance of DRM-ed content, and so on).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were to choose between a proprietary , obfuscated , possibly patent-encumbered format and an open , free , community-geared format , I 'd always choose the latter , without all that nitpicking about performance and technicalities .
In the end , it all boils down to whose interests you want to support -- those of a patent holder who 's gon na charge you every single time you watch a video , or your own.On the other hand , consumers are strange and bewilderingly uninformed creatures .
They rarely choose what 's in their best interest ( as shown by the mp3/ogg controversy , by the wide acceptance of DRM-ed content , and so on ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were to choose between a proprietary, obfuscated, possibly patent-encumbered format and an open, free, community-geared format, I'd always choose the latter, without all that nitpicking about performance and technicalities.
In the end, it all boils down to whose interests you want to support -- those of a patent holder who's gonna charge you every single time you watch a video, or your own.On the other hand, consumers are strange and bewilderingly uninformed creatures.
They rarely choose what's in their best interest (as shown by the mp3/ogg controversy, by the wide acceptance of DRM-ed content, and so on).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425913</id>
	<title>Theora sucks a nut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245698400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theora just isn't ready for web video yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your on your web-sights TRON and Dungeons and Dragons fan films across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can encode videos with Theora, especially not when they already have a encoder frontend like MeGUI that does its job perfectly well and uses a codec that is backed by major corporations and has hardware support in their stsandalone Blu-Ray players, their PS3, and XBox 360s, as opposed to Theora which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere and has to be run with some arcane CLI media player. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my codecs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theora just is n't ready for web video yet .
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your on your web-sights TRON and Dungeons and Dragons fan films across the world wide web , but the average computer user is n't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can encode videos with Theora , especially not when they already have a encoder frontend like MeGUI that does its job perfectly well and uses a codec that is backed by major corporations and has hardware support in their stsandalone Blu-Ray players , their PS3 , and XBox 360s , as opposed to Theora which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother 's basement somewhere and has to be run with some arcane CLI media player .
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf ( haha ) providing me my codecs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theora just isn't ready for web video yet.
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your on your web-sights TRON and Dungeons and Dragons fan films across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can encode videos with Theora, especially not when they already have a encoder frontend like MeGUI that does its job perfectly well and uses a codec that is backed by major corporations and has hardware support in their stsandalone Blu-Ray players, their PS3, and XBox 360s, as opposed to Theora which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere and has to be run with some arcane CLI media player.
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my codecs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426461</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The license means that every product that includes an encoder or decoder for MPEG-4 (including AVC / H.264) needs to pay the MPEG-LA a small free for every version they sell (or give away).  This is incompatible with Free Software.  Imagine that FireFox included an MPEG-4 implementation.  The Mozilla Corporation makes enough money that they could afford to pay the maximum annual fee for this license, but what happens after you download it?  If you give a copy of FireFox to someone else, then you need to pay the license fee (except you can't, because the MPEG-LA doesn't offer licenses except in large quantities).  Maybe Moz. Corp. could pay that license too, but what happens in a few years time when they decide to stop?  Suddenly, no one can redistribute any copies or derived works of FireFox.  The root problem is that it is not possible to get a license for MPEG-4 that permits the kind of arbitrary redistribution that Free Software entails.  Although the license fees are capped, they are capped annually, so each year you need to pay again or you no longer have a license to distribute code implementing the patents.</p><p>
This is why Theora is better as a standard format.  Anyone can implement it, at no cost and with no restrictions.  H.264 is better quality, and so makes sense as an optional format for HTML 5 to support, but requiring it would mean that it would be impossible for the second-most-popular web browser to be HTML compliant.  Of course, in an ideal world, the W3C, Mozilla Corporation, Google, or some other interested party would just buy the H.264 patents outright and let them lapse, but somehow I don't think that's very likely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The license means that every product that includes an encoder or decoder for MPEG-4 ( including AVC / H.264 ) needs to pay the MPEG-LA a small free for every version they sell ( or give away ) .
This is incompatible with Free Software .
Imagine that FireFox included an MPEG-4 implementation .
The Mozilla Corporation makes enough money that they could afford to pay the maximum annual fee for this license , but what happens after you download it ?
If you give a copy of FireFox to someone else , then you need to pay the license fee ( except you ca n't , because the MPEG-LA does n't offer licenses except in large quantities ) .
Maybe Moz .
Corp. could pay that license too , but what happens in a few years time when they decide to stop ?
Suddenly , no one can redistribute any copies or derived works of FireFox .
The root problem is that it is not possible to get a license for MPEG-4 that permits the kind of arbitrary redistribution that Free Software entails .
Although the license fees are capped , they are capped annually , so each year you need to pay again or you no longer have a license to distribute code implementing the patents .
This is why Theora is better as a standard format .
Anyone can implement it , at no cost and with no restrictions .
H.264 is better quality , and so makes sense as an optional format for HTML 5 to support , but requiring it would mean that it would be impossible for the second-most-popular web browser to be HTML compliant .
Of course , in an ideal world , the W3C , Mozilla Corporation , Google , or some other interested party would just buy the H.264 patents outright and let them lapse , but somehow I do n't think that 's very likely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The license means that every product that includes an encoder or decoder for MPEG-4 (including AVC / H.264) needs to pay the MPEG-LA a small free for every version they sell (or give away).
This is incompatible with Free Software.
Imagine that FireFox included an MPEG-4 implementation.
The Mozilla Corporation makes enough money that they could afford to pay the maximum annual fee for this license, but what happens after you download it?
If you give a copy of FireFox to someone else, then you need to pay the license fee (except you can't, because the MPEG-LA doesn't offer licenses except in large quantities).
Maybe Moz.
Corp. could pay that license too, but what happens in a few years time when they decide to stop?
Suddenly, no one can redistribute any copies or derived works of FireFox.
The root problem is that it is not possible to get a license for MPEG-4 that permits the kind of arbitrary redistribution that Free Software entails.
Although the license fees are capped, they are capped annually, so each year you need to pay again or you no longer have a license to distribute code implementing the patents.
This is why Theora is better as a standard format.
Anyone can implement it, at no cost and with no restrictions.
H.264 is better quality, and so makes sense as an optional format for HTML 5 to support, but requiring it would mean that it would be impossible for the second-most-popular web browser to be HTML compliant.
