<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_05_2345210</id>
	<title>Oh, What a Lovely Standards War</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265371560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes <i>"You know something big must be afoot when people start to get worked up over video compression standards. Basically, the issue is <a href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2775&amp;blogid=14">whether the current de facto standard, H.264, will continue to dominate</a> this field, and if not, what might take over."</i>

Related, reader <a href="https://slashdot.org/~eihab">eihab</a> writes <i>"Nuanti, a company that develops Web browsing technologies, has produced a high-performance <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/02/nuanti-brings-html5-and-ogg-theora-video-to-silverlight.ars">Ogg Theora decoder for Microsoft's Silverlight</a> browser plugin. Nuanti's Highgate Media Suite will enable support for standards-based HTML5 video streaming with Theora in browsers that have Silverlight. It works entirely without requiring the users to install any additional software."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes " You know something big must be afoot when people start to get worked up over video compression standards .
Basically , the issue is whether the current de facto standard , H.264 , will continue to dominate this field , and if not , what might take over .
" Related , reader eihab writes " Nuanti , a company that develops Web browsing technologies , has produced a high-performance Ogg Theora decoder for Microsoft 's Silverlight browser plugin .
Nuanti 's Highgate Media Suite will enable support for standards-based HTML5 video streaming with Theora in browsers that have Silverlight .
It works entirely without requiring the users to install any additional software .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes "You know something big must be afoot when people start to get worked up over video compression standards.
Basically, the issue is whether the current de facto standard, H.264, will continue to dominate this field, and if not, what might take over.
"

Related, reader eihab writes "Nuanti, a company that develops Web browsing technologies, has produced a high-performance Ogg Theora decoder for Microsoft's Silverlight browser plugin.
Nuanti's Highgate Media Suite will enable support for standards-based HTML5 video streaming with Theora in browsers that have Silverlight.
It works entirely without requiring the users to install any additional software.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042824</id>
	<title>Just line any crime, follow the money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265386800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>A few years ago I worked on a variant H.264 codec, and I found out about MPEG politics. It's not about standards, technical quality or user access, it's
about MONEY. Specifically, patent portfolios and MPEG-LA.
<p>
The price of admission is sending people to the four times a year MPEG meetings. The chips are the patentable intellectually property. The game is to get
your IP into the standard by any means possible. When you are in the standard then you get profit participation in the MPEG-LA revenue stream.
</p><p>
When I was involved, the Japanese had a notorious reputation for sending lots of people and stacking the meetings. They would use procedural methods
to extend the meetings  into late night and then after others  left they would use their numbers to force through their proposals.
</p><p>
Of course other players had other ways of stacking the deck. Remember that big corporations can afford to employ people full time to chair
 committees  and that gives the extra clout (MicroSoft, apple, Sun, Philips,...).
</p><p>
This all means that smaller independent groups, like the one I worked for, had a very difficult time making any headway. No matter  how good the technology, political considerations had a lot more impact.
</p><p>
The trick is that while MPEG is an open international body that supports "open standards", MPEG-LA is a foul black pit full of zombies, orcs and lawyers. In fact, the orcs and zombies are at the bottom of the heap, because the lawyer are the bad asses who run the show.
</p><p>
How are licenses fees set? Nobody knows. How are revenues divided? Nobody knows.  How much is spent on MPEG-LA costs? Nobody knows. How do they decided to engage in legal action and who do target? Nobody knows.
</p><p>
It is a completely independent body with no oversight by any of the international standards bodies, or any government for that matter. It is only constrained by the software copyright rules in an individual jurisdiction.
 </p><p>
It is a closed black box that can charge as much as it wants, and because it is an "international standard", it is almost impossible to compete with it based on cost or quality, and and you can't go after it using the legal system. (This one reason is why Ogg Theodora is not looked at as a meaningful option by the big players;  it is not a standard, so it gives big companies headaches. Who is responsible if there is any trouble? What happens if a key person is hit by a bus? Having access to the source does not fully address all these legal issues.)
</p><p>
The reason that this such a bit deal is that large amounts of money are involved.  I Googled around and I couldn't get a clue about total amounts, which is suspicious in itself. Remember, from the corporate viewpoint this is "free money", because the initial investment is small; a lab with some computers, some PHDs, a travel buget and some lawyers and the cost of their shark tanks.  Very high rate of return over a long period of time.
</p><p>
And a shout out to all you libertarian morons out there: THIS IS A TAX!!! It is a tax collected by corrupt self serving insiders who have subverted the legal system. It restrains trade and stifles innovation. It is not subject to competition. Those who are taxed have no say in the matter.
It is arbitrary, and you cannot escape it by taking your business elsewhere. It is all the things you claim to hate about government. How come you this behavior is good when done by business for greed and bad when done by governments, which are more accountable to the people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years ago I worked on a variant H.264 codec , and I found out about MPEG politics .
It 's not about standards , technical quality or user access , it 's about MONEY .
Specifically , patent portfolios and MPEG-LA .
The price of admission is sending people to the four times a year MPEG meetings .
The chips are the patentable intellectually property .
The game is to get your IP into the standard by any means possible .
When you are in the standard then you get profit participation in the MPEG-LA revenue stream .
When I was involved , the Japanese had a notorious reputation for sending lots of people and stacking the meetings .
They would use procedural methods to extend the meetings into late night and then after others left they would use their numbers to force through their proposals .
Of course other players had other ways of stacking the deck .
Remember that big corporations can afford to employ people full time to chair committees and that gives the extra clout ( MicroSoft , apple , Sun , Philips,... ) .
This all means that smaller independent groups , like the one I worked for , had a very difficult time making any headway .
No matter how good the technology , political considerations had a lot more impact .
The trick is that while MPEG is an open international body that supports " open standards " , MPEG-LA is a foul black pit full of zombies , orcs and lawyers .
In fact , the orcs and zombies are at the bottom of the heap , because the lawyer are the bad asses who run the show .
How are licenses fees set ?
Nobody knows .
How are revenues divided ?
Nobody knows .
How much is spent on MPEG-LA costs ?
Nobody knows .
How do they decided to engage in legal action and who do target ?
Nobody knows .
It is a completely independent body with no oversight by any of the international standards bodies , or any government for that matter .
It is only constrained by the software copyright rules in an individual jurisdiction .
It is a closed black box that can charge as much as it wants , and because it is an " international standard " , it is almost impossible to compete with it based on cost or quality , and and you ca n't go after it using the legal system .
( This one reason is why Ogg Theodora is not looked at as a meaningful option by the big players ; it is not a standard , so it gives big companies headaches .
Who is responsible if there is any trouble ?
What happens if a key person is hit by a bus ?
Having access to the source does not fully address all these legal issues .
) The reason that this such a bit deal is that large amounts of money are involved .
I Googled around and I could n't get a clue about total amounts , which is suspicious in itself .
Remember , from the corporate viewpoint this is " free money " , because the initial investment is small ; a lab with some computers , some PHDs , a travel buget and some lawyers and the cost of their shark tanks .
Very high rate of return over a long period of time .
And a shout out to all you libertarian morons out there : THIS IS A TAX ! ! !
It is a tax collected by corrupt self serving insiders who have subverted the legal system .
It restrains trade and stifles innovation .
It is not subject to competition .
Those who are taxed have no say in the matter .
It is arbitrary , and you can not escape it by taking your business elsewhere .
It is all the things you claim to hate about government .
How come you this behavior is good when done by business for greed and bad when done by governments , which are more accountable to the people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years ago I worked on a variant H.264 codec, and I found out about MPEG politics.
It's not about standards, technical quality or user access, it's
about MONEY.
Specifically, patent portfolios and MPEG-LA.
The price of admission is sending people to the four times a year MPEG meetings.
The chips are the patentable intellectually property.
The game is to get
your IP into the standard by any means possible.
When you are in the standard then you get profit participation in the MPEG-LA revenue stream.
When I was involved, the Japanese had a notorious reputation for sending lots of people and stacking the meetings.
They would use procedural methods
to extend the meetings  into late night and then after others  left they would use their numbers to force through their proposals.
Of course other players had other ways of stacking the deck.
Remember that big corporations can afford to employ people full time to chair
 committees  and that gives the extra clout (MicroSoft, apple, Sun, Philips,...).
This all means that smaller independent groups, like the one I worked for, had a very difficult time making any headway.
No matter  how good the technology, political considerations had a lot more impact.
The trick is that while MPEG is an open international body that supports "open standards", MPEG-LA is a foul black pit full of zombies, orcs and lawyers.
In fact, the orcs and zombies are at the bottom of the heap, because the lawyer are the bad asses who run the show.
How are licenses fees set?
Nobody knows.
How are revenues divided?
Nobody knows.
How much is spent on MPEG-LA costs?
Nobody knows.
How do they decided to engage in legal action and who do target?
Nobody knows.
It is a completely independent body with no oversight by any of the international standards bodies, or any government for that matter.
It is only constrained by the software copyright rules in an individual jurisdiction.
It is a closed black box that can charge as much as it wants, and because it is an "international standard", it is almost impossible to compete with it based on cost or quality, and and you can't go after it using the legal system.
(This one reason is why Ogg Theodora is not looked at as a meaningful option by the big players;  it is not a standard, so it gives big companies headaches.
Who is responsible if there is any trouble?
What happens if a key person is hit by a bus?
Having access to the source does not fully address all these legal issues.
)

The reason that this such a bit deal is that large amounts of money are involved.
I Googled around and I couldn't get a clue about total amounts, which is suspicious in itself.
Remember, from the corporate viewpoint this is "free money", because the initial investment is small; a lab with some computers, some PHDs, a travel buget and some lawyers and the cost of their shark tanks.
Very high rate of return over a long period of time.
And a shout out to all you libertarian morons out there: THIS IS A TAX!!!
It is a tax collected by corrupt self serving insiders who have subverted the legal system.
It restrains trade and stifles innovation.
It is not subject to competition.
Those who are taxed have no say in the matter.
It is arbitrary, and you cannot escape it by taking your business elsewhere.
It is all the things you claim to hate about government.
How come you this behavior is good when done by business for greed and bad when done by governments, which are more accountable to the people?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041462</id>
	<title>Re:No additional software?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265375700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the Silverlight dependency can be removed later as browsers are upgraded. Vast quantities of H.264-encoded video will be far more difficult to change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the Silverlight dependency can be removed later as browsers are upgraded .
Vast quantities of H.264-encoded video will be far more difficult to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the Silverlight dependency can be removed later as browsers are upgraded.
Vast quantities of H.264-encoded video will be far more difficult to change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042792</id>
	<title>snow?</title>
	<author>loki\_tiwaz</author>
	<datestamp>1265386560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when are they going to finish making snow? i've used early versions of it and it eats h264 for breakfast, and theora? yeah it's an open codec, which is great but it's based on vp3 and that's more ye olde than mp4. everyone's hardware can handle h264, it's about the same to do snow decoding, but the quality and compression is measurably better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when are they going to finish making snow ?
i 've used early versions of it and it eats h264 for breakfast , and theora ?
yeah it 's an open codec , which is great but it 's based on vp3 and that 's more ye olde than mp4 .
everyone 's hardware can handle h264 , it 's about the same to do snow decoding , but the quality and compression is measurably better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when are they going to finish making snow?
i've used early versions of it and it eats h264 for breakfast, and theora?
yeah it's an open codec, which is great but it's based on vp3 and that's more ye olde than mp4.
everyone's hardware can handle h264, it's about the same to do snow decoding, but the quality and compression is measurably better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042328</id>
	<title>Re:Video for Everyone code hack is the solution</title>
	<author>lewiscr</author>
	<datestamp>1265382060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 6 years, computers will be 16 times as powerful vs. today.  Just transcode the videos then.</p><p>You are saving them in high enough quality that you can transcode, right?  If not, you're going to have problems eventually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 6 years , computers will be 16 times as powerful vs. today. Just transcode the videos then.You are saving them in high enough quality that you can transcode , right ?
If not , you 're going to have problems eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 6 years, computers will be 16 times as powerful vs. today.  Just transcode the videos then.You are saving them in high enough quality that you can transcode, right?
If not, you're going to have problems eventually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042132</id>
	<title>Silverlight installs it all for you I guess</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1265380740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you install Microsoft's Trojan^WSilverlight into Internet explorer, and you assume that you don't install anything more?   Buddy, you're going to be running more software than you can imagine, all installed FOR you by friendly Internet people !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you install Microsoft 's Trojan ^ WSilverlight into Internet explorer , and you assume that you do n't install anything more ?
Buddy , you 're going to be running more software than you can imagine , all installed FOR you by friendly Internet people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you install Microsoft's Trojan^WSilverlight into Internet explorer, and you assume that you don't install anything more?
Buddy, you're going to be running more software than you can imagine, all installed FOR you by friendly Internet people !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044020</id>
	<title>woah, H.264 has the same surprise risks as Theora</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265489940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MP3 and MPEG-2 users have both been nailed by surprise ligation for unknown patents which were not covered in the MPEG-LA licenses.    The MPEG-LA license pack explicitly disclaims all warranties and rejects all representations that the license contains all the patents necessary to implement the formats, much less ones which might not be strictly necessary but that your implement ion might practice for good performance.</p><p>So, if you use H.264 you have to pay the license fees, plus take the risk that someone will sue you for practice some patent not in your coverage.  With Theora you only have the latter risk.</p><p>Whatever argument you can make about increased confidence in H.264 due to wider deployment can be countered by the fact that its a much newer format during the design of which NO effort was taken to avoid patented technology (the MPEG and ITU processes both forbid IPR discussions during the main standardization process for anti-trust reasons). Whereas Theora is a more conservative design built from the ground up (by On2) to be free of third party IPR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MP3 and MPEG-2 users have both been nailed by surprise ligation for unknown patents which were not covered in the MPEG-LA licenses .
The MPEG-LA license pack explicitly disclaims all warranties and rejects all representations that the license contains all the patents necessary to implement the formats , much less ones which might not be strictly necessary but that your implement ion might practice for good performance.So , if you use H.264 you have to pay the license fees , plus take the risk that someone will sue you for practice some patent not in your coverage .
With Theora you only have the latter risk.Whatever argument you can make about increased confidence in H.264 due to wider deployment can be countered by the fact that its a much newer format during the design of which NO effort was taken to avoid patented technology ( the MPEG and ITU processes both forbid IPR discussions during the main standardization process for anti-trust reasons ) .
Whereas Theora is a more conservative design built from the ground up ( by On2 ) to be free of third party IPR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MP3 and MPEG-2 users have both been nailed by surprise ligation for unknown patents which were not covered in the MPEG-LA licenses.
The MPEG-LA license pack explicitly disclaims all warranties and rejects all representations that the license contains all the patents necessary to implement the formats, much less ones which might not be strictly necessary but that your implement ion might practice for good performance.So, if you use H.264 you have to pay the license fees, plus take the risk that someone will sue you for practice some patent not in your coverage.
With Theora you only have the latter risk.Whatever argument you can make about increased confidence in H.264 due to wider deployment can be countered by the fact that its a much newer format during the design of which NO effort was taken to avoid patented technology (the MPEG and ITU processes both forbid IPR discussions during the main standardization process for anti-trust reasons).
Whereas Theora is a more conservative design built from the ground up (by On2) to be free of third party IPR.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044796</id>
	<title>Re:Why doesn't Adobe just open-source Flash?</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1265461260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://daringfireball.net/2010/02/winer\_flash\_open\_standards" title="daringfireball.net"> John Gruber said it best</a> [daringfireball.net]:<blockquote><div><p>That&rsquo;d be an interesting move, and it would certainly shake things up. But what if the source code to Flash Player is &mdash; as many would wager &mdash; a huge steaming pile of convoluted C++ horseshit? It&rsquo;s sort of like what if Microsoft open-sourced the Internet Explorer rendering engine. It&rsquo;s not like anyone who is now using WebKit or Gecko would switch to that just because it was opened &mdash; or that WebKit, Mozilla, and Opera would suddenly be obligated to or even interested in adopting IE-specific web features.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>John Gruber said it best [ daringfireball.net ] : That    d be an interesting move , and it would certainly shake things up .