Of course, in an ideal world, the W3C, Mozilla Corporation, Google, or some other interested party would just buy the H.264 patents outright and let them lapse, but somehow I don't think that's very likely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28436985</id>
	<title>Re:License</title>
	<author>CowboyBob500</author>
	<datestamp>1245760140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Because it will cost firefox 5 million + to have h.264 included per year....</i>
<br> <br>
Only because their corporate headquarters happen to be in a country that recognises software patents. Move the company elsewhere, no license fee. I've said this before and I'll say it again, the problem here is not the codec, it's the American patent system (and that of a couple of other places) that is the problem. Not only do the vast majority of users not care about whether they have the correct license, the vast majority of users don't need to care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it will cost firefox 5 million + to have h.264 included per year... . Only because their corporate headquarters happen to be in a country that recognises software patents .
Move the company elsewhere , no license fee .
I 've said this before and I 'll say it again , the problem here is not the codec , it 's the American patent system ( and that of a couple of other places ) that is the problem .
Not only do the vast majority of users not care about whether they have the correct license , the vast majority of users do n't need to care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it will cost firefox 5 million + to have h.264 included per year....
 
Only because their corporate headquarters happen to be in a country that recognises software patents.
Move the company elsewhere, no license fee.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, the problem here is not the codec, it's the American patent system (and that of a couple of other places) that is the problem.
Not only do the vast majority of users not care about whether they have the correct license, the vast majority of users don't need to care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427163</id>
	<title>Not a very good test case</title>
	<author>dascritch</author>
	<datestamp>1245702840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ffmpeg is known to  have several encodng problems both and with theora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ffmpeg is known to have several encodng problems both and with theora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ffmpeg is known to  have several encodng problems both and with theora.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426265</id>
	<title>Re:Surprisingly different</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1245699720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theora is based on VP3, which is a generation older than MPEG-4.  It's been improved a lot, but it's still old technology.  Tarkin had a lot more potential, but a few years ago Theora was doing something and Tarkin was still mostly theoretical so the developers focussed on Theora.  In hindsight, this may have been a mistake.  Theora competes well with MPEG-2, but no one is using MPEG-2 for web distribution.  </p><p>
Longer term, Dirac looks more promising.  It's comparable quality to H.264, is royalty-free, and has two open source implementations.  Schroedinger, the newer one, is MIT licensed, and so can be use anywhere.  Currently, the CPU load is too high for everyday use, however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theora is based on VP3 , which is a generation older than MPEG-4 .
It 's been improved a lot , but it 's still old technology .
Tarkin had a lot more potential , but a few years ago Theora was doing something and Tarkin was still mostly theoretical so the developers focussed on Theora .
In hindsight , this may have been a mistake .
Theora competes well with MPEG-2 , but no one is using MPEG-2 for web distribution .
Longer term , Dirac looks more promising .
It 's comparable quality to H.264 , is royalty-free , and has two open source implementations .
Schroedinger , the newer one , is MIT licensed , and so can be use anywhere .
Currently , the CPU load is too high for everyday use , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theora is based on VP3, which is a generation older than MPEG-4.
It's been improved a lot, but it's still old technology.
Tarkin had a lot more potential, but a few years ago Theora was doing something and Tarkin was still mostly theoretical so the developers focussed on Theora.
In hindsight, this may have been a mistake.
Theora competes well with MPEG-2, but no one is using MPEG-2 for web distribution.
Longer term, Dirac looks more promising.
It's comparable quality to H.264, is royalty-free, and has two open source implementations.
Schroedinger, the newer one, is MIT licensed, and so can be use anywhere.
Currently, the CPU load is too high for everyday use, however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426891</id>
	<title>Re:I thought Theora was GPL-ed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, in the end it comes down to whether you want to act like a religious open sores zealot or not. Clearly you chose the former.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , in the end it comes down to whether you want to act like a religious open sores zealot or not .
Clearly you chose the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, in the end it comes down to whether you want to act like a religious open sores zealot or not.
Clearly you chose the former.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429661</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1245667740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>P.S. Ogg Vorbis never toppled MP3 from the throne. However, the existence of Vorbis may have exerted some downward pressure on the licensing fees for the paid codecs. In a similar way, the existence of Theora may cause the patent holders for the other video formats to not try to charge quite as much.</p></div><p>QTF<br> <br>
If there wasn't theora we would not be having this discussion. But rather wondering what happened to solid free browsers....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>P.S .
Ogg Vorbis never toppled MP3 from the throne .
However , the existence of Vorbis may have exerted some downward pressure on the licensing fees for the paid codecs .
In a similar way , the existence of Theora may cause the patent holders for the other video formats to not try to charge quite as much.QTF If there was n't theora we would not be having this discussion .
But rather wondering what happened to solid free browsers... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P.S.
Ogg Vorbis never toppled MP3 from the throne.
However, the existence of Vorbis may have exerted some downward pressure on the licensing fees for the paid codecs.
In a similar way, the existence of Theora may cause the patent holders for the other video formats to not try to charge quite as much.QTF 
If there wasn't theora we would not be having this discussion.
But rather wondering what happened to solid free browsers....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431181</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245673380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could somebody please explain to me why the license matters? I mean, I understand that if a license limits mpeg-4 encoding to a single government computer running Windows ME that was lost 5 years ago, that the license is a HUGE barrier to entry to use the codec. However, in this case the license seems to be the only single category in which Theora wins. The compression is worse than mpeg-4. The compression takes more space. But look! The license is a little better! WINNER!</p></div><p>Theora is better than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.h263 or vp6<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and most of the current video on the net uses one or the other of those.</p><p>Theora is licensed in such a way that anyone may implement a codec. This prevents one caompany being in control of what platforms do, and do not, get video codecs for web content.</p><p>Open web standards<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... HTML5 plus Theora/Vorbis plus ECMAScript plus CSS3 plus SVG plus animated PNG<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... can deliver everything in terms of rich content that Silverlight or Flash can, and it can do it far better than current rich content on the net. The latter two are controlled by companies, which would then mean that those companies could decide which devices could and which could not render rich content. The open standards allow any device manufacturer to make an internet device that can render rich content without being beholden to another company.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could somebody please explain to me why the license matters ?
I mean , I understand that if a license limits mpeg-4 encoding to a single government computer running Windows ME that was lost 5 years ago , that the license is a HUGE barrier to entry to use the codec .
However , in this case the license seems to be the only single category in which Theora wins .
The compression is worse than mpeg-4 .
The compression takes more space .
But look !
The license is a little better !
WINNER ! Theora is better than .h263 or vp6 ... and most of the current video on the net uses one or the other of those.Theora is licensed in such a way that anyone may implement a codec .