But what if the source code to Flash Player is    as many would wager    a huge steaming pile of convoluted C + + horseshit ?
It    s sort of like what if Microsoft open-sourced the Internet Explorer rendering engine .
It    s not like anyone who is now using WebKit or Gecko would switch to that just because it was opened    or that WebKit , Mozilla , and Opera would suddenly be obligated to or even interested in adopting IE-specific web features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> John Gruber said it best [daringfireball.net]:That’d be an interesting move, and it would certainly shake things up.
But what if the source code to Flash Player is — as many would wager — a huge steaming pile of convoluted C++ horseshit?
It’s sort of like what if Microsoft open-sourced the Internet Explorer rendering engine.
It’s not like anyone who is now using WebKit or Gecko would switch to that just because it was opened — or that WebKit, Mozilla, and Opera would suddenly be obligated to or even interested in adopting IE-specific web features.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042756</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 is ISO/IEC 14496-10, not a de facto stand</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1265386200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>HTML5 is a markup standard. Where it pertains to video is in the standardization of video-related markup, i.e. the "video" tag, not video formats.</i><br>The problem is a standard video tag is of limited use if there is no baseline codec that a web developer can use and expect any web browser to render it.</p><p>MPEG and ISO come from a world where it is considered acceptable to make descisions that force everyone who wants to use your standard to pay license fees. That doesn't fit well with the free and open nature of the web. They are even considering requiring license fees for merely distributing the files rather than just encoding and decoding them at some point in the future!</p><p>Some FOSS projects take the approach of ignoring patents and this works for smaller more under the rader projects but it's a risky strategy. Those behind the projects could end up facing huge legal problems at any time. A further complication is that while the expiry of patents is a good thing in general patent holders sometimes get very litigious when thier patent is about to run out and extracting money from it becomes a case of now or never.</p><p>So the obvious thing for those creating the web standards to do would be to make the baseline format one that was developed to avoid relying on patented technology. Unfortunately certain major vendors refuse to implement it claiming it is a "submarine patent risk". So the HTML 5 guys are left with a choice between not specifying a baseline format at all or alienating one of the major groups of implementers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 is a markup standard .
Where it pertains to video is in the standardization of video-related markup , i.e .
the " video " tag , not video formats.The problem is a standard video tag is of limited use if there is no baseline codec that a web developer can use and expect any web browser to render it.MPEG and ISO come from a world where it is considered acceptable to make descisions that force everyone who wants to use your standard to pay license fees .
That does n't fit well with the free and open nature of the web .
They are even considering requiring license fees for merely distributing the files rather than just encoding and decoding them at some point in the future ! Some FOSS projects take the approach of ignoring patents and this works for smaller more under the rader projects but it 's a risky strategy .
Those behind the projects could end up facing huge legal problems at any time .
A further complication is that while the expiry of patents is a good thing in general patent holders sometimes get very litigious when thier patent is about to run out and extracting money from it becomes a case of now or never.So the obvious thing for those creating the web standards to do would be to make the baseline format one that was developed to avoid relying on patented technology .
Unfortunately certain major vendors refuse to implement it claiming it is a " submarine patent risk " .
So the HTML 5 guys are left with a choice between not specifying a baseline format at all or alienating one of the major groups of implementers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 is a markup standard.
Where it pertains to video is in the standardization of video-related markup, i.e.
the "video" tag, not video formats.The problem is a standard video tag is of limited use if there is no baseline codec that a web developer can use and expect any web browser to render it.MPEG and ISO come from a world where it is considered acceptable to make descisions that force everyone who wants to use your standard to pay license fees.
That doesn't fit well with the free and open nature of the web.
They are even considering requiring license fees for merely distributing the files rather than just encoding and decoding them at some point in the future!Some FOSS projects take the approach of ignoring patents and this works for smaller more under the rader projects but it's a risky strategy.
Those behind the projects could end up facing huge legal problems at any time.
A further complication is that while the expiry of patents is a good thing in general patent holders sometimes get very litigious when thier patent is about to run out and extracting money from it becomes a case of now or never.So the obvious thing for those creating the web standards to do would be to make the baseline format one that was developed to avoid relying on patented technology.
Unfortunately certain major vendors refuse to implement it claiming it is a "submarine patent risk".
So the HTML 5 guys are left with a choice between not specifying a baseline format at all or alienating one of the major groups of implementers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041408</id>
	<title>No additional software?</title>
	<author>wealthychef</author>
	<datestamp>1265375340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i> It works entirely without requiring the users to install any additional software."</i> </p><p>
Except, of course, a browser that has Silverlight.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-|</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It works entirely without requiring the users to install any additional software .
" Except , of course , a browser that has Silverlight .
: - |</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  It works entirely without requiring the users to install any additional software.
" 
Except, of course, a browser that has Silverlight.
:-|</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043688</id>
	<title>Re:Can Flash be used to pull the same trick?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265397120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know little about Silverlight, only the most general look and feel, and capabilities. Does this mean that it actually has extensible codec framework, that can be extended from managed code</p></div><p>Answering myself, since I looked that up, and thought it might be interesting. Yes, indeed, Silverlight now <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.media.mediastreamsource(VS.95).aspx" title="microsoft.com">supports custom codecs</a> [microsoft.com], so long as they're implemented in pure managed sandboxed code - apparently, this is a new addition in Silverlight 3. Also, <a href="http://veritas-vos-liberabit.com/monogatari/2009/03/moonvorbis.html" title="veritas-vo...erabit.com">here</a> [veritas-vo...erabit.com] is an explanation of that in context of Moonlight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know little about Silverlight , only the most general look and feel , and capabilities .
Does this mean that it actually has extensible codec framework , that can be extended from managed codeAnswering myself , since I looked that up , and thought it might be interesting .
Yes , indeed , Silverlight now supports custom codecs [ microsoft.com ] , so long as they 're implemented in pure managed sandboxed code - apparently , this is a new addition in Silverlight 3 .
Also , here [ veritas-vo...erabit.com ] is an explanation of that in context of Moonlight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know little about Silverlight, only the most general look and feel, and capabilities.
Does this mean that it actually has extensible codec framework, that can be extended from managed codeAnswering myself, since I looked that up, and thought it might be interesting.
Yes, indeed, Silverlight now supports custom codecs [microsoft.com], so long as they're implemented in pure managed sandboxed code - apparently, this is a new addition in Silverlight 3.
Also, here [veritas-vo...erabit.com] is an explanation of that in context of Moonlight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712</id>
	<title>Why doesn't Adobe just open-source Flash?</title>
	<author>Spy Handler</author>
	<datestamp>1265377380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they did, everybody could just use that (since it's already on 98\% of computers out there) and put a stop to these stupid standards wars.<br> <br>

They probably wouldn't lose much revenue, if at all... I mean, they've always been giving away the Flash plugin for free. They make all their money from selling content-creating software (Flash CS3) right? That wouldn't change if they open-sourced Flash player. Similar to how Photoshop completely dominates the industry even though anyone is free to make<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.jpg/.png editing software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they did , everybody could just use that ( since it 's already on 98 \ % of computers out there ) and put a stop to these stupid standards wars .
They probably would n't lose much revenue , if at all... I mean , they 've always been giving away the Flash plugin for free .
They make all their money from selling content-creating software ( Flash CS3 ) right ?
That would n't change if they open-sourced Flash player .
Similar to how Photoshop completely dominates the industry even though anyone is free to make .jpg/.png editing software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they did, everybody could just use that (since it's already on 98\% of computers out there) and put a stop to these stupid standards wars.
They probably wouldn't lose much revenue, if at all... I mean, they've always been giving away the Flash plugin for free.
They make all their money from selling content-creating software (Flash CS3) right?
That wouldn't change if they open-sourced Flash player.
Similar to how Photoshop completely dominates the industry even though anyone is free to make .jpg/.png editing software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041502</id>
	<title>I do not think that means what you think it means.</title>
	<author>deliciousmonster</author>
	<datestamp>1265376000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It works entirely without requiring the users to install any additional software... in browsers that have [the Microsoft] Silverlight [plugin].

c'mon now...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It works entirely without requiring the users to install any additional software... in browsers that have [ the Microsoft ] Silverlight [ plugin ] .
c'mon now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works entirely without requiring the users to install any additional software... in browsers that have [the Microsoft] Silverlight [plugin].
c'mon now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043936</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 is ISO/IEC 14496-10, not a de facto stand</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1265487780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ten years ago, Linux users complained that they could not view the video on the Web because it was in QuickTime containers with Sorenson video and Qdesign audio and that was all proprietary, not standardized.</p></div><p>And the response then would have been something along the lines of "Windows/Internet Explorer is the standard."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ten years ago , Linux users complained that they could not view the video on the Web because it was in QuickTime containers with Sorenson video and Qdesign audio and that was all proprietary , not standardized.And the response then would have been something along the lines of " Windows/Internet Explorer is the standard .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ten years ago, Linux users complained that they could not view the video on the Web because it was in QuickTime containers with Sorenson video and Qdesign audio and that was all proprietary, not standardized.And the response then would have been something along the lines of "Windows/Internet Explorer is the standard.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31048274</id>
	<title>Re:It will be Ogg Theora or VP8</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1265454720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isnt true.<br>
<br>
Firstly, all browsers can be designed to use whatever codec the user can supply. This would include H.264.<br>
Secondly, many embedded devices have H.264 and other decoding capability, but not Theora. This prevents some of those existing devices from ever decoding Theora.<br>
<br>
So your statement that the only video codec that every browser can use is Theora just doesnt wash.<br>
<br>
This, my friend, is coming to you live from an Opera user.. a browser that does not support H.264 playback. The makers of my browser are as dumb as the makers of your browser. Since when did it become OK for the browser makers to dictate these things?<br>
<br>
Let the users decide in cases where they can (I have the codec already.. it came with the OS), and let vendors decide in cases where they must make their own choices.<br>
<br>
This is similar to Firefox or Opera saying that they wont support Flash or Silverlight. Both are proprietary as fuck, but there they are launching and interacting with the binary when Flash content is on the page. Whats different? Did the Mozilla boys suddenly find morals? Really? I would hazard a guess that something else besides morals is behind their refusal to make the obvious choices that would enable them to play video encoded with any arbitrary codec at no cost to them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This isnt true .
Firstly , all browsers can be designed to use whatever codec the user can supply .
This would include H.264 .
Secondly , many embedded devices have H.264 and other decoding capability , but not Theora .
This prevents some of those existing devices from ever decoding Theora .
So your statement that the only video codec that every browser can use is Theora just doesnt wash . This , my friend , is coming to you live from an Opera user.. a browser that does not support H.264 playback .
The makers of my browser are as dumb as the makers of your browser .
Since when did it become OK for the browser makers to dictate these things ?
Let the users decide in cases where they can ( I have the codec already.. it came with the OS ) , and let vendors decide in cases where they must make their own choices .
This is similar to Firefox or Opera saying that they wont support Flash or Silverlight .
Both are proprietary as fuck , but there they are launching and interacting with the binary when Flash content is on the page .
Whats different ?
Did the Mozilla boys suddenly find morals ?
Really ? I would hazard a guess that something else besides morals is behind their refusal to make the obvious choices that would enable them to play video encoded with any arbitrary codec at no cost to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isnt true.
Firstly, all browsers can be designed to use whatever codec the user can supply.
This would include H.264.
Secondly, many embedded devices have H.264 and other decoding capability, but not Theora.
This prevents some of those existing devices from ever decoding Theora.
So your statement that the only video codec that every browser can use is Theora just doesnt wash.

This, my friend, is coming to you live from an Opera user.. a browser that does not support H.264 playback.
The makers of my browser are as dumb as the makers of your browser.
Since when did it become OK for the browser makers to dictate these things?
Let the users decide in cases where they can (I have the codec already.. it came with the OS), and let vendors decide in cases where they must make their own choices.
This is similar to Firefox or Opera saying that they wont support Flash or Silverlight.
Both are proprietary as fuck, but there they are launching and interacting with the binary when Flash content is on the page.
Whats different?
Did the Mozilla boys suddenly find morals?
Really? I would hazard a guess that something else besides morals is behind their refusal to make the obvious choices that would enable them to play video encoded with any arbitrary codec at no cost to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041940</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1265379300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, if I have to install something to watch Theora movies, I'd rather not install Silverlight.  I can just as easily install the Theora codec from xiph.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , if I have to install something to watch Theora movies , I 'd rather not install Silverlight .
I can just as easily install the Theora codec from xiph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, if I have to install something to watch Theora movies, I'd rather not install Silverlight.
I can just as easily install the Theora codec from xiph.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041782</id>
	<title>Re:Can Flash be used to pull the same trick?</title>
	<author>Ingenium13</author>
	<datestamp>1265377860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chrome on Linux supports pretty much any codec that ffmpeg supports, so it's not just limited to H.264 and Ogg.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome on Linux supports pretty much any codec that ffmpeg supports , so it 's not just limited to H.264 and Ogg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome on Linux supports pretty much any codec that ffmpeg supports, so it's not just limited to H.264 and Ogg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042472</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1265383320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, so now we know what Phineas and Ferb are going to do today.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Seriously, I'm going to generalize what I believe to be your key point -- it's no good running after where others have been. You need to get there first or (at worst) shortly behind. Waiting until the market (ANY market) stabilizes and then copying it will never work.</p><p>In other words, get something that fundamentally works and can be extended/ported so incredibly easily that interoperability can be tagged on quickly at the end. That way, you either create the standard OR can adapt to the standard when there is one, without faffing around.</p><p>(eg: NV and other protocols came out long before h264, but died because they were fundamentally wrong, hard to translate, non-portable and a bloody pain. Adequate for video streaming over the Internet, barely acceptable for storage, but definitely the work of a Great Old One. Nothing else is that insane.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so now we know what Phineas and Ferb are going to do today .
: ) Seriously , I 'm going to generalize what I believe to be your key point -- it 's no good running after where others have been .
You need to get there first or ( at worst ) shortly behind .
Waiting until the market ( ANY market ) stabilizes and then copying it will never work.In other words , get something that fundamentally works and can be extended/ported so incredibly easily that interoperability can be tagged on quickly at the end .
That way , you either create the standard OR can adapt to the standard when there is one , without faffing around .
( eg : NV and other protocols came out long before h264 , but died because they were fundamentally wrong , hard to translate , non-portable and a bloody pain .
Adequate for video streaming over the Internet , barely acceptable for storage , but definitely the work of a Great Old One .
Nothing else is that insane .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so now we know what Phineas and Ferb are going to do today.
:)Seriously, I'm going to generalize what I believe to be your key point -- it's no good running after where others have been.
You need to get there first or (at worst) shortly behind.
Waiting until the market (ANY market) stabilizes and then copying it will never work.In other words, get something that fundamentally works and can be extended/ported so incredibly easily that interoperability can be tagged on quickly at the end.
That way, you either create the standard OR can adapt to the standard when there is one, without faffing around.
(eg: NV and other protocols came out long before h264, but died because they were fundamentally wrong, hard to translate, non-portable and a bloody pain.
Adequate for video streaming over the Internet, barely acceptable for storage, but definitely the work of a Great Old One.
Nothing else is that insane.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043662</id>
	<title>Re:Color me ignorant but...</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1265396760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So is it a true statement that all one really needs is a compression tool to make the video file a reasonable size for transmission, yes?</p></div><p>No. A mere compression tool gets you a lossless codec, and even the best one we have in audio (FLAC) still produces files that are far, *far* bigger than the 'lossy' codecs we all know and love. For video, the storage needs of a lossless codec would be so obscenely large I know of no device that produces them.</p><p>The biggest problem of creating a codec is the step where you remove (yes, permanently) the biggest amount of data with the least subjective loss of quality before sending the rest to be compressed, and while there are a few scientific papers on the matter (more for audio than for video, from what I've seen), it's still mostly a trial &amp; error affair.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is it a true statement that all one really needs is a compression tool to make the video file a reasonable size for transmission , yes ? No .
A mere compression tool gets you a lossless codec , and even the best one we have in audio ( FLAC ) still produces files that are far , * far * bigger than the 'lossy ' codecs we all know and love .
For video , the storage needs of a lossless codec would be so obscenely large I know of no device that produces them.The biggest problem of creating a codec is the step where you remove ( yes , permanently ) the biggest amount of data with the least subjective loss of quality before sending the rest to be compressed , and while there are a few scientific papers on the matter ( more for audio than for video , from what I 've seen ) , it 's still mostly a trial &amp; error affair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is it a true statement that all one really needs is a compression tool to make the video file a reasonable size for transmission, yes?No.
A mere compression tool gets you a lossless codec, and even the best one we have in audio (FLAC) still produces files that are far, *far* bigger than the 'lossy' codecs we all know and love.
For video, the storage needs of a lossless codec would be so obscenely large I know of no device that produces them.The biggest problem of creating a codec is the step where you remove (yes, permanently) the biggest amount of data with the least subjective loss of quality before sending the rest to be compressed, and while there are a few scientific papers on the matter (more for audio than for video, from what I've seen), it's still mostly a trial &amp; error affair.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043256</id>
	<title>Re:At least you can see the dangling sword</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265390880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, this is more true than funny.</p><p>Would you be surprised if, as soon as H.246 were be replaced by Theora, a couple of patent trolls would challenge it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , this is more true than funny.Would you be surprised if , as soon as H.246 were be replaced by Theora , a couple of patent trolls would challenge it ?
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, this is more true than funny.Would you be surprised if, as soon as H.246 were be replaced by Theora, a couple of patent trolls would challenge it?
:/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041772</id>
	<title>Re:Video for Everyone code hack is the solution</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265377800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For now, the Video for Everyone code hack is the solution.</p></div><p>Your solution only solves the problem for users, not for those who wish to host video content, and can still potentially end up in a situation where they have to re-encode all their video in 2016. Any "solution" for today which can cause problems in six years is not a good solution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For now , the Video for Everyone code hack is the solution.Your solution only solves the problem for users , not for those who wish to host video content , and can still potentially end up in a situation where they have to re-encode all their video in 2016 .
Any " solution " for today which can cause problems in six years is not a good solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For now, the Video for Everyone code hack is the solution.Your solution only solves the problem for users, not for those who wish to host video content, and can still potentially end up in a situation where they have to re-encode all their video in 2016.
Any "solution" for today which can cause problems in six years is not a good solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31047436</id>
	<title>Re:Video for Everyone code hack is the solution</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1265489520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Standards' come and go in 6 years on the Internet, its really not that big of a deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Standards ' come and go in 6 years on the Internet , its really not that big of a deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Standards' come and go in 6 years on the Internet, its really not that big of a deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041884</id>
	<title>Re:No additional software?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265378820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh... yeah. You know, that one that has to be installed just like it's direct competitor Adobe Flash (which is already installed on 99\%+ computers)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh... yeah. You know , that one that has to be installed just like it 's direct competitor Adobe Flash ( which is already installed on 99 \ % + computers ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh... yeah. You know, that one that has to be installed just like it's direct competitor Adobe Flash (which is already installed on 99\%+ computers)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31045872</id>
	<title>Re:Just line any crime, follow the money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265475360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5million/year</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5million/year</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5million/year</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042400</id>
	<title>Color me ignorant but...</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1265382720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Video...  Back in the day is was an analog signal that was digitized to 1's and 0's and was therefor you could perform the opposite opperation and make it back into analog and it would play just fine, yes?</p><p> So now we have camera's that have a light sensitive chip that gets all its charged area's scanned n times per second and therefor we skip the analog part since we directly have 1's and 0's, yes?</p><p>So I assume that the amount of data being pulled off the chip is rather large and therefor is it beneficial that it is compressed, aka zipped or some other compression algorithm.  This video needs to be in sync with the sound, if there is any, yes?</p><p>Now I have had the occasion to work on still images and I would imagine the "raw" format is just those bits uncompressed, yes?</p><p>So is it a true statement that all one really needs is a compression tool to make the video file a reasonable size for transmission, yes?</p><p>So I fail to understand why this all seems so difficult.  Put the collective minds together in the FOOS world, come up with a compression scheme for both video and audio and there you have it.  Give the code to the world, and if it works well, will they not use it instead of something that requires a license or some other such nonsense?  I am again assuming that all the "containers" everyone speaks of is simply a file type to hold the video, audio and what ever syncing information is required, yes?</p><p>Seems like a problem that is easily solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Video... Back in the day is was an analog signal that was digitized to 1 's and 0 's and was therefor you could perform the opposite opperation and make it back into analog and it would play just fine , yes ?
So now we have camera 's that have a light sensitive chip that gets all its charged area 's scanned n times per second and therefor we skip the analog part since we directly have 1 's and 0 's , yes ? So I assume that the amount of data being pulled off the chip is rather large and therefor is it beneficial that it is compressed , aka zipped or some other compression algorithm .
This video needs to be in sync with the sound , if there is any , yes ? Now I have had the occasion to work on still images and I would imagine the " raw " format is just those bits uncompressed , yes ? So is it a true statement that all one really needs is a compression tool to make the video file a reasonable size for transmission , yes ? So I fail to understand why this all seems so difficult .
Put the collective minds together in the FOOS world , come up with a compression scheme for both video and audio and there you have it .
Give the code to the world , and if it works well , will they not use it instead of something that requires a license or some other such nonsense ?
I am again assuming that all the " containers " everyone speaks of is simply a file type to hold the video , audio and what ever syncing information is required , yes ? Seems like a problem that is easily solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video...  Back in the day is was an analog signal that was digitized to 1's and 0's and was therefor you could perform the opposite opperation and make it back into analog and it would play just fine, yes?
So now we have camera's that have a light sensitive chip that gets all its charged area's scanned n times per second and therefor we skip the analog part since we directly have 1's and 0's, yes?So I assume that the amount of data being pulled off the chip is rather large and therefor is it beneficial that it is compressed, aka zipped or some other compression algorithm.
This video needs to be in sync with the sound, if there is any, yes?Now I have had the occasion to work on still images and I would imagine the "raw" format is just those bits uncompressed, yes?So is it a true statement that all one really needs is a compression tool to make the video file a reasonable size for transmission, yes?So I fail to understand why this all seems so difficult.
Put the collective minds together in the FOOS world, come up with a compression scheme for both video and audio and there you have it.
Give the code to the world, and if it works well, will they not use it instead of something that requires a license or some other such nonsense?
I am again assuming that all the "containers" everyone speaks of is simply a file type to hold the video, audio and what ever syncing information is required, yes?Seems like a problem that is easily solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042760</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 is ISO/IEC 14496-10, not a de facto stand</title>
	<author>SEE</author>
	<datestamp>1265386260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it isn't Free, it isn't a standard, it's just a racket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is n't Free , it is n't a standard , it 's just a racket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it isn't Free, it isn't a standard, it's just a racket.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042966</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265388180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why Theora video is not playable in those devices? Is it illegal to implement?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why Theora video is not playable in those devices ?
Is it illegal to implement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why Theora video is not playable in those devices?
Is it illegal to implement?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041814</id>
	<title>Two Words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265377980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardware Offload.</p><p>Without you are just another video codec.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardware Offload.Without you are just another video codec .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardware Offload.Without you are just another video codec.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043108</id>
	<title>Power Point</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1265389260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So I fail to understand why this all seems so difficult. Put the collective minds together in the FOOS world, come up with a compression scheme for both video and audio and there you have it</i> </p><p>If life were only that simple:</p><p><i>The Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) was formed by the ISO to set standards for audio and video compression and transmission. It was established in 1988.  MPEG has grown to include approximately 350 members per meeting from various industries, universities, and research institutions. MPEG's official designation is ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29 WG11 - Coding of moving pictures and audio (ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1, Subcommittee 29, Working Group 11).</i></p><p><i><br>Joint Video Team (JVT) is joint project between ITU-T SG16/Q.6 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 for the development of new video coding recommendation and international standard.</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving\_Picture\_Experts\_Group" title="wikipedia.org">Moving Picture Experts Group</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p> <i><br><i>H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a standard for video compression. The final drafting work on the first version of the standard was completed in May 2003.</i></i></p><p><i><i><br>H.264/AVC is the latest block-oriented motion-compensation-based codec standard developed by the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) together with the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG), and it was the product of a partnership effort known as the Joint Video Team (JVT). The ITU-T H.264 standard and the ISO/IEC MPEG-4 AVC standard (formally, ISO/IEC 14496-10 - MPEG-4 Part 10, Advanced Video Coding) are jointly maintained so that they have identical technical content. H.264 is used in such applications as Blu-ray Disc, videos from YouTube and the iTunes Store, DVB broadcast, direct-broadcast satellite television service, cable television services, and real-time videoconferencing.</i></i></p><p><i><i><br>The Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) standards body in the United States approved the use of H.264/AVC for broadcast television in July 2008, although the standard is not yet used for ATSC broadcasts within the United States.</i></i></p><p><i><i><br>One of the most notable industries that has benefited greatly from the technology is the CCTV (Close Circuit TV) or Video Surveillance market. Prior to this technology the compression formats used within the industries DVR's Digital Video Recorders was based on low quality compression formats. With the application of the h.264 compression technology the quality of the video recordings [improved dramatically.] Over a short period of time starting in 2008 the surveillance industry promoted h.264 technology as "high quality" video. The term h.264 is now use to identify "high quality" digital recorders verses lower quality recorders.</i> </i></p><p><i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4\_AVC" title="wikipedia.org">H.264/MPEG-4 AVC</a> [wikipedia.org] </i></p><p><br>This stuff is hard.</p><p>It takes years to accomplish anything meaningful.</p><p>H.264 has become deeply - deeply - entrenched across a broad range of industries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I fail to understand why this all seems so difficult .
Put the collective minds together in the FOOS world , come up with a compression scheme for both video and audio and there you have it If life were only that simple : The Moving Picture Experts Group ( MPEG ) was formed by the ISO to set standards for audio and video compression and transmission .
It was established in 1988 .
MPEG has grown to include approximately 350 members per meeting from various industries , universities , and research institutions .
MPEG 's official designation is ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29 WG11 - Coding of moving pictures and audio ( ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 , Subcommittee 29 , Working Group 11 ) .Joint Video Team ( JVT ) is joint project between ITU-T SG16/Q.6 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 for the development of new video coding recommendation and international standard .
Moving Picture Experts Group [ wikipedia.org ] H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a standard for video compression .
The final drafting work on the first version of the standard was completed in May 2003.H.264/AVC is the latest block-oriented motion-compensation-based codec standard developed by the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group ( VCEG ) together with the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group ( MPEG ) , and it was the product of a partnership effort known as the Joint Video Team ( JVT ) .
The ITU-T H.264 standard and the ISO/IEC MPEG-4 AVC standard ( formally , ISO/IEC 14496-10 - MPEG-4 Part 10 , Advanced Video Coding ) are jointly maintained so that they have identical technical content .
H.264 is used in such applications as Blu-ray Disc , videos from YouTube and the iTunes Store , DVB broadcast , direct-broadcast satellite television service , cable television services , and real-time videoconferencing.The Advanced Television Systems Committee ( ATSC ) standards body in the United States approved the use of H.264/AVC for broadcast television in July 2008 , although the standard is not yet used for ATSC broadcasts within the United States.One of the most notable industries that has benefited greatly from the technology is the CCTV ( Close Circuit TV ) or Video Surveillance market .
Prior to this technology the compression formats used within the industries DVR 's Digital Video Recorders was based on low quality compression formats .
With the application of the h.264 compression technology the quality of the video recordings [ improved dramatically .
] Over a short period of time starting in 2008 the surveillance industry promoted h.264 technology as " high quality " video .
The term h.264 is now use to identify " high quality " digital recorders verses lower quality recorders .
H.264/MPEG-4 AVC [ wikipedia.org ] This stuff is hard.It takes years to accomplish anything meaningful.H.264 has become deeply - deeply - entrenched across a broad range of industries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I fail to understand why this all seems so difficult.
Put the collective minds together in the FOOS world, come up with a compression scheme for both video and audio and there you have it If life were only that simple:The Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) was formed by the ISO to set standards for audio and video compression and transmission.
It was established in 1988.
MPEG has grown to include approximately 350 members per meeting from various industries, universities, and research institutions.
MPEG's official designation is ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29 WG11 - Coding of moving pictures and audio (ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1, Subcommittee 29, Working Group 11).Joint Video Team (JVT) is joint project between ITU-T SG16/Q.6 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 for the development of new video coding recommendation and international standard.
Moving Picture Experts Group [wikipedia.org]  H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is a standard for video compression.
The final drafting work on the first version of the standard was completed in May 2003.H.264/AVC is the latest block-oriented motion-compensation-based codec standard developed by the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) together with the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG), and it was the product of a partnership effort known as the Joint Video Team (JVT).
The ITU-T H.264 standard and the ISO/IEC MPEG-4 AVC standard (formally, ISO/IEC 14496-10 - MPEG-4 Part 10, Advanced Video Coding) are jointly maintained so that they have identical technical content.
H.264 is used in such applications as Blu-ray Disc, videos from YouTube and the iTunes Store, DVB broadcast, direct-broadcast satellite television service, cable television services, and real-time videoconferencing.The Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) standards body in the United States approved the use of H.264/AVC for broadcast television in July 2008, although the standard is not yet used for ATSC broadcasts within the United States.One of the most notable industries that has benefited greatly from the technology is the CCTV (Close Circuit TV) or Video Surveillance market.
Prior to this technology the compression formats used within the industries DVR's Digital Video Recorders was based on low quality compression formats.
With the application of the h.264 compression technology the quality of the video recordings [improved dramatically.
] Over a short period of time starting in 2008 the surveillance industry promoted h.264 technology as "high quality" video.
The term h.264 is now use to identify "high quality" digital recorders verses lower quality recorders.
H.264/MPEG-4 AVC [wikipedia.org] This stuff is hard.It takes years to accomplish anything meaningful.H.264 has become deeply - deeply - entrenched across a broad range of industries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043464</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>randallman</author>
	<datestamp>1265393820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll need to transcode twice anyway.  Or can your phone playback h.264 at 1080p?  Yea. Mine neither.  As it stands now, I've got a DV collection that I transcode for family on the web (in theora at full res) and my n800 at 480x240 xvid.  Chances are that h.264 file isn't going to play on all the devices you want it to without a transcode.</p><p>Chicken and the egg.  There was a time when there was no hardware support for h.264.  And now?  Have some backbone and make something happen instead of just being a follower.  If enough of us published videos in theora, it could make a difference.  mp3 made its advance this way.  It's feasible using fallback techniques like "video for everybody".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll need to transcode twice anyway .
Or can your phone playback h.264 at 1080p ?
Yea. Mine neither .
As it stands now , I 've got a DV collection that I transcode for family on the web ( in theora at full res ) and my n800 at 480x240 xvid .
Chances are that h.264 file is n't going to play on all the devices you want it to without a transcode.Chicken and the egg .
There was a time when there was no hardware support for h.264 .
And now ?
Have some backbone and make something happen instead of just being a follower .
If enough of us published videos in theora , it could make a difference .
mp3 made its advance this way .
It 's feasible using fallback techniques like " video for everybody " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll need to transcode twice anyway.
Or can your phone playback h.264 at 1080p?
Yea. Mine neither.
As it stands now, I've got a DV collection that I transcode for family on the web (in theora at full res) and my n800 at 480x240 xvid.
Chances are that h.264 file isn't going to play on all the devices you want it to without a transcode.Chicken and the egg.
There was a time when there was no hardware support for h.264.
And now?
Have some backbone and make something happen instead of just being a follower.
If enough of us published videos in theora, it could make a difference.
mp3 made its advance this way.