This prevents one caompany being in control of what platforms do , and do not , get video codecs for web content.Open web standards .... HTML5 plus Theora/Vorbis plus ECMAScript plus CSS3 plus SVG plus animated PNG ... can deliver everything in terms of rich content that Silverlight or Flash can , and it can do it far better than current rich content on the net .
The latter two are controlled by companies , which would then mean that those companies could decide which devices could and which could not render rich content .
The open standards allow any device manufacturer to make an internet device that can render rich content without being beholden to another company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could somebody please explain to me why the license matters?
I mean, I understand that if a license limits mpeg-4 encoding to a single government computer running Windows ME that was lost 5 years ago, that the license is a HUGE barrier to entry to use the codec.
However, in this case the license seems to be the only single category in which Theora wins.
The compression is worse than mpeg-4.
The compression takes more space.
But look!
The license is a little better!
WINNER!Theora is better than .h263 or vp6 ... and most of the current video on the net uses one or the other of those.Theora is licensed in such a way that anyone may implement a codec.
This prevents one caompany being in control of what platforms do, and do not, get video codecs for web content.Open web standards .... HTML5 plus Theora/Vorbis plus ECMAScript plus CSS3 plus SVG plus animated PNG ... can deliver everything in terms of rich content that Silverlight or Flash can, and it can do it far better than current rich content on the net.
The latter two are controlled by companies, which would then mean that those companies could decide which devices could and which could not render rich content.
The open standards allow any device manufacturer to make an internet device that can render rich content without being beholden to another company.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426255</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245699660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox? Chrome? Blender?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox ?
Chrome ? Blender ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox?
Chrome? Blender?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428551</id>
	<title>Re:License</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1245664020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to feed the troll above you...but I'm bored. Licensing don't mean squat to home users because they just ignore them. If you went by licensing then MP3 wouldn't be popular, and folks wouldn't be able to rip their DVDs to their portables. But you see we have this little thing now called "Google" which can spit out software to do whatever job you need really really quickly!</p><p>

Do you <i>honestly</i> think average folks care about license? Really? Because working in PC sales and repair since the days of Win3.x I've found folks just ignore the hell out of licenses if they don't pretty much say "do what you want and have fun!". Is it legal? Nope. Do folks give a crap that it isn't legal? Not so much. Hell I've had cops in the past ask me if I couldn't just "find" them one of those XP copies that don't need activation. So I really don't think the average Joe gives a flying fart about license as long as he can find a GUI based tool to convert to whatever he wants, legal or not. Or do you honestly think all those copies of Photoshop and XP floating out there are actually legal copies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to feed the troll above you...but I 'm bored .
Licensing do n't mean squat to home users because they just ignore them .
If you went by licensing then MP3 would n't be popular , and folks would n't be able to rip their DVDs to their portables .
But you see we have this little thing now called " Google " which can spit out software to do whatever job you need really really quickly !
Do you honestly think average folks care about license ?
Really ? Because working in PC sales and repair since the days of Win3.x I 've found folks just ignore the hell out of licenses if they do n't pretty much say " do what you want and have fun ! " .
Is it legal ?
Nope. Do folks give a crap that it is n't legal ?
Not so much .
Hell I 've had cops in the past ask me if I could n't just " find " them one of those XP copies that do n't need activation .
So I really do n't think the average Joe gives a flying fart about license as long as he can find a GUI based tool to convert to whatever he wants , legal or not .
Or do you honestly think all those copies of Photoshop and XP floating out there are actually legal copies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to feed the troll above you...but I'm bored.
Licensing don't mean squat to home users because they just ignore them.
If you went by licensing then MP3 wouldn't be popular, and folks wouldn't be able to rip their DVDs to their portables.
But you see we have this little thing now called "Google" which can spit out software to do whatever job you need really really quickly!
Do you honestly think average folks care about license?
Really? Because working in PC sales and repair since the days of Win3.x I've found folks just ignore the hell out of licenses if they don't pretty much say "do what you want and have fun!".
Is it legal?
Nope. Do folks give a crap that it isn't legal?
Not so much.
Hell I've had cops in the past ask me if I couldn't just "find" them one of those XP copies that don't need activation.
So I really don't think the average Joe gives a flying fart about license as long as he can find a GUI based tool to convert to whatever he wants, legal or not.
Or do you honestly think all those copies of Photoshop and XP floating out there are actually legal copies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426395</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Believe me, license matters. I had to figure out the GIF mess for a small company years back... It took a lot of effort, we never knew if we were really clear legally (Unisys was inconsistent, unresponsive and just plain difficult), and to us the money did matter (small streams yada yada). I imagine there were thousands of companies like us. Those thousands of companies had millions of customers who got a more expensive product because of that crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe me , license matters .
I had to figure out the GIF mess for a small company years back... It took a lot of effort , we never knew if we were really clear legally ( Unisys was inconsistent , unresponsive and just plain difficult ) , and to us the money did matter ( small streams yada yada ) .
I imagine there were thousands of companies like us .
Those thousands of companies had millions of customers who got a more expensive product because of that crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe me, license matters.
I had to figure out the GIF mess for a small company years back... It took a lot of effort, we never knew if we were really clear legally (Unisys was inconsistent, unresponsive and just plain difficult), and to us the money did matter (small streams yada yada).
I imagine there were thousands of companies like us.
Those thousands of companies had millions of customers who got a more expensive product because of that crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428901</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245665040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to mention the various stuff you could argue about, I just name two that don't even have real competition: Boost and OpenSSH.</p><p>Additionally open source software often is more available then the proprietary counterparts. There are lots of instances where proprietary software is only better, because you count features that lots of people barely use. Is Photoshop better than GIMP? I don't know. GIMP satisfies my primitive needs, so why should I pay for Photoshop?</p><p>And the existence of open source has even made proprietary software more available. You can think what you want of gcc, but at least now everyone can get a C/C++ compiler for free. The same is very true for databases. The free versions of Oracle and MSSQL only exist because of MySQL and Postgres.</p><p>Open source software also lead to higher quality in proprietary software. Just take a look at the piece of shit IE was before Firefox. The internet got far more enjoyable because of Firefox.</p><p>And sometimes open source software enables the proprietary software to exist. Just take a look at Mac OSX. Without open source the Mac you adore wouldn't exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to mention the various stuff you could argue about , I just name two that do n't even have real competition : Boost and OpenSSH.Additionally open source software often is more available then the proprietary counterparts .
There are lots of instances where proprietary software is only better , because you count features that lots of people barely use .
Is Photoshop better than GIMP ?