It's feasible using fallback techniques like "video for everybody".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043958</id>
	<title>Re:At least you can see the dangling sword</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1265488080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for those of course who can claim to hold patents on AVC and aren't in the MPEG-LA.</p><p>Paying off MPEG-LA only protects you from MPEG-LA.  Submarine patents can still surface from anyone not in that organization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for those of course who can claim to hold patents on AVC and are n't in the MPEG-LA.Paying off MPEG-LA only protects you from MPEG-LA .
Submarine patents can still surface from anyone not in that organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for those of course who can claim to hold patents on AVC and aren't in the MPEG-LA.Paying off MPEG-LA only protects you from MPEG-LA.
Submarine patents can still surface from anyone not in that organization.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265378100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, got a flamebait in record time for that one.</p><p>No offense to the OGG crew and developers, but what you're not getting is that <i>the battle is already lost</i>. The future of web video isn't really in the browser. It's on low-powered appliances like XBoxes, iPhones, iPads, Playstations and the like. And that's now. People are already building libraries in h264 and divx because of this. It's an insurance policy against your media not becoming obsolete like VHS and DVD.</p><p>Divx just slides in because most devices will play it hardware assisted even though you need to install the codecs on a desktop.</p><p>Without hardware decoding on those low-powered devices, and the ability to play your media anywhere you damn well please with no software installs necessary and no transcoding required, you may as well not exist.</p><p>OGG's a fine set of codecs, but if I have to transcode out of it to play on anything but a desktop, basically, I have no use for it and neither does the consumer other than the idea behind it is a quite appealing one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , got a flamebait in record time for that one.No offense to the OGG crew and developers , but what you 're not getting is that the battle is already lost .
The future of web video is n't really in the browser .
It 's on low-powered appliances like XBoxes , iPhones , iPads , Playstations and the like .
And that 's now .
People are already building libraries in h264 and divx because of this .
It 's an insurance policy against your media not becoming obsolete like VHS and DVD.Divx just slides in because most devices will play it hardware assisted even though you need to install the codecs on a desktop.Without hardware decoding on those low-powered devices , and the ability to play your media anywhere you damn well please with no software installs necessary and no transcoding required , you may as well not exist.OGG 's a fine set of codecs , but if I have to transcode out of it to play on anything but a desktop , basically , I have no use for it and neither does the consumer other than the idea behind it is a quite appealing one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, got a flamebait in record time for that one.No offense to the OGG crew and developers, but what you're not getting is that the battle is already lost.
The future of web video isn't really in the browser.
It's on low-powered appliances like XBoxes, iPhones, iPads, Playstations and the like.
And that's now.
People are already building libraries in h264 and divx because of this.
It's an insurance policy against your media not becoming obsolete like VHS and DVD.Divx just slides in because most devices will play it hardware assisted even though you need to install the codecs on a desktop.Without hardware decoding on those low-powered devices, and the ability to play your media anywhere you damn well please with no software installs necessary and no transcoding required, you may as well not exist.OGG's a fine set of codecs, but if I have to transcode out of it to play on anything but a desktop, basically, I have no use for it and neither does the consumer other than the idea behind it is a quite appealing one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042056</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>X0563511</author>
	<datestamp>1265380200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MKV is a container. OGG is container. H.264 is a codec.</p><p>Basket vs Fruit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MKV is a container .
OGG is container .
H.264 is a codec.Basket vs Fruit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MKV is a container.
OGG is container.
H.264 is a codec.Basket vs Fruit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042340</id>
	<title>You're going to have to transcode anyways</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265382180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The iphone's hardware decoder can only play <a href="http://blog.dest-unreach.be/2009/09/08/h264-limits-for-iphone" title="dest-unreach.be" rel="nofollow">a fairly limited subset</a> [dest-unreach.be] of h264. Same thing for most other hardware decoders. The subset makes h264 just as weak as Theora, a fact the Xiph people quietly exploited in their <a href="http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html" title="xiph.org" rel="nofollow">comparison with youtube</a> [xiph.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The iphone 's hardware decoder can only play a fairly limited subset [ dest-unreach.be ] of h264 .
Same thing for most other hardware decoders .
The subset makes h264 just as weak as Theora , a fact the Xiph people quietly exploited in their comparison with youtube [ xiph.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The iphone's hardware decoder can only play a fairly limited subset [dest-unreach.be] of h264.
Same thing for most other hardware decoders.
The subset makes h264 just as weak as Theora, a fact the Xiph people quietly exploited in their comparison with youtube [xiph.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042172</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>NitroWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1265381100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>MKV files don't work on bloody anything reliably except VLC, even though they're theoretically an h264 variant. Then you have various other mpeg4 flavors, and that's pretty much it in terms of getting HD content out there at reasonable bandwidth.</p><p>We've been using wrapper plug-ins as a dirty, hacky path to web video since the launch of the web proper. Enough's enough.</p><p>So TLDR: no, no, no, no no</p></div><p>MKV files work just fine in anything that uses mplayer as it's base, pretty much.  Which describes a rather large portion of the available media players out there.  I've not had any problems playing it back in the last year or so.  Prior to that, I would have agreed with you, but the last year or so has seen it become pretty standard and a robust container format.</p><p>As a point of fact,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.MKV has nothing to do with H.264.  You can have just about any type of file in the MKV container, not just H.264.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MKV files do n't work on bloody anything reliably except VLC , even though they 're theoretically an h264 variant .
Then you have various other mpeg4 flavors , and that 's pretty much it in terms of getting HD content out there at reasonable bandwidth.We 've been using wrapper plug-ins as a dirty , hacky path to web video since the launch of the web proper .
Enough 's enough.So TLDR : no , no , no , no noMKV files work just fine in anything that uses mplayer as it 's base , pretty much .
Which describes a rather large portion of the available media players out there .
I 've not had any problems playing it back in the last year or so .
Prior to that , I would have agreed with you , but the last year or so has seen it become pretty standard and a robust container format.As a point of fact , .MKV has nothing to do with H.264 .
You can have just about any type of file in the MKV container , not just H.264 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MKV files don't work on bloody anything reliably except VLC, even though they're theoretically an h264 variant.
Then you have various other mpeg4 flavors, and that's pretty much it in terms of getting HD content out there at reasonable bandwidth.We've been using wrapper plug-ins as a dirty, hacky path to web video since the launch of the web proper.
Enough's enough.So TLDR: no, no, no, no noMKV files work just fine in anything that uses mplayer as it's base, pretty much.
Which describes a rather large portion of the available media players out there.
I've not had any problems playing it back in the last year or so.
Prior to that, I would have agreed with you, but the last year or so has seen it become pretty standard and a robust container format.As a point of fact, .MKV has nothing to do with H.264.
You can have just about any type of file in the MKV container, not just H.264.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546</id>
	<title>Video for Everyone code hack is the solution</title>
	<author>jroysdon</author>
	<datestamp>1265376360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For now, the <a href="http://jason.roysdon.net/2010/02/01/html5-video-ogg-theora-h264/" title="roysdon.net">Video for Everyone code hack</a> [roysdon.net] is the solution.  Works on Firefox, Opera, and Chrome natively with Ogg Theora, and Safari natively with H.264, and Internet Explorer with Flash (loading the H.264 content).</p><p>Naturally the best solution would be that everyone implements Ogg Theora as a standard fall-back solution, and use their "better/proprietary" solution when available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For now , the Video for Everyone code hack [ roysdon.net ] is the solution .
Works on Firefox , Opera , and Chrome natively with Ogg Theora , and Safari natively with H.264 , and Internet Explorer with Flash ( loading the H.264 content ) .Naturally the best solution would be that everyone implements Ogg Theora as a standard fall-back solution , and use their " better/proprietary " solution when available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For now, the Video for Everyone code hack [roysdon.net] is the solution.
Works on Firefox, Opera, and Chrome natively with Ogg Theora, and Safari natively with H.264, and Internet Explorer with Flash (loading the H.264 content).Naturally the best solution would be that everyone implements Ogg Theora as a standard fall-back solution, and use their "better/proprietary" solution when available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043934</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>node 3</author>
	<datestamp>1265487780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>h.264 video outnumbers Theora video on the web by many orders of magnitude. Perhaps you missed the memo, but YouTube, Apple and Hulu all use h.264 extensively. Asserting that h.264 has somehow lost is delusional.</p><p>As it stands, h.264 is the dominant web format for new video, only possibly outnumbered by legacy videos (which are very much *not* encoded with Theora).</p><p>Claiming that 1/4 of the desktops on the web can't view h.264 is rather amusing given that the vast majority of Firefox installs play h.264 just fine, as they almost universally have the Flash plug-in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>h.264 video outnumbers Theora video on the web by many orders of magnitude .
Perhaps you missed the memo , but YouTube , Apple and Hulu all use h.264 extensively .
Asserting that h.264 has somehow lost is delusional.As it stands , h.264 is the dominant web format for new video , only possibly outnumbered by legacy videos ( which are very much * not * encoded with Theora ) .Claiming that 1/4 of the desktops on the web ca n't view h.264 is rather amusing given that the vast majority of Firefox installs play h.264 just fine , as they almost universally have the Flash plug-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>h.264 video outnumbers Theora video on the web by many orders of magnitude.
Perhaps you missed the memo, but YouTube, Apple and Hulu all use h.264 extensively.
Asserting that h.264 has somehow lost is delusional.As it stands, h.264 is the dominant web format for new video, only possibly outnumbered by legacy videos (which are very much *not* encoded with Theora).Claiming that 1/4 of the desktops on the web can't view h.264 is rather amusing given that the vast majority of Firefox installs play h.264 just fine, as they almost universally have the Flash plug-in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044428</id>
	<title>Youtube already recode</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265455500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Youtube already recode. Youtube existed before they used H264 (they used H.262 before, and what before that?). So they had to change once. Add to that that many submissions to Youtube aren't in H.264 or the right resolutions or the right bitrate etc, so are transcoded by Youtube as it is.</p><p>Your argument is just that: an argument not a reason. Full of fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtube already recode .
Youtube existed before they used H264 ( they used H.262 before , and what before that ? ) .
So they had to change once .
Add to that that many submissions to Youtube are n't in H.264 or the right resolutions or the right bitrate etc , so are transcoded by Youtube as it is.Your argument is just that : an argument not a reason .
Full of fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtube already recode.
Youtube existed before they used H264 (they used H.262 before, and what before that?).
So they had to change once.
Add to that that many submissions to Youtube aren't in H.264 or the right resolutions or the right bitrate etc, so are transcoded by Youtube as it is.Your argument is just that: an argument not a reason.
Full of fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044252</id>
	<title>Re:Can Flash be used to pull the same trick?</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1265452200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As a side note, this also means that Silverlight CLR JIT produces code that's fast (not just "fast enough", but actually "high-performance", at least if the claims are true) for a video codec, which is quite impressive.</i></p><p>Note that xiph.org has a Java applet based Theora player, so this isn't actually anything particularly new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a side note , this also means that Silverlight CLR JIT produces code that 's fast ( not just " fast enough " , but actually " high-performance " , at least if the claims are true ) for a video codec , which is quite impressive.Note that xiph.org has a Java applet based Theora player , so this is n't actually anything particularly new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a side note, this also means that Silverlight CLR JIT produces code that's fast (not just "fast enough", but actually "high-performance", at least if the claims are true) for a video codec, which is quite impressive.Note that xiph.org has a Java applet based Theora player, so this isn't actually anything particularly new.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31045460</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1265471100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're making the same mistake as the people on the Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD 'fight'. It's not about who has a bigger share, but whether either has a share comparable to that which came before it. And face it, h.264+HTML5 was designed to *replace* h.264+flash, so the prevalence of the latter isn't a testament to the former's triumph, so to speak, but rather of the exact opposite.</p><p>If h.264 wrapped in flash continues being the de-facto standard of the web, then we have won nothing. And that's exactly what's going to happen if Apple continues to refuse Theora, for the reasons I've already explained.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're making the same mistake as the people on the Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD 'fight' .
It 's not about who has a bigger share , but whether either has a share comparable to that which came before it .
And face it , h.264 + HTML5 was designed to * replace * h.264 + flash , so the prevalence of the latter is n't a testament to the former 's triumph , so to speak , but rather of the exact opposite.If h.264 wrapped in flash continues being the de-facto standard of the web , then we have won nothing .
And that 's exactly what 's going to happen if Apple continues to refuse Theora , for the reasons I 've already explained .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're making the same mistake as the people on the Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD 'fight'.
It's not about who has a bigger share, but whether either has a share comparable to that which came before it.
And face it, h.264+HTML5 was designed to *replace* h.264+flash, so the prevalence of the latter isn't a testament to the former's triumph, so to speak, but rather of the exact opposite.If h.264 wrapped in flash continues being the de-facto standard of the web, then we have won nothing.
And that's exactly what's going to happen if Apple continues to refuse Theora, for the reasons I've already explained.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041658</id>
	<title>Can Flash be used to pull the same trick?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265377140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a more technical side, I found this bit in TFA interesting:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We'll be releasing a high-performance decoder for Theora video/Ogg Vorbis audio streams that plugs into the Silverlight 3 <b>streaming media abstraction</b><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>I know little about Silverlight, only the most general look and feel, and capabilities. Does this mean that it actually has extensible codec framework, that can be extended from managed code (since any SL code has to be managed, so that it can be properly sandboxed - same as Java applets which cannot e.g. use JNI)?</p><p>If so, the next logical question is - can the same thing be done with Flash, architecturally?</p><p>As a side note, this also means that Silverlight CLR JIT produces code that's fast (not just "fast enough", but actually "high-performance", at least if the claims are true) for a video codec, which is quite impressive. I'm not sure you could reach the same levels with ActionScript, due to its inherently dynamic nature, even with Adobe's JIT. But perhaps I'm underestimating the ability of modern JS JIT compilers to do static type inference, and consequent optimization based on that type information?</p><p>Either way, pragmatically, this means that any browser running on Windows will be able to play Theora after installing Silverlight - which, by the way, pops up in "recommended updates" list in Windows Update as soon as you install Windows. While Silverlight plugin is only officially supported on Windows in IE and Firefox, IIRC, I haven't had any problems using it in Opera regularly, and I've seen it work in Chrome, so it does seem to be mostly browser-agnostic.</p><p>It would be very ironic if Chrome running under proprietary Windows and OS X could play Theora, while Chrome on Linux would only support H.264.</p><p>But somehow, I don't think that will matter. Ultimately, Google is the 800-pound gorilla here because of YouTube, and most likely whichever they will go with (and they have already said they want H.264) will become the de facto standard. Apple could probably steal the day, but they stand by H.264 as well...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a more technical side , I found this bit in TFA interesting : We 'll be releasing a high-performance decoder for Theora video/Ogg Vorbis audio streams that plugs into the Silverlight 3 streaming media abstraction ...I know little about Silverlight , only the most general look and feel , and capabilities .
Does this mean that it actually has extensible codec framework , that can be extended from managed code ( since any SL code has to be managed , so that it can be properly sandboxed - same as Java applets which can not e.g .
use JNI ) ? If so , the next logical question is - can the same thing be done with Flash , architecturally ? As a side note , this also means that Silverlight CLR JIT produces code that 's fast ( not just " fast enough " , but actually " high-performance " , at least if the claims are true ) for a video codec , which is quite impressive .
I 'm not sure you could reach the same levels with ActionScript , due to its inherently dynamic nature , even with Adobe 's JIT .
But perhaps I 'm underestimating the ability of modern JS JIT compilers to do static type inference , and consequent optimization based on that type information ? Either way , pragmatically , this means that any browser running on Windows will be able to play Theora after installing Silverlight - which , by the way , pops up in " recommended updates " list in Windows Update as soon as you install Windows .
While Silverlight plugin is only officially supported on Windows in IE and Firefox , IIRC , I have n't had any problems using it in Opera regularly , and I 've seen it work in Chrome , so it does seem to be mostly browser-agnostic.It would be very ironic if Chrome running under proprietary Windows and OS X could play Theora , while Chrome on Linux would only support H.264.But somehow , I do n't think that will matter .
Ultimately , Google is the 800-pound gorilla here because of YouTube , and most likely whichever they will go with ( and they have already said they want H.264 ) will become the de facto standard .
Apple could probably steal the day , but they stand by H.264 as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a more technical side, I found this bit in TFA interesting:We'll be releasing a high-performance decoder for Theora video/Ogg Vorbis audio streams that plugs into the Silverlight 3 streaming media abstraction ...I know little about Silverlight, only the most general look and feel, and capabilities.
Does this mean that it actually has extensible codec framework, that can be extended from managed code (since any SL code has to be managed, so that it can be properly sandboxed - same as Java applets which cannot e.g.
use JNI)?If so, the next logical question is - can the same thing be done with Flash, architecturally?As a side note, this also means that Silverlight CLR JIT produces code that's fast (not just "fast enough", but actually "high-performance", at least if the claims are true) for a video codec, which is quite impressive.
I'm not sure you could reach the same levels with ActionScript, due to its inherently dynamic nature, even with Adobe's JIT.
But perhaps I'm underestimating the ability of modern JS JIT compilers to do static type inference, and consequent optimization based on that type information?Either way, pragmatically, this means that any browser running on Windows will be able to play Theora after installing Silverlight - which, by the way, pops up in "recommended updates" list in Windows Update as soon as you install Windows.
While Silverlight plugin is only officially supported on Windows in IE and Firefox, IIRC, I haven't had any problems using it in Opera regularly, and I've seen it work in Chrome, so it does seem to be mostly browser-agnostic.It would be very ironic if Chrome running under proprietary Windows and OS X could play Theora, while Chrome on Linux would only support H.264.But somehow, I don't think that will matter.
Ultimately, Google is the 800-pound gorilla here because of YouTube, and most likely whichever they will go with (and they have already said they want H.264) will become the de facto standard.
Apple could probably steal the day, but they stand by H.264 as well...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044540</id>
	<title>Video professionals don't have a problem with H264</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265457240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Analogy: Ogg Theora is to video what Intelligent Design is to biology, in that it's almost completely irrelevant to the large body of experts and professionals in the field, and is clung to by a small body of religious zealots, because the realities of the field (the wide acceptance of a patent-encumbered technology on one hand, the repudiation of the Creation story on the other) is deeply offensive to the True Believers.  Ogg has nothing going for it except its compatibility with the Open Source religion, but that's irrelevant to just about everyone who actually produces or consumes media.</p><p>Sorry, but this just doesn't matter, and isn't going to, no matter how many stories get posted to Slashdot about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Analogy : Ogg Theora is to video what Intelligent Design is to biology , in that it 's almost completely irrelevant to the large body of experts and professionals in the field , and is clung to by a small body of religious zealots , because the realities of the field ( the wide acceptance of a patent-encumbered technology on one hand , the repudiation of the Creation story on the other ) is deeply offensive to the True Believers .
Ogg has nothing going for it except its compatibility with the Open Source religion , but that 's irrelevant to just about everyone who actually produces or consumes media.Sorry , but this just does n't matter , and is n't going to , no matter how many stories get posted to Slashdot about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Analogy: Ogg Theora is to video what Intelligent Design is to biology, in that it's almost completely irrelevant to the large body of experts and professionals in the field, and is clung to by a small body of religious zealots, because the realities of the field (the wide acceptance of a patent-encumbered technology on one hand, the repudiation of the Creation story on the other) is deeply offensive to the True Believers.
Ogg has nothing going for it except its compatibility with the Open Source religion, but that's irrelevant to just about everyone who actually produces or consumes media.Sorry, but this just doesn't matter, and isn't going to, no matter how many stories get posted to Slashdot about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042084</id>
	<title>Re:Why doesn't Adobe just open-source Flash?</title>
	<author>seanalltogether</author>
	<datestamp>1265380380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open sourcing the flash player opens it up to design by committee politics which Adobe doesn't want. They can't sell a new version of CS7 if they can't get all the Flash players to implement the new features. Sun actually got caught by this problem as they've been trying to push JavaFX. JavaFX works great with features introduced in Java 6, but since Apple controls java on the mac, they've been crippled with Java 5 compatibility on Leopard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open sourcing the flash player opens it up to design by committee politics which Adobe does n't want .
They ca n't sell a new version of CS7 if they ca n't get all the Flash players to implement the new features .
Sun actually got caught by this problem as they 've been trying to push JavaFX .
JavaFX works great with features introduced in Java 6 , but since Apple controls java on the mac , they 've been crippled with Java 5 compatibility on Leopard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open sourcing the flash player opens it up to design by committee politics which Adobe doesn't want.
They can't sell a new version of CS7 if they can't get all the Flash players to implement the new features.
Sun actually got caught by this problem as they've been trying to push JavaFX.
JavaFX works great with features introduced in Java 6, but since Apple controls java on the mac, they've been crippled with Java 5 compatibility on Leopard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043538</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Sir Homer</author>
	<datestamp>1265394960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thoera already has larger browser penetration then H.264:</p><p>- Firefox supports Theora, no support for H.264<br>- Opera supports Theora, no support for H.264<br>- Chrome supports Theora and H.264 (Chromium only supports Theora)<br>- Safari only supports H.264 by default</p><p>So the odd one out here is 3-4\% marketshare Safari with it's lack of Theora.</p><p>Basically you are talking about, at best, 10\% market penetration for HTML5 H.264, compared to 36\% with Theora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thoera already has larger browser penetration then H.264 : - Firefox supports Theora , no support for H.264- Opera supports Theora , no support for H.264- Chrome supports Theora and H.264 ( Chromium only supports Theora ) - Safari only supports H.264 by defaultSo the odd one out here is 3-4 \ % marketshare Safari with it 's lack of Theora.Basically you are talking about , at best , 10 \ % market penetration for HTML5 H.264 , compared to 36 \ % with Theora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thoera already has larger browser penetration then H.264:- Firefox supports Theora, no support for H.264- Opera supports Theora, no support for H.264- Chrome supports Theora and H.264 (Chromium only supports Theora)- Safari only supports H.264 by defaultSo the odd one out here is 3-4\% marketshare Safari with it's lack of Theora.Basically you are talking about, at best, 10\% market penetration for HTML5 H.264, compared to 36\% with Theora.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041616</id>
	<title>Re:Video for Everyone code hack is the solution</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1265376900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For now, the Video for Everyone code hack is the solution. Works on Firefox, Opera, and Chrome natively with Ogg Theora, and Safari natively with H.264, and Internet Explorer with Flash (loading the H.264 content).</p></div></blockquote><p>Great, now just go tell YouTube, Vimeo, etc. to convert all their terabytes (probably exabytes) of H.264 content into Theora... I'm sure they wouldn't mind double the work and storage requirements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For now , the Video for Everyone code hack is the solution .
Works on Firefox , Opera , and Chrome natively with Ogg Theora , and Safari natively with H.264 , and Internet Explorer with Flash ( loading the H.264 content ) .Great , now just go tell YouTube , Vimeo , etc .
to convert all their terabytes ( probably exabytes ) of H.264 content into Theora... I 'm sure they would n't mind double the work and storage requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For now, the Video for Everyone code hack is the solution.
Works on Firefox, Opera, and Chrome natively with Ogg Theora, and Safari natively with H.264, and Internet Explorer with Flash (loading the H.264 content).Great, now just go tell YouTube, Vimeo, etc.
to convert all their terabytes (probably exabytes) of H.264 content into Theora... I'm sure they wouldn't mind double the work and storage requirements.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041648</id>
	<title>Has a de facto standard ever lost?</title>
	<author>Goner</author>
	<datestamp>1265377080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By virtue of the de facto status, it seems like anything that the majority of people use will never be superceded by anything that barely matches or only slightly improves on the de facto standard.  From <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/ayb23/theora\_is\_not\_advanced\_enough\_to\_be\_the\_next/" title="reddit.com">what I've read</a> [reddit.com] Theora is quite bare-bones compared to H.264 and hasn't been designed with hardware decoding in mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By virtue of the de facto status , it seems like anything that the majority of people use will never be superceded by anything that barely matches or only slightly improves on the de facto standard .
From what I 've read [ reddit.com ] Theora is quite bare-bones compared to H.264 and has n't been designed with hardware decoding in mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By virtue of the de facto status, it seems like anything that the majority of people use will never be superceded by anything that barely matches or only slightly improves on the de facto standard.
From what I've read [reddit.com] Theora is quite bare-bones compared to H.264 and hasn't been designed with hardware decoding in mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041770</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265377800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash &amp; Silverlight are good for the web - they allow the web to do stuff that it takes years for standards bodies to come up with.  How long has it been since HTML 4 was released and how long till we see HTML 5.  Flash (&amp; to a less extent Silverlight) have allowed that innovation in web UI's to take place at a faster pace than the standards bodies ever could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash &amp; Silverlight are good for the web - they allow the web to do stuff that it takes years for standards bodies to come up with .
How long has it been since HTML 4 was released and how long till we see HTML 5 .
Flash ( &amp; to a less extent Silverlight ) have allowed that innovation in web UI 's to take place at a faster pace than the standards bodies ever could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash &amp; Silverlight are good for the web - they allow the web to do stuff that it takes years for standards bodies to come up with.
How long has it been since HTML 4 was released and how long till we see HTML 5.
Flash (&amp; to a less extent Silverlight) have allowed that innovation in web UI's to take place at a faster pace than the standards bodies ever could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043044</id>
	<title>Re:Video for Everyone code hack is the solution</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1265388780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Great, now just go tell YouTube, Vimeo, etc. to convert all their terabytes (probably exabytes) of H.264 content into Theora.</p></div><p>I doubt that it is exabytes.  Youtube only recently started doing higher-quality videos in h264, most everything else was some other format, probably h263.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sure they wouldn't mind double the work and storage requirements.</p></div><p>While h264 is somewhat more efficient than ogg theora, it ain't 2x more efficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great , now just go tell YouTube , Vimeo , etc .
to convert all their terabytes ( probably exabytes ) of H.264 content into Theora.I doubt that it is exabytes .
Youtube only recently started doing higher-quality videos in h264 , most everything else was some other format , probably h263.I 'm sure they would n't mind double the work and storage requirements.While h264 is somewhat more efficient than ogg theora , it ai n't 2x more efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great, now just go tell YouTube, Vimeo, etc.
to convert all their terabytes (probably exabytes) of H.264 content into Theora.I doubt that it is exabytes.
Youtube only recently started doing higher-quality videos in h264, most everything else was some other format, probably h263.I'm sure they wouldn't mind double the work and storage requirements.While h264 is somewhat more efficient than ogg theora, it ain't 2x more efficient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31045106</id>
	<title>Re:Just line any crime, follow the money</title>
	<author>digitalcowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1265466660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>And a shout out to all you libertarian morons out there: THIS IS A TAX!!! It is a tax collected by corrupt self serving insiders who have subverted the legal system. It restrains trade and stifles innovation. It is not subject to competition. Those who are taxed have no say in the matter. It is arbitrary, and you cannot escape it by taking your business elsewhere. It is all the things you claim to hate about government. How come you this behavior is good when done by business for greed and bad when done by governments, which are more accountable to the people?</em></p><p>Huh?  Wha?  I was sound asleep until you started shouting.</p><p>But since you so rudely awakened me...  Does the MPEG-LA have a legal right to use violent force to further their agenda?</p><p>That's the difference.  Thanks for checking in to ask.</p><p>(Also, all of your complaints about them trace back to government corruption.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And a shout out to all you libertarian morons out there : THIS IS A TAX ! ! !
It is a tax collected by corrupt self serving insiders who have subverted the legal system .
It restrains trade and stifles innovation .
It is not subject to competition .
Those who are taxed have no say in the matter .
It is arbitrary , and you can not escape it by taking your business elsewhere .
It is all the things you claim to hate about government .
How come you this behavior is good when done by business for greed and bad when done by governments , which are more accountable to the people ? Huh ?
Wha ? I was sound asleep until you started shouting.But since you so rudely awakened me... Does the MPEG-LA have a legal right to use violent force to further their agenda ? That 's the difference .
Thanks for checking in to ask .
( Also , all of your complaints about them trace back to government corruption .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And a shout out to all you libertarian morons out there: THIS IS A TAX!!!
It is a tax collected by corrupt self serving insiders who have subverted the legal system.
It restrains trade and stifles innovation.
It is not subject to competition.
Those who are taxed have no say in the matter.
It is arbitrary, and you cannot escape it by taking your business elsewhere.
It is all the things you claim to hate about government.
How come you this behavior is good when done by business for greed and bad when done by governments, which are more accountable to the people?Huh?
Wha?  I was sound asleep until you started shouting.But since you so rudely awakened me...  Does the MPEG-LA have a legal right to use violent force to further their agenda?That's the difference.
Thanks for checking in to ask.
(Also, all of your complaints about them trace back to government corruption.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044980</id>
	<title>Re:Eww...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265464800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You haven't dealt with Adobe if you think MS is scummier<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't dealt with Adobe if you think MS is scummier ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't dealt with Adobe if you think MS is scummier ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044452</id>
	<title>Re:Eww...</title>
	<author>arizonagroovejet</author>
	<datestamp>1265455800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silverlight is worse than Flash in that it's produced by a company that tends to openly discriminate against people who are not using one particular operating system. The last thing the world wide web needs is something that's basically Flash but only works properly on one operating system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silverlight is worse than Flash in that it 's produced by a company that tends to openly discriminate against people who are not using one particular operating system .
The last thing the world wide web needs is something that 's basically Flash but only works properly on one operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silverlight is worse than Flash in that it's produced by a company that tends to openly discriminate against people who are not using one particular operating system.
The last thing the world wide web needs is something that's basically Flash but only works properly on one operating system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31085734</id>
	<title>Better than nothing</title>
	<author>DrYak</author>
	<datestamp>1265039880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the open-source community will be stuck with emulated, software-only, lower-quality Theora.  That doesn't sound like a good outcome</p></div><p>But it's still an outcome.<br>A little something is much better than nothing at all.<br>Lower quality, software-only Theora is better than no video at all.</p><p>And this buys us time until we can develop a good better quality alternative (just like PNG replaced GIF as a web standart).<br>Better start pouring some resource and brain cells into Dirac/Schroedinger, Tarkin, Google latest acquisition and other crazy modern ideas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the open-source community will be stuck with emulated , software-only , lower-quality Theora .
That does n't sound like a good outcomeBut it 's still an outcome.A little something is much better than nothing at all.Lower quality , software-only Theora is better than no video at all.And this buys us time until we can develop a good better quality alternative ( just like PNG replaced GIF as a web standart ) .Better start pouring some resource and brain cells into Dirac/Schroedinger , Tarkin , Google latest acquisition and other crazy modern ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the open-source community will be stuck with emulated, software-only, lower-quality Theora.
That doesn't sound like a good outcomeBut it's still an outcome.A little something is much better than nothing at all.Lower quality, software-only Theora is better than no video at all.And this buys us time until we can develop a good better quality alternative (just like PNG replaced GIF as a web standart).Better start pouring some resource and brain cells into Dirac/Schroedinger, Tarkin, Google latest acquisition and other crazy modern ideas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044110</id>
	<title>Re:Can Flash be used to pull the same trick?</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1265448960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Mar-24-1.html" title="tirania.org">You can write codecs for Silverlight 3</a> [tirania.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can write codecs for Silverlight 3 [ tirania.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can write codecs for Silverlight 3 [tirania.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044368</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265454420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And *that* is a fine example of people not getting it.<br>Creating libraries of movies in a patented format means you are gambling on the future: will you be able to decode these movies in 20 years' time, legally ?<br>Well, you do not know.<br>That's the whole POINT of Theora: it's free, and you'll be able to do whatever you want with your data at any time in the future, regardless of whatever the MPEG-LA gets to decide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And * that * is a fine example of people not getting it.Creating libraries of movies in a patented format means you are gambling on the future : will you be able to decode these movies in 20 years ' time , legally ? Well , you do not know.That 's the whole POINT of Theora : it 's free , and you 'll be able to do whatever you want with your data at any time in the future , regardless of whatever the MPEG-LA gets to decide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And *that* is a fine example of people not getting it.Creating libraries of movies in a patented format means you are gambling on the future: will you be able to decode these movies in 20 years' time, legally ?Well, you do not know.That's the whole POINT of Theora: it's free, and you'll be able to do whatever you want with your data at any time in the future, regardless of whatever the MPEG-LA gets to decide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044096</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265448720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"can't be cached locally"   - of course it can but silverlight leaves that to website developers rather than viewers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ca n't be cached locally " - of course it can but silverlight leaves that to website developers rather than viewers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"can't be cached locally"   - of course it can but silverlight leaves that to website developers rather than viewers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042378</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265382480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's on low-powered appliances like XBoxes, iPhones, iPads, Playstations and the like.</p></div><p>The PS3 and Xbox 360 are enormously powerful. The original Xbox does not do a good job of playing H.264. The PS2 does not do a good job of playing <em>anything</em>. What were you saying, again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's on low-powered appliances like XBoxes , iPhones , iPads , Playstations and the like.The PS3 and Xbox 360 are enormously powerful .