I do n't know .
GIMP satisfies my primitive needs , so why should I pay for Photoshop ? And the existence of open source has even made proprietary software more available .
You can think what you want of gcc , but at least now everyone can get a C/C + + compiler for free .
The same is very true for databases .
The free versions of Oracle and MSSQL only exist because of MySQL and Postgres.Open source software also lead to higher quality in proprietary software .
Just take a look at the piece of shit IE was before Firefox .
The internet got far more enjoyable because of Firefox.And sometimes open source software enables the proprietary software to exist .
Just take a look at Mac OSX .
Without open source the Mac you adore would n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to mention the various stuff you could argue about, I just name two that don't even have real competition: Boost and OpenSSH.Additionally open source software often is more available then the proprietary counterparts.
There are lots of instances where proprietary software is only better, because you count features that lots of people barely use.
Is Photoshop better than GIMP?
I don't know.
GIMP satisfies my primitive needs, so why should I pay for Photoshop?And the existence of open source has even made proprietary software more available.
You can think what you want of gcc, but at least now everyone can get a C/C++ compiler for free.
The same is very true for databases.
The free versions of Oracle and MSSQL only exist because of MySQL and Postgres.Open source software also lead to higher quality in proprietary software.
Just take a look at the piece of shit IE was before Firefox.
The internet got far more enjoyable because of Firefox.And sometimes open source software enables the proprietary software to exist.
Just take a look at Mac OSX.
Without open source the Mac you adore wouldn't exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426289</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245699780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for the Apache webserver, I'm stumped.</p><p>Not coincidentally, most IT shops never consider Linux for anything outside of webserving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the Apache webserver , I 'm stumped.Not coincidentally , most IT shops never consider Linux for anything outside of webserving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the Apache webserver, I'm stumped.Not coincidentally, most IT shops never consider Linux for anything outside of webserving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428569</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>acheron12</author>
	<datestamp>1245664020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox (one word: addons).<br>
LaTeX<br>
R<br>
Python<br>
Ogg-Vorbis</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox ( one word : addons ) .
LaTeX R Python Ogg-Vorbis</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox (one word: addons).
LaTeX
R
Python
Ogg-Vorbis</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427551</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out, please</title>
	<author>legirons</author>
	<datestamp>1245703800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could somebody please explain to me why the license matters?</p></div><p>Because $x per copy costs a lot when you're distributing an infinite number of copies, as most Free Software programs are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could somebody please explain to me why the license matters ? Because $ x per copy costs a lot when you 're distributing an infinite number of copies , as most Free Software programs are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could somebody please explain to me why the license matters?Because $x per copy costs a lot when you're distributing an infinite number of copies, as most Free Software programs are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ogg Vorbis died because it had a stupid name.  Really, Ogg Vorbis?  Or just "ogg" for short.  You might as well have named it "Ugg".  Or "blech".</p><p>Next time try something that doesn't sound like retching.  Never underestimate the power of a really terrible name to kill a product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ogg Vorbis died because it had a stupid name .
Really , Ogg Vorbis ?
Or just " ogg " for short .
You might as well have named it " Ugg " .
Or " blech " .Next time try something that does n't sound like retching .
Never underestimate the power of a really terrible name to kill a product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ogg Vorbis died because it had a stupid name.
Really, Ogg Vorbis?
Or just "ogg" for short.
You might as well have named it "Ugg".
Or "blech".Next time try something that doesn't sound like retching.
Never underestimate the power of a really terrible name to kill a product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28443611</id>
	<title>Just Stop Changing It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245789060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm getting sick of having to update a fsckin video decompressor every time I click on a new URL.  We don't constantly hunt for ways to hose delivery of static images by reinventing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.jpg over and over, so let's stop doing it with video.  If I want faster video I'll get faster internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm getting sick of having to update a fsckin video decompressor every time I click on a new URL .
We do n't constantly hunt for ways to hose delivery of static images by reinventing .jpg over and over , so let 's stop doing it with video .
If I want faster video I 'll get faster internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm getting sick of having to update a fsckin video decompressor every time I click on a new URL.
We don't constantly hunt for ways to hose delivery of static images by reinventing .jpg over and over, so let's stop doing it with video.
If I want faster video I'll get faster internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429141</id>
	<title>Theora sucks?</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1245666000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have looked at <a href="http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html" title="xiph.org">some clips posted</a> [xiph.org] with both VLC and Media Player Classic using CCCP. Theora sucks versus H.264. The amount of noise in the captions and images, it is like the difference between looking at an extremely compressed and noisy JPEG, and a slightly blurred PNG. So what gives? Does my player suck, or is this really the best its supposed to do? Sure it looks better than the blocky H.263, but that isn't saying much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have looked at some clips posted [ xiph.org ] with both VLC and Media Player Classic using CCCP .
Theora sucks versus H.264 .
The amount of noise in the captions and images , it is like the difference between looking at an extremely compressed and noisy JPEG , and a slightly blurred PNG .
So what gives ?
Does my player suck , or is this really the best its supposed to do ?
Sure it looks better than the blocky H.263 , but that is n't saying much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have looked at some clips posted [xiph.org] with both VLC and Media Player Classic using CCCP.
Theora sucks versus H.264.
The amount of noise in the captions and images, it is like the difference between looking at an extremely compressed and noisy JPEG, and a slightly blurred PNG.
So what gives?
Does my player suck, or is this really the best its supposed to do?
Sure it looks better than the blocky H.263, but that isn't saying much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426307</id>
	<title>More to  than bandwidth</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1245699840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>60\% is bit of a price to pay, however IMHO the point of the video tag is tighter integration with your website than is easily achievable with flash. Hopefully theora will improve and compete with mpeg-4, but there are still many advantages to using it over flash for embedded video (for stand alone pages, it doesn't matter so much as most users have a plugin to handle mpeg-4)<br>*Interacts with the rest of the page easily (TBF actionscript, et al can achieve this)<br>*Much lower cpu usage. While flash is particularly bad, theora is particularly good<br>*Cross architecture. As people browse the web on phones, pdas, etc, this does actually matter<br>*Much less likely to be exploitable (TBF webhosts don't care, but users should)<br>*Open standards.</p><p>I don't think theora should be seen as simply a tool to replace flash videos but it should be seen as an opportunity to better integrate video into sites and/or make video content available to more people annoy people with video backgrounds</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>60 \ % is bit of a price to pay , however IMHO the point of the video tag is tighter integration with your website than is easily achievable with flash .