The original Xbox does not do a good job of playing H.264 .
The PS2 does not do a good job of playing anything .
What were you saying , again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's on low-powered appliances like XBoxes, iPhones, iPads, Playstations and the like.The PS3 and Xbox 360 are enormously powerful.
The original Xbox does not do a good job of playing H.264.
The PS2 does not do a good job of playing anything.
What were you saying, again?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</id>
	<title>Doublespeak</title>
	<author>dr00g911</author>
	<datestamp>1265376240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Installs in Silverlight but doesn't require additional software?</p><p>Huh? That's full-on doublespeak.</p><p>I'm not sure that the words "standards" and "just works" mean the same thing to some folks. Developing an open source project that uses Silverlight as a platform, while admirable, is pretty suspect on the philosophical front unless there's an angle here.</p><p>Just like Adobe, MS wants Silverlight as THE web platform of the future too. And while some folks might deride Apple for lacking plug-in support of any kind on the iPhone/iPad, it's achieved more in the uptick of standards-compliant sites in the last few years than all the other guys combined.</p><p>Silverlight's as bad as Flash, long-term, for the web. Worse in-fact because it supports DRM out of the box and can't be cached locally. Yay for big media control and zero benefit for the consumer other than streaming Netflix sucking less than the competition currently. Now if they'd only do something about having decent stuff available to stream.</p><p>H264's patent encumbered, but is a supported, documented standard. Ogg will never take off. MKV files don't work on bloody anything reliably except VLC, even though they're theoretically an h264 variant. Then you have various other mpeg4 flavors, and that's pretty much it in terms of getting HD content out there at reasonable bandwidth.</p><p>We've been using wrapper plug-ins as a dirty, hacky path to web video since the launch of the web proper. Enough's enough.</p><p>So TLDR: no, no, no, no no</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Installs in Silverlight but does n't require additional software ? Huh ?
That 's full-on doublespeak.I 'm not sure that the words " standards " and " just works " mean the same thing to some folks .
Developing an open source project that uses Silverlight as a platform , while admirable , is pretty suspect on the philosophical front unless there 's an angle here.Just like Adobe , MS wants Silverlight as THE web platform of the future too .
And while some folks might deride Apple for lacking plug-in support of any kind on the iPhone/iPad , it 's achieved more in the uptick of standards-compliant sites in the last few years than all the other guys combined.Silverlight 's as bad as Flash , long-term , for the web .
Worse in-fact because it supports DRM out of the box and ca n't be cached locally .
Yay for big media control and zero benefit for the consumer other than streaming Netflix sucking less than the competition currently .
Now if they 'd only do something about having decent stuff available to stream.H264 's patent encumbered , but is a supported , documented standard .
Ogg will never take off .
MKV files do n't work on bloody anything reliably except VLC , even though they 're theoretically an h264 variant .
Then you have various other mpeg4 flavors , and that 's pretty much it in terms of getting HD content out there at reasonable bandwidth.We 've been using wrapper plug-ins as a dirty , hacky path to web video since the launch of the web proper .
Enough 's enough.So TLDR : no , no , no , no no</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Installs in Silverlight but doesn't require additional software?Huh?
That's full-on doublespeak.I'm not sure that the words "standards" and "just works" mean the same thing to some folks.
Developing an open source project that uses Silverlight as a platform, while admirable, is pretty suspect on the philosophical front unless there's an angle here.Just like Adobe, MS wants Silverlight as THE web platform of the future too.
And while some folks might deride Apple for lacking plug-in support of any kind on the iPhone/iPad, it's achieved more in the uptick of standards-compliant sites in the last few years than all the other guys combined.Silverlight's as bad as Flash, long-term, for the web.
Worse in-fact because it supports DRM out of the box and can't be cached locally.
Yay for big media control and zero benefit for the consumer other than streaming Netflix sucking less than the competition currently.
Now if they'd only do something about having decent stuff available to stream.H264's patent encumbered, but is a supported, documented standard.
Ogg will never take off.
MKV files don't work on bloody anything reliably except VLC, even though they're theoretically an h264 variant.
Then you have various other mpeg4 flavors, and that's pretty much it in terms of getting HD content out there at reasonable bandwidth.We've been using wrapper plug-ins as a dirty, hacky path to web video since the launch of the web proper.
Enough's enough.So TLDR: no, no, no, no no</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041792</id>
	<title>Cluestick for the H264 crew</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1265377860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lower their prices. Opera moaned about how extortionate they are. It's reasonable that they should charge something, but make it small. They'll get a lot more cash in the long in the run, and everybody will be happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lower their prices .
Opera moaned about how extortionate they are .
It 's reasonable that they should charge something , but make it small .
They 'll get a lot more cash in the long in the run , and everybody will be happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lower their prices.
Opera moaned about how extortionate they are.
It's reasonable that they should charge something, but make it small.
They'll get a lot more cash in the long in the run, and everybody will be happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043810</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265398980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... no website will pay MPEG-LA's extortion fees and exclude over a fourth of desktop users and a significant part of mobile ones in the process.</p></div><p>Except they already have decided to do just that.  See YouTube and DailyMotion.  You're kidding yourself if you think Mozilla has enough clout to have any input, and Opera obviously has less-than-zero clout.  The decision is not really for browser vendors to make, it's already been made by the low-powered device industry as well as online content providers.  The Firefox market share climb has already stalled, and they will fall quickly if they can't or won't support the format that people are streaming on popular sites with other browsers and on their low-powered devices with h.264 hardware acceleration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... no website will pay MPEG-LA 's extortion fees and exclude over a fourth of desktop users and a significant part of mobile ones in the process.Except they already have decided to do just that .
See YouTube and DailyMotion .
You 're kidding yourself if you think Mozilla has enough clout to have any input , and Opera obviously has less-than-zero clout .
The decision is not really for browser vendors to make , it 's already been made by the low-powered device industry as well as online content providers .
The Firefox market share climb has already stalled , and they will fall quickly if they ca n't or wo n't support the format that people are streaming on popular sites with other browsers and on their low-powered devices with h.264 hardware acceleration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... no website will pay MPEG-LA's extortion fees and exclude over a fourth of desktop users and a significant part of mobile ones in the process.Except they already have decided to do just that.
See YouTube and DailyMotion.
You're kidding yourself if you think Mozilla has enough clout to have any input, and Opera obviously has less-than-zero clout.
The decision is not really for browser vendors to make, it's already been made by the low-powered device industry as well as online content providers.
The Firefox market share climb has already stalled, and they will fall quickly if they can't or won't support the format that people are streaming on popular sites with other browsers and on their low-powered devices with h.264 hardware acceleration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041858</id>
	<title>Chromium + ffmpeg-nonfree = OSS H.264 HTML5 video</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1265378400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the title pretty much sums it up, there's now an open source solution for watching videos online and I will most certainly use it. Silverlight or Firefox with flash? Who wants to use closed source software, and Microsoft's EEE plugin or that horrible plugin from Adobe of all things? Not me. At least we're replacing the closed nonfree video with open nonfree video.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the title pretty much sums it up , there 's now an open source solution for watching videos online and I will most certainly use it .
Silverlight or Firefox with flash ?
Who wants to use closed source software , and Microsoft 's EEE plugin or that horrible plugin from Adobe of all things ?
Not me .
At least we 're replacing the closed nonfree video with open nonfree video .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the title pretty much sums it up, there's now an open source solution for watching videos online and I will most certainly use it.
Silverlight or Firefox with flash?
Who wants to use closed source software, and Microsoft's EEE plugin or that horrible plugin from Adobe of all things?
Not me.
At least we're replacing the closed nonfree video with open nonfree video.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041844</id>
	<title>Re:No additional software?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265378220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention the fact that is has absolutely nothing to do with decoding as to why it hasn't been chosen by most.</p><p>Unless the format is improved, sadly, H.264 will win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the fact that is has absolutely nothing to do with decoding as to why it has n't been chosen by most.Unless the format is improved , sadly , H.264 will win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the fact that is has absolutely nothing to do with decoding as to why it hasn't been chosen by most.Unless the format is improved, sadly, H.264 will win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041786</id>
	<title>Re:Video for Everyone code hack is the solution</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265377860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I understand one of the main arguments of Theora supporters correctly, the problem is that H.264 requires <em>website owners</em> to pay up for a license, eventually. So you can use Flash/Silverlight/Java/... to provide "kinda seamless" H.264 support for the end users, including those with otherwise FOSS browsers, but content publishers are still SOL.</p><p>In contrast, doing the same trick for Theora means that those who care about pure FOSS can have it that way (FOSS server, FOSS client, and no patent fees), while people at large who don't know the world outside IE can still have access to all that content.</p><p>However, the technical inferiority of Theora is a serious counter-argument to that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I understand one of the main arguments of Theora supporters correctly , the problem is that H.264 requires website owners to pay up for a license , eventually .
So you can use Flash/Silverlight/Java/... to provide " kinda seamless " H.264 support for the end users , including those with otherwise FOSS browsers , but content publishers are still SOL.In contrast , doing the same trick for Theora means that those who care about pure FOSS can have it that way ( FOSS server , FOSS client , and no patent fees ) , while people at large who do n't know the world outside IE can still have access to all that content.However , the technical inferiority of Theora is a serious counter-argument to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I understand one of the main arguments of Theora supporters correctly, the problem is that H.264 requires website owners to pay up for a license, eventually.
So you can use Flash/Silverlight/Java/... to provide "kinda seamless" H.264 support for the end users, including those with otherwise FOSS browsers, but content publishers are still SOL.In contrast, doing the same trick for Theora means that those who care about pure FOSS can have it that way (FOSS server, FOSS client, and no patent fees), while people at large who don't know the world outside IE can still have access to all that content.However, the technical inferiority of Theora is a serious counter-argument to that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041412</id>
	<title>Eww...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265375340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Silverlight</p><p>it's just as bad as flash only from an even scummier company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Silverlightit 's just as bad as flash only from an even scummier company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Silverlightit's just as bad as flash only from an even scummier company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042244</id>
	<title>Re:Video for Everyone code hack is the solution</title>
	<author>jroysdon</author>
	<datestamp>1265381580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, note that I said, "For now".  It's a 5-year solution.  Who knows what will change in the internet world in 5 years.  That's like 100 "business" years and like 1000 dog years.</p><p>Hopefully Ogg Theora will just take over and/or surpass H.264 and/or MPEG LA will get their patents tossed or that sort of patent will be invalidated globally.  We can only hope.</p><p>Perhaps 2016 will be when all the internet broadcasters "pull the plug" and drop H.264 support since Ogg Theora and "open" browsers will be common-place.</p><p>We can speculate a lot about what will be in 2016, but: </p><p><div class="quote"><p>For now, the Video for Everyone code hack is the solution.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , note that I said , " For now " .
It 's a 5-year solution .
Who knows what will change in the internet world in 5 years .
That 's like 100 " business " years and like 1000 dog years.Hopefully Ogg Theora will just take over and/or surpass H.264 and/or MPEG LA will get their patents tossed or that sort of patent will be invalidated globally .
We can only hope.Perhaps 2016 will be when all the internet broadcasters " pull the plug " and drop H.264 support since Ogg Theora and " open " browsers will be common-place.We can speculate a lot about what will be in 2016 , but : For now , the Video for Everyone code hack is the solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, note that I said, "For now".
It's a 5-year solution.
Who knows what will change in the internet world in 5 years.
That's like 100 "business" years and like 1000 dog years.Hopefully Ogg Theora will just take over and/or surpass H.264 and/or MPEG LA will get their patents tossed or that sort of patent will be invalidated globally.
We can only hope.Perhaps 2016 will be when all the internet broadcasters "pull the plug" and drop H.264 support since Ogg Theora and "open" browsers will be common-place.We can speculate a lot about what will be in 2016, but: For now, the Video for Everyone code hack is the solution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042392</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1265382660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, except with MPEG-LA charging website owners a per-video fee (ensuring most webmasters avoid it) and with both Firefox and Opera refusing to implement it, h.264 already lost the battle as well. It's not about user's devices, it's about websites and no website will pay MPEG-LA's extortion fees and exclude over a fourth of desktop users and a significant part of mobile ones in the process.</p><p>It's been Theora or nothing from the very beginning. You argue that it's nothing, then, and I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the idea of h.264 becoming a web standard was dead on arrival. Which is, I suspect, exactly what Microsoft and Adobe wanted from the beginning as the status quo is what benefits them the most.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , except with MPEG-LA charging website owners a per-video fee ( ensuring most webmasters avoid it ) and with both Firefox and Opera refusing to implement it , h.264 already lost the battle as well .
It 's not about user 's devices , it 's about websites and no website will pay MPEG-LA 's extortion fees and exclude over a fourth of desktop users and a significant part of mobile ones in the process.It 's been Theora or nothing from the very beginning .
You argue that it 's nothing , then , and I 'd be inclined to agree with you , but the idea of h.264 becoming a web standard was dead on arrival .
Which is , I suspect , exactly what Microsoft and Adobe wanted from the beginning as the status quo is what benefits them the most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, except with MPEG-LA charging website owners a per-video fee (ensuring most webmasters avoid it) and with both Firefox and Opera refusing to implement it, h.264 already lost the battle as well.
It's not about user's devices, it's about websites and no website will pay MPEG-LA's extortion fees and exclude over a fourth of desktop users and a significant part of mobile ones in the process.It's been Theora or nothing from the very beginning.
You argue that it's nothing, then, and I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the idea of h.264 becoming a web standard was dead on arrival.
Which is, I suspect, exactly what Microsoft and Adobe wanted from the beginning as the status quo is what benefits them the most.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043940</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1265487840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> MKV files don't work on bloody anything reliably except VLC, even though they're theoretically an h264 variant</p></div><p>Setting aside the fact that MKV is a <i>container</i>, not a codec, try using SMPlayer. It seems to handle MKVs better, and it's also cross platform and (IIRC) FOSS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MKV files do n't work on bloody anything reliably except VLC , even though they 're theoretically an h264 variantSetting aside the fact that MKV is a container , not a codec , try using SMPlayer .
It seems to handle MKVs better , and it 's also cross platform and ( IIRC ) FOSS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> MKV files don't work on bloody anything reliably except VLC, even though they're theoretically an h264 variantSetting aside the fact that MKV is a container, not a codec, try using SMPlayer.
It seems to handle MKVs better, and it's also cross platform and (IIRC) FOSS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31050148</id>
	<title>Re:Video for Everyone code hack is the solution</title>
	<author>FrankieBaby1986</author>
	<datestamp>1265474640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I uploaded in Theora, so they already have it. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FogIYtdJN4k" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FogIYtdJN4k</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I uploaded in Theora , so they already have it .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = FogIYtdJN4k [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I uploaded in Theora, so they already have it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FogIYtdJN4k [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043314</id>
	<title>Re:Color me ignorant but...</title>
	<author>vcgodinich</author>
	<datestamp>1265391540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Making a cheap video codec is easy... good compression is Hard. <p>You have 0 idea how complex getting the file sizes and quality we take for granted each day actually is.</p><p>Go download gordian knot and transcode a DVD into divx or h.264 and see how complex the process really is./p&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making a cheap video codec is easy... good compression is Hard .