Hopefully theora will improve and compete with mpeg-4 , but there are still many advantages to using it over flash for embedded video ( for stand alone pages , it does n't matter so much as most users have a plugin to handle mpeg-4 ) * Interacts with the rest of the page easily ( TBF actionscript , et al can achieve this ) * Much lower cpu usage .
While flash is particularly bad , theora is particularly good * Cross architecture .
As people browse the web on phones , pdas , etc , this does actually matter * Much less likely to be exploitable ( TBF webhosts do n't care , but users should ) * Open standards.I do n't think theora should be seen as simply a tool to replace flash videos but it should be seen as an opportunity to better integrate video into sites and/or make video content available to more people annoy people with video backgrounds</tokentext>
<sentencetext>60\% is bit of a price to pay, however IMHO the point of the video tag is tighter integration with your website than is easily achievable with flash.
Hopefully theora will improve and compete with mpeg-4, but there are still many advantages to using it over flash for embedded video (for stand alone pages, it doesn't matter so much as most users have a plugin to handle mpeg-4)*Interacts with the rest of the page easily (TBF actionscript, et al can achieve this)*Much lower cpu usage.
While flash is particularly bad, theora is particularly good*Cross architecture.
As people browse the web on phones, pdas, etc, this does actually matter*Much less likely to be exploitable (TBF webhosts don't care, but users should)*Open standards.I don't think theora should be seen as simply a tool to replace flash videos but it should be seen as an opportunity to better integrate video into sites and/or make video content available to more people annoy people with video backgrounds</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426251</id>
	<title>Re:License</title>
	<author>XanC</author>
	<datestamp>1245699660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The license is the single most important thing. It determines whether or not you can use the software at all, or for your specific purpose, whatever that is.</p><p>When we're talking about establishing a standard for the Web, which everybody is expected to be a) able and b) allowed to use, there is <i>nothing</i> more important than the license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The license is the single most important thing .
It determines whether or not you can use the software at all , or for your specific purpose , whatever that is.When we 're talking about establishing a standard for the Web , which everybody is expected to be a ) able and b ) allowed to use , there is nothing more important than the license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The license is the single most important thing.
It determines whether or not you can use the software at all, or for your specific purpose, whatever that is.When we're talking about establishing a standard for the Web, which everybody is expected to be a) able and b) allowed to use, there is nothing more important than the license.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426545</id>
	<title>Re:More to than bandwidth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245700800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>*...
*Open standards.</p></div><p>Note how in your own list, "open standards" is last, reflecting public's perceived priority of this issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* .. . * Open standards.Note how in your own list , " open standards " is last , reflecting public 's perceived priority of this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*...
*Open standards.Note how in your own list, "open standards" is last, reflecting public's perceived priority of this issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429131</id>
	<title>Re:I thought Theora was GPL-ed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245665940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A) you've already paid for the encoder license (maybe it feels cheaper that way?)<br>B) if you want  to put the videos on your website, remember to check the MPEG LA license next year when they next change the fees for distribution (and every few years after that)</p><p>You may not see a problem with that but wouldn't it be better if each and every one us didn't have to worry about these things?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A ) you 've already paid for the encoder license ( maybe it feels cheaper that way ?
) B ) if you want to put the videos on your website , remember to check the MPEG LA license next year when they next change the fees for distribution ( and every few years after that ) You may not see a problem with that but would n't it be better if each and every one us did n't have to worry about these things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A) you've already paid for the encoder license (maybe it feels cheaper that way?
)B) if you want  to put the videos on your website, remember to check the MPEG LA license next year when they next change the fees for distribution (and every few years after that)You may not see a problem with that but wouldn't it be better if each and every one us didn't have to worry about these things?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28433453</id>
	<title>all encoders are not created equal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245684000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This does not take into account that software (and hardware) encoders are all built and behave differently, even for the same formats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does not take into account that software ( and hardware ) encoders are all built and behave differently , even for the same formats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This does not take into account that software (and hardware) encoders are all built and behave differently, even for the same formats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425805</id>
	<title>My results</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245697980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both make terrible concrete.  I recommend you buy some mix at the hardware store instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both make terrible concrete .
I recommend you buy some mix at the hardware store instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both make terrible concrete.
I recommend you buy some mix at the hardware store instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426721</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out, please</title>
	<author>Klistvud</author>
	<datestamp>1245701400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must PAY to use a patented format, such as jpeg or mp3 or mpeg-4. In practice, the maker of your DVD player or your video camera, or the company making the software or ripping CDs, or your content provider, will have paid that "tax" in advance -- from your pocket, of course. That way, everything gets a bit more expensive than it should be. Players, cameras, computers, software, everything is encumbered with this "tax".</p><p>It also means that, if the patent holder decides to prosecute us users tomorrow (just as RIAA is doing today) and they find a jpg, or mp3, or mpeg-4 file on your computer that was obtained without paying for the royalties, using patent-circumventing means -- which roughly comprises ALL free software and many OSS phones/players/PDAs -- they may sue your ass off. That's why license matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must PAY to use a patented format , such as jpeg or mp3 or mpeg-4 .
In practice , the maker of your DVD player or your video camera , or the company making the software or ripping CDs , or your content provider , will have paid that " tax " in advance -- from your pocket , of course .
That way , everything gets a bit more expensive than it should be .
Players , cameras , computers , software , everything is encumbered with this " tax " .It also means that , if the patent holder decides to prosecute us users tomorrow ( just as RIAA is doing today ) and they find a jpg , or mp3 , or mpeg-4 file on your computer that was obtained without paying for the royalties , using patent-circumventing means -- which roughly comprises ALL free software and many OSS phones/players/PDAs -- they may sue your ass off .
That 's why license matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must PAY to use a patented format, such as jpeg or mp3 or mpeg-4.
In practice, the maker of your DVD player or your video camera, or the company making the software or ripping CDs, or your content provider, will have paid that "tax" in advance -- from your pocket, of course.
That way, everything gets a bit more expensive than it should be.
Players, cameras, computers, software, everything is encumbered with this "tax".It also means that, if the patent holder decides to prosecute us users tomorrow (just as RIAA is doing today) and they find a jpg, or mp3, or mpeg-4 file on your computer that was obtained without paying for the royalties, using patent-circumventing means -- which roughly comprises ALL free software and many OSS phones/players/PDAs -- they may sue your ass off.
That's why license matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426463</id>
	<title>Re:License</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1245700440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think the license is the most important thing, your perspective is skewed from too much time spent on Slashdot.  MP3 is as "encumbered" as anything else, yet it's ubiquitous.  The same will be true of H.264.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think the license is the most important thing , your perspective is skewed from too much time spent on Slashdot .
MP3 is as " encumbered " as anything else , yet it 's ubiquitous .
The same will be true of H.264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think the license is the most important thing, your perspective is skewed from too much time spent on Slashdot.
MP3 is as "encumbered" as anything else, yet it's ubiquitous.
The same will be true of H.264.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28430035</id>
	<title>Pears and apples</title>
	<author>rawler</author>
	<datestamp>1245669240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>Wow, I just had to comment on this. The article itself is of course nice and intriguing (and the video-clip chosen is an excellent clip to give the codec a hard-time. The grass, and medium-mask net in the background, wow.)<br><br>The problem with the article is that it really compares pears with apples, and is not too specific about what pears and what apples. The main problem here is that is uses different suites for conversion, in one hand ffmpeg with some probably well-tuned defaults for x264 (-vpre hq), and on the other hand ffmpeg2theora, that may be tuned for different defaults and different coding-settings. Especially, there are two parameters not covered by the article that may have a huge impact. Multipass-encoding, and keyframe-density.<br><br>Multipass-encoding is a technique where you let the encoder skim the content several times, gatherings statistics on progressive levels. Multipass encoding has huge benefits, and can sometimes cut the mbit/quality in half, or more.<br><br>Keyframes are special frames in the video-stream where the content can be synced. Between those frames only progressive frames happen, so you can't skip to those frames. Keyframes usually take up a lot more space than the frames in between so you want as few as possible of those, but if you make them too few, you will be limiting seeking severly, and for live content, the zap-time will increase.<br><br>Then there's the issues of whether different processing filters were used between the sets, and of course exactly WHICH versions of the codecs were used. "June-something" isn't really a good spec.<br><br>To make it a bit more equal comparison, and also with known versions, I tried redoing it myself, using a gstreamer-pipeline and the same source-material used in the article. The pipelines used were:<br><br>gst-launch-0.10 filesrc location=soccer\_4cif.y4m ! decodebin ! x264enc bitrate=1000 ! avimux ! filesink location=soccer\_4cif.y4m.avi<br>gst-launch-0.10 filesrc location=soccer\_4cif.y4m ! decodebin ! theoraenc bitrate=1000 ! oggmux ! filesink location=soccer\_4cif.y4m.ogv<br><br>Unfortunately, I don't have much time, or hosting space to share the encoded results, but trust me, it was NOT in favor of x264 with these settings. On the bright side, you can try it out for yourself, and fiddle with different settings, all versions are directly from updated Ubuntu Jaunty repositories, as of today. Just install gst-tools, and all gst-plugins even from multiverse.<br><br>Happy encoding!<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I just had to comment on this .
The article itself is of course nice and intriguing ( and the video-clip chosen is an excellent clip to give the codec a hard-time .
The grass , and medium-mask net in the background , wow .
) The problem with the article is that it really compares pears with apples , and is not too specific about what pears and what apples .
The main problem here is that is uses different suites for conversion , in one hand ffmpeg with some probably well-tuned defaults for x264 ( -vpre hq ) , and on the other hand ffmpeg2theora , that may be tuned for different defaults and different coding-settings .
Especially , there are two parameters not covered by the article that may have a huge impact .
Multipass-encoding , and keyframe-density.Multipass-encoding is a technique where you let the encoder skim the content several times , gatherings statistics on progressive levels .
Multipass encoding has huge benefits , and can sometimes cut the mbit/quality in half , or more.Keyframes are special frames in the video-stream where the content can be synced .
Between those frames only progressive frames happen , so you ca n't skip to those frames .
Keyframes usually take up a lot more space than the frames in between so you want as few as possible of those , but if you make them too few , you will be limiting seeking severly , and for live content , the zap-time will increase.Then there 's the issues of whether different processing filters were used between the sets , and of course exactly WHICH versions of the codecs were used .
" June-something " is n't really a good spec.To make it a bit more equal comparison , and also with known versions , I tried redoing it myself , using a gstreamer-pipeline and the same source-material used in the article .
The pipelines used were : gst-launch-0.10 filesrc location = soccer \ _4cif.y4m !
decodebin !
x264enc bitrate = 1000 !
avimux !
filesink location = soccer \ _4cif.y4m.avigst-launch-0.10 filesrc location = soccer \ _4cif.y4m !
decodebin !
theoraenc bitrate = 1000 !
oggmux !
filesink location = soccer \ _4cif.y4m.ogvUnfortunately , I do n't have much time , or hosting space to share the encoded results , but trust me , it was NOT in favor of x264 with these settings .
On the bright side , you can try it out for yourself , and fiddle with different settings , all versions are directly from updated Ubuntu Jaunty repositories , as of today .
Just install gst-tools , and all gst-plugins even from multiverse.Happy encoding !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I just had to comment on this.
The article itself is of course nice and intriguing (and the video-clip chosen is an excellent clip to give the codec a hard-time.
The grass, and medium-mask net in the background, wow.
)The problem with the article is that it really compares pears with apples, and is not too specific about what pears and what apples.
The main problem here is that is uses different suites for conversion, in one hand ffmpeg with some probably well-tuned defaults for x264 (-vpre hq), and on the other hand ffmpeg2theora, that may be tuned for different defaults and different coding-settings.
Especially, there are two parameters not covered by the article that may have a huge impact.
Multipass-encoding, and keyframe-density.Multipass-encoding is a technique where you let the encoder skim the content several times, gatherings statistics on progressive levels.
Multipass encoding has huge benefits, and can sometimes cut the mbit/quality in half, or more.Keyframes are special frames in the video-stream where the content can be synced.
Between those frames only progressive frames happen, so you can't skip to those frames.
Keyframes usually take up a lot more space than the frames in between so you want as few as possible of those, but if you make them too few, you will be limiting seeking severly, and for live content, the zap-time will increase.Then there's the issues of whether different processing filters were used between the sets, and of course exactly WHICH versions of the codecs were used.
"June-something" isn't really a good spec.To make it a bit more equal comparison, and also with known versions, I tried redoing it myself, using a gstreamer-pipeline and the same source-material used in the article.
The pipelines used were:gst-launch-0.10 filesrc location=soccer\_4cif.y4m !
decodebin !
x264enc bitrate=1000 !
avimux !
filesink location=soccer\_4cif.y4m.avigst-launch-0.10 filesrc location=soccer\_4cif.y4m !
decodebin !
theoraenc bitrate=1000 !
oggmux !
filesink location=soccer\_4cif.y4m.ogvUnfortunately, I don't have much time, or hosting space to share the encoded results, but trust me, it was NOT in favor of x264 with these settings.