You have 0 idea how complex getting the file sizes and quality we take for granted each day actually is.Go download gordian knot and transcode a DVD into divx or h.264 and see how complex the process really is./p &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making a cheap video codec is easy... good compression is Hard.
You have 0 idea how complex getting the file sizes and quality we take for granted each day actually is.Go download gordian knot and transcode a DVD into divx or h.264 and see how complex the process really is./p&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041668</id>
	<title>Re:Video for Everyone code hack is the solution</title>
	<author>tayhimself</author>
	<datestamp>1265377140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This solution requires the installation of Flash or Quicktime for h.264 videos. Sucks almost as much as the Silverlight option. I hold out hope that Mozilla will choose to support h.264. Otherwise, I may finally switch to Chrome &amp; Safari.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This solution requires the installation of Flash or Quicktime for h.264 videos .
Sucks almost as much as the Silverlight option .
I hold out hope that Mozilla will choose to support h.264 .
Otherwise , I may finally switch to Chrome &amp; Safari .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This solution requires the installation of Flash or Quicktime for h.264 videos.
Sucks almost as much as the Silverlight option.
I hold out hope that Mozilla will choose to support h.264.
Otherwise, I may finally switch to Chrome &amp; Safari.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041902</id>
	<title>Re:Why doesn't Adobe just open-source Flash?</title>
	<author>ChunderDownunder</author>
	<datestamp>1265378940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would open-sourcing 'Flash' solve the problem? It sounds to be that the codecs are the crucial point.</p><p>Most likely you'd get an open-source plugin but the patent-encumbered codecs themselves would be delivered as binary blobs. This is a dilemma similar to that AMD and Nvidia face in graphics drivers and Sun had with areas of OpenJDK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would open-sourcing 'Flash ' solve the problem ?
It sounds to be that the codecs are the crucial point.Most likely you 'd get an open-source plugin but the patent-encumbered codecs themselves would be delivered as binary blobs .
This is a dilemma similar to that AMD and Nvidia face in graphics drivers and Sun had with areas of OpenJDK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would open-sourcing 'Flash' solve the problem?
It sounds to be that the codecs are the crucial point.Most likely you'd get an open-source plugin but the patent-encumbered codecs themselves would be delivered as binary blobs.
This is a dilemma similar to that AMD and Nvidia face in graphics drivers and Sun had with areas of OpenJDK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043096</id>
	<title>Re:Cluestick for the H264 crew</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265389200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pff. I have a cluestick for you:<br>Opera? Mozilla? Listen closely:</p><p>LINK. TO. FFMPEG. IF. AVAILABLE!!</p><p>There. problem solved.<br>ffmpeg (or ffdshow) already plays h.246.<br>Just linking to it does not integrate it into anything. Not the installation package, and not the binaries.<br>You can even just put a link to it in the &ldquo;video not playable&rdquo; frame in the site.<br>Or define a dependency for it in Linux package managers.</p><p>Easy peasy.</p><p>I hope Firefox offers a generic video playback interface, so that someone can just hack ffmpeg in there.<br>While the Mozilla still will bitch and live in fantasy world, 10 years later, condeming that &ldquo;evil&ldquo; version that now everybody out there will use.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p><p>(Don&rsquo;t get me wrong. I am on the &ldquo;software patents should be illegal, and we should all use open codecs&ldquo; side. [With the limitation, that the open one should actually be superior.])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pff .
I have a cluestick for you : Opera ?
Mozilla ? Listen closely : LINK .
TO. FFMPEG .
IF. AVAILABLE ! ! There .
problem solved.ffmpeg ( or ffdshow ) already plays h.246.Just linking to it does not integrate it into anything .
Not the installation package , and not the binaries.You can even just put a link to it in the    video not playable    frame in the site.Or define a dependency for it in Linux package managers.Easy peasy.I hope Firefox offers a generic video playback interface , so that someone can just hack ffmpeg in there.While the Mozilla still will bitch and live in fantasy world , 10 years later , condeming that    evil    version that now everybody out there will use .
: / ( Don    t get me wrong .
I am on the    software patents should be illegal , and we should all use open codecs    side .
[ With the limitation , that the open one should actually be superior .
] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pff.
I have a cluestick for you:Opera?
Mozilla? Listen closely:LINK.
TO. FFMPEG.
IF. AVAILABLE!!There.
problem solved.ffmpeg (or ffdshow) already plays h.246.Just linking to it does not integrate it into anything.
Not the installation package, and not the binaries.You can even just put a link to it in the “video not playable” frame in the site.Or define a dependency for it in Linux package managers.Easy peasy.I hope Firefox offers a generic video playback interface, so that someone can just hack ffmpeg in there.While the Mozilla still will bitch and live in fantasy world, 10 years later, condeming that “evil“ version that now everybody out there will use.
:/(Don’t get me wrong.
I am on the “software patents should be illegal, and we should all use open codecs“ side.
[With the limitation, that the open one should actually be superior.
])</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041866</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1265378520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Installs in Silverlight but doesn't require additional software?</p><p>Huh? That's full-on doublespeak.</p></div><p>No, that's merely assuming Microsoft will start bundling Silverlight with all new versions of Windows/IE sometime in the future. And given their history, particularly that of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework itself, that's a very reasonable assumption.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Just like Adobe, MS wants Silverlight as THE web platform of the future too. And while some folks might deride Apple for lacking plug-in support of any kind on the iPhone/iPad, it's achieved more in the uptick of standards-compliant sites in the last few years than all the other guys combined.</p></div><p>Source for that? because I've yet to see a website that formerly used flash before the iPhone but now is 100\% HTML. As opposed to Firefox, which *did* drive a significant switch from IE-only websites to W3C-compliant HTML code.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>H264's patent encumbered, but is a supported, documented standard.</p></div><p>When the organization owning most of the patents over said 'standard' plans on charging per file, the idea of sending the standard to go screw itself is quite tempting. Isn't that what we did with OOXML? oh yes, that's exactly what we did when they tried to pull the same "patented standard" bullshit on us. Except they actually had the decency not to charge per document.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>MKV files don't work on bloody anything reliably except VLC, even though they're theoretically an h264 variant.</p> </div><p>Err... what? MKV is a container, and one which has nothing to do with h.264 other than the fact that most h.264-encoded stuff on the 'net has decided to use it. Also, they work quite well in all the video players I've tried so far. Though still, I can't understand why you'd bring it up as its completely irrelevant.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We've been using wrapper plug-ins as a dirty, hacky path to web video since the launch of the web proper. Enough's enough.</p></div><p>Sure, but then Apple decided to shot down the actual, working standard to solve that because they couldn't be arsed to update their iPod's firmware, hence our current situation. No, h.264 isn't an option, *YOU* may be alright with submitting the entirety of the world wide web to the whims of a litigious corporation in hopes of having your HD porn streamed directly onto your iPod, but the rest of us aren't. And "the rest of us" includes the second most popular desktop browser and the most popular mobile browser respectively, while the most popular desktop browser doesn't seem to give a crap either way so good luck getting support for your idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Installs in Silverlight but does n't require additional software ? Huh ?
That 's full-on doublespeak.No , that 's merely assuming Microsoft will start bundling Silverlight with all new versions of Windows/IE sometime in the future .
And given their history , particularly that of the .NET framework itself , that 's a very reasonable assumption.Just like Adobe , MS wants Silverlight as THE web platform of the future too .
And while some folks might deride Apple for lacking plug-in support of any kind on the iPhone/iPad , it 's achieved more in the uptick of standards-compliant sites in the last few years than all the other guys combined.Source for that ?
because I 've yet to see a website that formerly used flash before the iPhone but now is 100 \ % HTML .
As opposed to Firefox , which * did * drive a significant switch from IE-only websites to W3C-compliant HTML code.H264 's patent encumbered , but is a supported , documented standard.When the organization owning most of the patents over said 'standard ' plans on charging per file , the idea of sending the standard to go screw itself is quite tempting .
Is n't that what we did with OOXML ?
oh yes , that 's exactly what we did when they tried to pull the same " patented standard " bullshit on us .
Except they actually had the decency not to charge per document.MKV files do n't work on bloody anything reliably except VLC , even though they 're theoretically an h264 variant .
Err... what ?
MKV is a container , and one which has nothing to do with h.264 other than the fact that most h.264-encoded stuff on the 'net has decided to use it .
Also , they work quite well in all the video players I 've tried so far .
Though still , I ca n't understand why you 'd bring it up as its completely irrelevant.We 've been using wrapper plug-ins as a dirty , hacky path to web video since the launch of the web proper .
Enough 's enough.Sure , but then Apple decided to shot down the actual , working standard to solve that because they could n't be arsed to update their iPod 's firmware , hence our current situation .
No , h.264 is n't an option , * YOU * may be alright with submitting the entirety of the world wide web to the whims of a litigious corporation in hopes of having your HD porn streamed directly onto your iPod , but the rest of us are n't .
And " the rest of us " includes the second most popular desktop browser and the most popular mobile browser respectively , while the most popular desktop browser does n't seem to give a crap either way so good luck getting support for your idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Installs in Silverlight but doesn't require additional software?Huh?
That's full-on doublespeak.No, that's merely assuming Microsoft will start bundling Silverlight with all new versions of Windows/IE sometime in the future.
And given their history, particularly that of the .NET framework itself, that's a very reasonable assumption.Just like Adobe, MS wants Silverlight as THE web platform of the future too.
And while some folks might deride Apple for lacking plug-in support of any kind on the iPhone/iPad, it's achieved more in the uptick of standards-compliant sites in the last few years than all the other guys combined.Source for that?
because I've yet to see a website that formerly used flash before the iPhone but now is 100\% HTML.
As opposed to Firefox, which *did* drive a significant switch from IE-only websites to W3C-compliant HTML code.H264's patent encumbered, but is a supported, documented standard.When the organization owning most of the patents over said 'standard' plans on charging per file, the idea of sending the standard to go screw itself is quite tempting.
Isn't that what we did with OOXML?
oh yes, that's exactly what we did when they tried to pull the same "patented standard" bullshit on us.
Except they actually had the decency not to charge per document.MKV files don't work on bloody anything reliably except VLC, even though they're theoretically an h264 variant.
Err... what?
MKV is a container, and one which has nothing to do with h.264 other than the fact that most h.264-encoded stuff on the 'net has decided to use it.
Also, they work quite well in all the video players I've tried so far.
Though still, I can't understand why you'd bring it up as its completely irrelevant.We've been using wrapper plug-ins as a dirty, hacky path to web video since the launch of the web proper.
Enough's enough.Sure, but then Apple decided to shot down the actual, working standard to solve that because they couldn't be arsed to update their iPod's firmware, hence our current situation.
No, h.264 isn't an option, *YOU* may be alright with submitting the entirety of the world wide web to the whims of a litigious corporation in hopes of having your HD porn streamed directly onto your iPod, but the rest of us aren't.
And "the rest of us" includes the second most popular desktop browser and the most popular mobile browser respectively, while the most popular desktop browser doesn't seem to give a crap either way so good luck getting support for your idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044106</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1265448840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flash <a href="http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=RTMPE" title="multimedia.cx">supports DRM out of the box</a> [multimedia.cx], and Silverlight has <a href="http://silverlight.net/getstarted/silverlight3/" title="silverlight.net">several features</a> [silverlight.net] that make it better than Flash. Even its <a href="http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight" title="mono-project.com">open-source implementation</a> [mono-project.com] is better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash supports DRM out of the box [ multimedia.cx ] , and Silverlight has several features [ silverlight.net ] that make it better than Flash .
Even its open-source implementation [ mono-project.com ] is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash supports DRM out of the box [multimedia.cx], and Silverlight has several features [silverlight.net] that make it better than Flash.
Even its open-source implementation [mono-project.com] is better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31045148</id>
	<title>Re:Just line any crime, follow the money</title>
	<author>agnosticnixie</author>
	<datestamp>1265467380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy answer: the one where the randroids get to be feudal overlords<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) (and a 5th +1 to this one for anyone passing by, my last mod points expired from unuse)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy answer : the one where the randroids get to be feudal overlords ; ) ( and a 5th + 1 to this one for anyone passing by , my last mod points expired from unuse )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy answer: the one where the randroids get to be feudal overlords ;) (and a 5th +1 to this one for anyone passing by, my last mod points expired from unuse)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044394</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>emanem</author>
	<datestamp>1265454780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry mate, you're totally far from the truth.<br>
I agreed with you except when MPEG-LA extended their <i>free content scheme</i> till 2016.<br>
This simply means that they are <b>f**king</b> scared to lose the format war because of stupid fees. Plus decoding Theora at SD or less (i.e. 640x480 or less) doesn't require a lot of CPU power. Sure, on a  small device like the iPhone (aka battery hogger) this could be problematic, but is Apple's issue.<br>
And btw, both Theora and H.264 are form the <b>same</b> family, the core algorithm of coding/decoding is DCT/iDCT. It shouldn't take long before someone implements it. As nVidia and AMD have now accelerated support for H.264, it should be pretty straightforward for them to implement Theora support.<br>
Now, to clarify, I honestly believe that for HD video content (720/1080p) at the same bitrate H.264 is better than current Theora encoder.<br>
Cheers,</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry mate , you 're totally far from the truth .
I agreed with you except when MPEG-LA extended their free content scheme till 2016 .
This simply means that they are f * * king scared to lose the format war because of stupid fees .
Plus decoding Theora at SD or less ( i.e .
640x480 or less ) does n't require a lot of CPU power .
Sure , on a small device like the iPhone ( aka battery hogger ) this could be problematic , but is Apple 's issue .
And btw , both Theora and H.264 are form the same family , the core algorithm of coding/decoding is DCT/iDCT .
It should n't take long before someone implements it .
As nVidia and AMD have now accelerated support for H.264 , it should be pretty straightforward for them to implement Theora support .
Now , to clarify , I honestly believe that for HD video content ( 720/1080p ) at the same bitrate H.264 is better than current Theora encoder .
Cheers,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry mate, you're totally far from the truth.
I agreed with you except when MPEG-LA extended their free content scheme till 2016.
This simply means that they are f**king scared to lose the format war because of stupid fees.
Plus decoding Theora at SD or less (i.e.
640x480 or less) doesn't require a lot of CPU power.
Sure, on a  small device like the iPhone (aka battery hogger) this could be problematic, but is Apple's issue.
And btw, both Theora and H.264 are form the same family, the core algorithm of coding/decoding is DCT/iDCT.
It shouldn't take long before someone implements it.
As nVidia and AMD have now accelerated support for H.264, it should be pretty straightforward for them to implement Theora support.
Now, to clarify, I honestly believe that for HD video content (720/1080p) at the same bitrate H.264 is better than current Theora encoder.
Cheers,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042242</id>
	<title>At least you can see the dangling sword</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1265381580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>mpeg-LA seems to be letting broadcasts go free for the next couple of years. Note that is only for the actual broadcast. They can open a can of whoop ass on various licensing fees whenever they feel it gets entrenched.</i></p><p>They can, but you know they will not until 2017 (expires in December of 2016).  You can plan around and to a date.</p><p>Meanwhile Theora is an unknown patent quantity that may or may not be challenged at any time.  It's the schrodinger cat of codecs, so no-one even wants to hold the box much less look inside.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mpeg-LA seems to be letting broadcasts go free for the next couple of years .
Note that is only for the actual broadcast .
They can open a can of whoop ass on various licensing fees whenever they feel it gets entrenched.They can , but you know they will not until 2017 ( expires in December of 2016 ) .
You can plan around and to a date.Meanwhile Theora is an unknown patent quantity that may or may not be challenged at any time .
It 's the schrodinger cat of codecs , so no-one even wants to hold the box much less look inside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mpeg-LA seems to be letting broadcasts go free for the next couple of years.