On the bright side, you can try it out for yourself, and fiddle with different settings, all versions are directly from updated Ubuntu Jaunty repositories, as of today.
Just install gst-tools, and all gst-plugins even from multiverse.Happy encoding!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28432399</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>brusk</author>
	<datestamp>1245678420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugg was very successful as a name for selling boots, and a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blech" title="wikipedia.org">blech</a> [wikipedia.org] is handy when you want warm food on Shabbas. Though why you'd want those names for a codec I don't know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugg was very successful as a name for selling boots , and a blech [ wikipedia.org ] is handy when you want warm food on Shabbas .
Though why you 'd want those names for a codec I do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugg was very successful as a name for selling boots, and a blech [wikipedia.org] is handy when you want warm food on Shabbas.
Though why you'd want those names for a codec I don't know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428447</id>
	<title>Re:Seems pretty clear to me</title>
	<author>Doomdark</author>
	<datestamp>1245663660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps you are a person that chooses things solely based on their name. But many others actually consider other factors, such as image quality, support by viewers, cost (if any). In fact, I would think it rather foolish to pay much any attention to name of the thing.</p><p>In reality, the most important factor most users is actually "what is everyone else using".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you are a person that chooses things solely based on their name .
But many others actually consider other factors , such as image quality , support by viewers , cost ( if any ) .
In fact , I would think it rather foolish to pay much any attention to name of the thing.In reality , the most important factor most users is actually " what is everyone else using " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you are a person that chooses things solely based on their name.
But many others actually consider other factors, such as image quality, support by viewers, cost (if any).
In fact, I would think it rather foolish to pay much any attention to name of the thing.In reality, the most important factor most users is actually "what is everyone else using".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425959</id>
	<title>License</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245698580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Theora has a much better license than Mpeg-4</p></div></blockquote><p>So?</p><p>I'm serious.  Can someone explain why this matters?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theora has a much better license than Mpeg-4So ? I 'm serious .
Can someone explain why this matters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theora has a much better license than Mpeg-4So?I'm serious.
Can someone explain why this matters?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426039</id>
	<title>Re:Theora sucks a nut</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245698880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can encode videos with Theora"</p><p>HUH?</p><p>There are plenty of visual apps to do this, no need for cli and whatnot....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" but the average computer user is n't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can encode videos with Theora " HUH ? There are plenty of visual apps to do this , no need for cli and whatnot... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can encode videos with Theora"HUH?There are plenty of visual apps to do this, no need for cli and whatnot....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426633</id>
	<title>Re:Help me out, please</title>
	<author>xlotlu</author>
	<datestamp>1245701100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could somebody please explain to me why the license matters? I mean, I understand that if a license limits mpeg-4 encoding to a single government computer running Windows ME that was lost 5 years ago, that the license is a HUGE barrier to entry to use the codec. However, in this case the license seems to be the only single category in which Theora wins. The compression is worse than mpeg-4. The compression takes more space. But look! The license is a little better! WINNER!</p></div><p>You understand quite wrong. After having paid (a small amount) for the encoder, if you decide to post your &gt; 12 minutes clip on the web, you're likely gonna have to pay through your nose come 2011. And everybody that wants to watch it must have paid for the decoder (another small amount).</p><p>The current H.264/MPEG-4 AV licensing is rather palatable, as they're trying to gain market share; decoders and encoders sold before 2005 were even spared any licensing fee. But this license expires at the end of 2010. So you see, it's like the drug dealers' business model: first treat is cheap/free. Once you're addicted to it, we're in business.</p><p>TFA explains it, and even has a convenient clicky for you:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>After 2010, Mpeg-4 fees are increasing to include "internet broadcast fees" which apply when distributing Mpeg-4 content on the internet. This means that if I host my own Mpeg-4 clip on my own site, I owe an additional fee depending on how many times the clip is downloaded (for clips over 12 minutes) -- see <a href="http://www.mpegla.com/news/n\_03-11-17\_avc.html" title="mpegla.com">mpeg licensing press release</a> [mpegla.com].</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could somebody please explain to me why the license matters ?
I mean , I understand that if a license limits mpeg-4 encoding to a single government computer running Windows ME that was lost 5 years ago , that the license is a HUGE barrier to entry to use the codec .
However , in this case the license seems to be the only single category in which Theora wins .
The compression is worse than mpeg-4 .
The compression takes more space .
But look !
The license is a little better !
WINNER ! You understand quite wrong .
After having paid ( a small amount ) for the encoder , if you decide to post your &gt; 12 minutes clip on the web , you 're likely gon na have to pay through your nose come 2011 .
And everybody that wants to watch it must have paid for the decoder ( another small amount ) .The current H.264/MPEG-4 AV licensing is rather palatable , as they 're trying to gain market share ; decoders and encoders sold before 2005 were even spared any licensing fee .
But this license expires at the end of 2010 .
So you see , it 's like the drug dealers ' business model : first treat is cheap/free .
Once you 're addicted to it , we 're in business.TFA explains it , and even has a convenient clicky for you : After 2010 , Mpeg-4 fees are increasing to include " internet broadcast fees " which apply when distributing Mpeg-4 content on the internet .
This means that if I host my own Mpeg-4 clip on my own site , I owe an additional fee depending on how many times the clip is downloaded ( for clips over 12 minutes ) -- see mpeg licensing press release [ mpegla.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could somebody please explain to me why the license matters?
I mean, I understand that if a license limits mpeg-4 encoding to a single government computer running Windows ME that was lost 5 years ago, that the license is a HUGE barrier to entry to use the codec.
However, in this case the license seems to be the only single category in which Theora wins.
The compression is worse than mpeg-4.
The compression takes more space.
But look!
The license is a little better!
WINNER!You understand quite wrong.
After having paid (a small amount) for the encoder, if you decide to post your &gt; 12 minutes clip on the web, you're likely gonna have to pay through your nose come 2011.
And everybody that wants to watch it must have paid for the decoder (another small amount).The current H.264/MPEG-4 AV licensing is rather palatable, as they're trying to gain market share; decoders and encoders sold before 2005 were even spared any licensing fee.
But this license expires at the end of 2010.
So you see, it's like the drug dealers' business model: first treat is cheap/free.
Once you're addicted to it, we're in business.TFA explains it, and even has a convenient clicky for you:After 2010, Mpeg-4 fees are increasing to include "internet broadcast fees" which apply when distributing Mpeg-4 content on the internet.
This means that if I host my own Mpeg-4 clip on my own site, I owe an additional fee depending on how many times the clip is downloaded (for clips over 12 minutes) -- see mpeg licensing press release [mpegla.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427969</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised? Don't be, it's open source.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This post was written on a Mac, a product from a company that based their desktop operating system in part on FreeBSD and their web client on the work of KDE developers.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you, dickweed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This post was written on a Mac , a product from a company that based their desktop operating system in part on FreeBSD and their web client on the work of KDE developers.Fixed that for you , dickweed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post was written on a Mac, a product from a company that based their desktop operating system in part on FreeBSD and their web client on the work of KDE developers.Fixed that for you, dickweed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426929</id>
	<title>No contest</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1245702120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>After seeing the comparison videos, I have to say that I don't see where the problem resides. Although Theora does demand more bandwidth for a video with similar good video (a subjective trait), as anyone can see the, Theora's quality at lower bitrates is far from bad. It's still better than the quality that sites such as youtube relied on when starting their service.<br><br>Having that in mind, let's not forget that bandwidth is getting ridiculously cheaper and we are getting incredibly fast connections by the month. It's not like we are seeing people forfeiting their ISP contract due to the service fee being too much to bear or seeing people complaining about how their 1Mb/s connection not being fast enough. In fact, joe six-pack's internet connection is more than capable of downloading countless ISOs daily, let alone watching streaming video. And that's not counting all those fiber to the premises and similar projects. That means there is absolutely no problem caused by the difference in bitrate. The network is already more than capable of handling it.<br><br>Moreover, knowing that the bandwidth aspect of the thing is irrelevant then the only problem that needs to be tackled is the problem of implementing the service. That is also a no-brainer, as one option, Theora, is freely available and freely accessible while the other is proprietary, patent-incumbered and controlled by single private entities who forces an economic penalty on it's adoption. Who in their right mind wants to build their foundation on a technology that is controlled by someone who wants to raise tollbooths to to access it?<br><br>So, to put it short, Theora may demand more bandwidth but that is absolutely irrelevant. The real problem is that one contender is absolutely free, both economically and in terms of conditions, while the other will not only cost money but will also forces everyone to be at the mercy of some grand tech gatekeeper. Facing that question, I do believe the choice is obvious.<br><br>P.S.: fuck you, slashdot, for screwing up the comment edit box so that I can only get paragraphs separated by newlines if I post the messages under the code option.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After seeing the comparison videos , I have to say that I do n't see where the problem resides .
Although Theora does demand more bandwidth for a video with similar good video ( a subjective trait ) , as anyone can see the , Theora 's quality at lower bitrates is far from bad .
It 's still better than the quality that sites such as youtube relied on when starting their service.Having that in mind , let 's not forget that bandwidth is getting ridiculously cheaper and we are getting incredibly fast connections by the month .
It 's not like we are seeing people forfeiting their ISP contract due to the service fee being too much to bear or seeing people complaining about how their 1Mb/s connection not being fast enough .
In fact , joe six-pack 's internet connection is more than capable of downloading countless ISOs daily , let alone watching streaming video .
And that 's not counting all those fiber to the premises and similar projects .
That means there is absolutely no problem caused by the difference in bitrate .
The network is already more than capable of handling it.Moreover , knowing that the bandwidth aspect of the thing is irrelevant then the only problem that needs to be tackled is the problem of implementing the service .
That is also a no-brainer , as one option , Theora , is freely available and freely accessible while the other is proprietary , patent-incumbered and controlled by single private entities who forces an economic penalty on it 's adoption .
Who in their right mind wants to build their foundation on a technology that is controlled by someone who wants to raise tollbooths to to access it ? So , to put it short , Theora may demand more bandwidth but that is absolutely irrelevant .
The real problem is that one contender is absolutely free , both economically and in terms of conditions , while the other will not only cost money but will also forces everyone to be at the mercy of some grand tech gatekeeper .
Facing that question , I do believe the choice is obvious.P.S .
: fuck you , slashdot , for screwing up the comment edit box so that I can only get paragraphs separated by newlines if I post the messages under the code option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After seeing the comparison videos, I have to say that I don't see where the problem resides.
Although Theora does demand more bandwidth for a video with similar good video (a subjective trait), as anyone can see the, Theora's quality at lower bitrates is far from bad.
It's still better than the quality that sites such as youtube relied on when starting their service.Having that in mind, let's not forget that bandwidth is getting ridiculously cheaper and we are getting incredibly fast connections by the month.
It's not like we are seeing people forfeiting their ISP contract due to the service fee being too much to bear or seeing people complaining about how their 1Mb/s connection not being fast enough.
In fact, joe six-pack's internet connection is more than capable of downloading countless ISOs daily, let alone watching streaming video.
And that's not counting all those fiber to the premises and similar projects.
That means there is absolutely no problem caused by the difference in bitrate.
The network is already more than capable of handling it.Moreover, knowing that the bandwidth aspect of the thing is irrelevant then the only problem that needs to be tackled is the problem of implementing the service.
That is also a no-brainer, as one option, Theora, is freely available and freely accessible while the other is proprietary, patent-incumbered and controlled by single private entities who forces an economic penalty on it's adoption.
Who in their right mind wants to build their foundation on a technology that is controlled by someone who wants to raise tollbooths to to access it?So, to put it short, Theora may demand more bandwidth but that is absolutely irrelevant.
The real problem is that one contender is absolutely free, both economically and in terms of conditions, while the other will not only cost money but will also forces everyone to be at the mercy of some grand tech gatekeeper.
Facing that question, I do believe the choice is obvious.P.S.
: fuck you, slashdot, for screwing up the comment edit box so that I can only get paragraphs separated by newlines if I post the messages under the code option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28430271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28433727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28433873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28436809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28436061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28430035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28437153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28432399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28435855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28436985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28442455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28443515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1747220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28430339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1747220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1747220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426545
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1747220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427059
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426345
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426039
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1747220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28430035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28437153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1747220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426135
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428177
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428901
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426257
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431401
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28442455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426255
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28430339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28443515
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426289
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28436809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1747220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28436061
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431797
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28433727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428447
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28433873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429983
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427879
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28432399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1747220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28431181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426461
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1747220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1747220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28425959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28428551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426463
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28436985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1747220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28435855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28430271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1747220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28427681
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28429131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1747220.28426305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