Note that is only for the actual broadcast.
They can open a can of whoop ass on various licensing fees whenever they feel it gets entrenched.They can, but you know they will not until 2017 (expires in December of 2016).
You can plan around and to a date.Meanwhile Theora is an unknown patent quantity that may or may not be challenged at any time.
It's the schrodinger cat of codecs, so no-one even wants to hold the box much less look inside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043040</id>
	<title>Oh you mean how Vorbis has taken over MP3?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265388720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously... Vorbis has not even taken over MP3, despite it being far superior.<br>And you expect Theora to beat H.246??</p><p>The fact is, that apart from us few experts, nobody cares what format it is, as long as it works, and has the best quality for its size.<br>Look at what movies are used on BitTorrent nowadays. It&rsquo;s mostly H.264, since the quality is simply superior. And XviD, since that&rsquo;s what most pre-bluray standalone players can play.</p><p>Even though I&rsquo;m a supporter of open formats, I support H.246 right now. Because there are two groups of sources I have:<br>1. Commercial video streams (YouTube, Daily Show, South Park, etc), who can handle the legal rights, and usually have a license anyway to distribute physical media etc.<br>2. P2P-shared movies, that don&rsquo;t care for laws anyway.<br>(Bonus question: Guess how I would release my work? ^^)</p><p>But: Offer me something that has all features of H.246, plus only one single tiny superior property, and I&rsquo;ll be the strongest supporter of that format, that you will be able to find.<br>Until then, it&rsquo;s no war. Because one side has no teeth at all. (Sadly.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously... Vorbis has not even taken over MP3 , despite it being far superior.And you expect Theora to beat H.246 ?
? The fact is , that apart from us few experts , nobody cares what format it is , as long as it works , and has the best quality for its size.Look at what movies are used on BitTorrent nowadays .
It    s mostly H.264 , since the quality is simply superior .
And XviD , since that    s what most pre-bluray standalone players can play.Even though I    m a supporter of open formats , I support H.246 right now .
Because there are two groups of sources I have : 1 .
Commercial video streams ( YouTube , Daily Show , South Park , etc ) , who can handle the legal rights , and usually have a license anyway to distribute physical media etc.2 .
P2P-shared movies , that don    t care for laws anyway .
( Bonus question : Guess how I would release my work ?
^ ^ ) But : Offer me something that has all features of H.246 , plus only one single tiny superior property , and I    ll be the strongest supporter of that format , that you will be able to find.Until then , it    s no war .
Because one side has no teeth at all .
( Sadly. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously... Vorbis has not even taken over MP3, despite it being far superior.And you expect Theora to beat H.246?
?The fact is, that apart from us few experts, nobody cares what format it is, as long as it works, and has the best quality for its size.Look at what movies are used on BitTorrent nowadays.
It’s mostly H.264, since the quality is simply superior.
And XviD, since that’s what most pre-bluray standalone players can play.Even though I’m a supporter of open formats, I support H.246 right now.
Because there are two groups of sources I have:1.
Commercial video streams (YouTube, Daily Show, South Park, etc), who can handle the legal rights, and usually have a license anyway to distribute physical media etc.2.
P2P-shared movies, that don’t care for laws anyway.
(Bonus question: Guess how I would release my work?
^^)But: Offer me something that has all features of H.246, plus only one single tiny superior property, and I’ll be the strongest supporter of that format, that you will be able to find.Until then, it’s no war.
Because one side has no teeth at all.
(Sadly.)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044186</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 is ISO/IEC 14496-10, not a de facto stand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265450880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replying to your subject, not the content:</p><p>It may be both an ISO standard and a de facto standard.  The latter is more relevant, because there are multiple official standards -- MPEG-1 (ISO/IEC 11172), MPEG-2 (ISO/IEC 13818) and MPEG-4 (ISO/IEC 14496).  Each of these standards contain multiple parts that can be used independently or together.  A format is a de facto standard if it is in use in a reasonably large majority of cases, which given multiple ISO standards is much more important than whether any particular format is or is not one of them.</p><p>The question of whether it actually \_is\_ the de facto standard is an interesting one.  My suspicion is that a larger chunk of the video being consumed out there is actually MPEG-4 Part 2, as I understand this is what is used in most digital TV systems, along with a very large chunk of what's available on TPB (DivX and xvid both being implementations of it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replying to your subject , not the content : It may be both an ISO standard and a de facto standard .
The latter is more relevant , because there are multiple official standards -- MPEG-1 ( ISO/IEC 11172 ) , MPEG-2 ( ISO/IEC 13818 ) and MPEG-4 ( ISO/IEC 14496 ) .
Each of these standards contain multiple parts that can be used independently or together .
A format is a de facto standard if it is in use in a reasonably large majority of cases , which given multiple ISO standards is much more important than whether any particular format is or is not one of them.The question of whether it actually \ _is \ _ the de facto standard is an interesting one .
My suspicion is that a larger chunk of the video being consumed out there is actually MPEG-4 Part 2 , as I understand this is what is used in most digital TV systems , along with a very large chunk of what 's available on TPB ( DivX and xvid both being implementations of it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replying to your subject, not the content:It may be both an ISO standard and a de facto standard.
The latter is more relevant, because there are multiple official standards -- MPEG-1 (ISO/IEC 11172), MPEG-2 (ISO/IEC 13818) and MPEG-4 (ISO/IEC 14496).
Each of these standards contain multiple parts that can be used independently or together.
A format is a de facto standard if it is in use in a reasonably large majority of cases, which given multiple ISO standards is much more important than whether any particular format is or is not one of them.The question of whether it actually \_is\_ the de facto standard is an interesting one.
My suspicion is that a larger chunk of the video being consumed out there is actually MPEG-4 Part 2, as I understand this is what is used in most digital TV systems, along with a very large chunk of what's available on TPB (DivX and xvid both being implementations of it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041752</id>
	<title>H.264 is ISO/IEC 14496-10, not a de facto standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265377680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HTML5 is a markup standard. Where it pertains to video is in the standardization of video-related markup, i.e. the "video" tag, not video formats. W3C has nothing to teach MPEG about video formats. W3C also has nothing to teach MPEG or ISO about standardization, because the Web is a mess of proprietary IE and Flash while MPEG has enabled 20 years of consumer digital video, including the DVD and Blu-Ray. Right now, both QuickTime Player and FlashPlayer play H.264, both iTunes and YouTube are H.264, both Flip and iPod camcorders are H.264, but I can't make one Web app for both IE and Firefox.</p><p>What we are talking about with Web video today is "will our H.264 video playback move from plug-ins (QuickTime Player and FlashPlayer) to native browser playback?" That is all. The format is not in question. The HTML4 Web has already been using the ISO standard format in iTunes, YouTube, and many others. There is no competing format. FLV is still used too much, but it has been deprecated since 2008, it has no HD sizes, it is proprietary to Adobe, the encoder costs $599, and it takes much more bandwidth than H.264. There are no Ogg camcorders, iPods, video editors. These tools and devices were all built for MPEG-4, which is a standardization of the QuickTime file format that was used previously. Google has already said that even if they had the compute time to transcode YouTube to Ogg, the Internet does not have the bandwidth for an Ogg YouTube, and almost nobody has a player.</p><p>Ten years ago, Linux users complained that they could not view the video on the Web because it was in QuickTime containers with Sorenson video and Qdesign audio and that was all proprietary, not standardized. Now, the video is all in ISO MPEG-4 containers, with ISO H.264 video and ISO AAC audio and is playable on Linux in FlashPlayer and WebKit browsers and other players, and the complaining continues. It is disheartening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HTML5 is a markup standard .
Where it pertains to video is in the standardization of video-related markup , i.e .
the " video " tag , not video formats .
W3C has nothing to teach MPEG about video formats .
W3C also has nothing to teach MPEG or ISO about standardization , because the Web is a mess of proprietary IE and Flash while MPEG has enabled 20 years of consumer digital video , including the DVD and Blu-Ray .
Right now , both QuickTime Player and FlashPlayer play H.264 , both iTunes and YouTube are H.264 , both Flip and iPod camcorders are H.264 , but I ca n't make one Web app for both IE and Firefox.What we are talking about with Web video today is " will our H.264 video playback move from plug-ins ( QuickTime Player and FlashPlayer ) to native browser playback ?
" That is all .
The format is not in question .
The HTML4 Web has already been using the ISO standard format in iTunes , YouTube , and many others .
There is no competing format .
FLV is still used too much , but it has been deprecated since 2008 , it has no HD sizes , it is proprietary to Adobe , the encoder costs $ 599 , and it takes much more bandwidth than H.264 .
There are no Ogg camcorders , iPods , video editors .
These tools and devices were all built for MPEG-4 , which is a standardization of the QuickTime file format that was used previously .
Google has already said that even if they had the compute time to transcode YouTube to Ogg , the Internet does not have the bandwidth for an Ogg YouTube , and almost nobody has a player.Ten years ago , Linux users complained that they could not view the video on the Web because it was in QuickTime containers with Sorenson video and Qdesign audio and that was all proprietary , not standardized .
Now , the video is all in ISO MPEG-4 containers , with ISO H.264 video and ISO AAC audio and is playable on Linux in FlashPlayer and WebKit browsers and other players , and the complaining continues .
It is disheartening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HTML5 is a markup standard.
Where it pertains to video is in the standardization of video-related markup, i.e.
the "video" tag, not video formats.
W3C has nothing to teach MPEG about video formats.
W3C also has nothing to teach MPEG or ISO about standardization, because the Web is a mess of proprietary IE and Flash while MPEG has enabled 20 years of consumer digital video, including the DVD and Blu-Ray.
Right now, both QuickTime Player and FlashPlayer play H.264, both iTunes and YouTube are H.264, both Flip and iPod camcorders are H.264, but I can't make one Web app for both IE and Firefox.What we are talking about with Web video today is "will our H.264 video playback move from plug-ins (QuickTime Player and FlashPlayer) to native browser playback?
" That is all.
The format is not in question.
The HTML4 Web has already been using the ISO standard format in iTunes, YouTube, and many others.
There is no competing format.
FLV is still used too much, but it has been deprecated since 2008, it has no HD sizes, it is proprietary to Adobe, the encoder costs $599, and it takes much more bandwidth than H.264.
There are no Ogg camcorders, iPods, video editors.
These tools and devices were all built for MPEG-4, which is a standardization of the QuickTime file format that was used previously.
Google has already said that even if they had the compute time to transcode YouTube to Ogg, the Internet does not have the bandwidth for an Ogg YouTube, and almost nobody has a player.Ten years ago, Linux users complained that they could not view the video on the Web because it was in QuickTime containers with Sorenson video and Qdesign audio and that was all proprietary, not standardized.
Now, the video is all in ISO MPEG-4 containers, with ISO H.264 video and ISO AAC audio and is playable on Linux in FlashPlayer and WebKit browsers and other players, and the complaining continues.
It is disheartening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041798</id>
	<title>One reason to avoid h264</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265377920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/22828/MPEG-LA\_Will\_Not\_Change\_h264\_Licensing" title="osnews.com">http://www.osnews.com/story/22828/MPEG-LA\_Will\_Not\_Change\_h264\_Licensing</a> [osnews.com]</p><p>mpeg-LA seems to be letting broadcasts go free for the next couple of years. Note that is only for the actual broadcast. They can open a can of whoop ass on various licensing fees whenever they feel it gets entrenched.</p><p>Theora support will have problems from those who really don't want open solutions (Microsoft,Apple).</p><p>So we have an impasse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.osnews.com/story/22828/MPEG-LA \ _Will \ _Not \ _Change \ _h264 \ _Licensing [ osnews.com ] mpeg-LA seems to be letting broadcasts go free for the next couple of years .
Note that is only for the actual broadcast .
They can open a can of whoop ass on various licensing fees whenever they feel it gets entrenched.Theora support will have problems from those who really do n't want open solutions ( Microsoft,Apple ) .So we have an impasse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.osnews.com/story/22828/MPEG-LA\_Will\_Not\_Change\_h264\_Licensing [osnews.com]mpeg-LA seems to be letting broadcasts go free for the next couple of years.
Note that is only for the actual broadcast.
They can open a can of whoop ass on various licensing fees whenever they feel it gets entrenched.Theora support will have problems from those who really don't want open solutions (Microsoft,Apple).So we have an impasse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041528</id>
	<title>+1 for MS? :)</title>
	<author>ChunderDownunder</author>
	<datestamp>1265376240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Moonlight 3.0 will support Theora.
<br>
Since Apple is <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/01/googles-dont-be-evil-mantra-is-bullshit-adobe-is-lazy-apples-steve-jobs/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">competing with</a> [wired.com] Google for the title of the company that can "Do <i>most</i> evil", should we be cheering on Miguel and MS in the hopes that Theora gains some traction?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Moonlight 3.0 will support Theora .
Since Apple is competing with [ wired.com ] Google for the title of the company that can " Do most evil " , should we be cheering on Miguel and MS in the hopes that Theora gains some traction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Moonlight 3.0 will support Theora.
Since Apple is competing with [wired.com] Google for the title of the company that can "Do most evil", should we be cheering on Miguel and MS in the hopes that Theora gains some traction?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043166</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265389920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>VLC is rubbish. Mplayer is much better for 'MKV files', performance wise, and interface wise!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>VLC is rubbish .
Mplayer is much better for 'MKV files ' , performance wise , and interface wise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VLC is rubbish.
Mplayer is much better for 'MKV files', performance wise, and interface wise!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042022</id>
	<title>Re:No additional software?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265380020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So other platforms will have native, hardware-accelerated, high-quality h.264, and the open-source community will be stuck with emulated, software-only, lower-quality Theora.  That doesn't sound like a good outcome, despite the solution to compatibility concerns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So other platforms will have native , hardware-accelerated , high-quality h.264 , and the open-source community will be stuck with emulated , software-only , lower-quality Theora .
That does n't sound like a good outcome , despite the solution to compatibility concerns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So other platforms will have native, hardware-accelerated, high-quality h.264, and the open-source community will be stuck with emulated, software-only, lower-quality Theora.
That doesn't sound like a good outcome, despite the solution to compatibility concerns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043402</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265392740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No offense to the OGG crew and developers, but what you're not getting is that <i>the battle is already lost</i>. The future of web video isn't really in the browser. It's on low-powered appliances like XBoxes, iPhones, iPads, Playstations and the like. And that's now. People are already building libraries in h264 and divx because of this. It's an insurance policy against your media not becoming obsolete like VHS and DVD.</p></div><p>The battle is far from lost. Codec support on the desktop and in devices will follow what major content providers decide to do. I would suggest the number one reason Flash gets installed on the desktop is to watch videos on YouTube. If Google decided to favour Ogg Theora on YouTube tomorrow, support for Ogg Theora would blossom everywhere. I think perhaps what Google will do is open source VP8 once they own it so everyone can use it without licencing hassles, stick it in an Ogg container, and make that their video platform of choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No offense to the OGG crew and developers , but what you 're not getting is that the battle is already lost .
The future of web video is n't really in the browser .
It 's on low-powered appliances like XBoxes , iPhones , iPads , Playstations and the like .
And that 's now .
People are already building libraries in h264 and divx because of this .
It 's an insurance policy against your media not becoming obsolete like VHS and DVD.The battle is far from lost .
Codec support on the desktop and in devices will follow what major content providers decide to do .
I would suggest the number one reason Flash gets installed on the desktop is to watch videos on YouTube .
If Google decided to favour Ogg Theora on YouTube tomorrow , support for Ogg Theora would blossom everywhere .
I think perhaps what Google will do is open source VP8 once they own it so everyone can use it without licencing hassles , stick it in an Ogg container , and make that their video platform of choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No offense to the OGG crew and developers, but what you're not getting is that the battle is already lost.
The future of web video isn't really in the browser.
It's on low-powered appliances like XBoxes, iPhones, iPads, Playstations and the like.
And that's now.
People are already building libraries in h264 and divx because of this.
It's an insurance policy against your media not becoming obsolete like VHS and DVD.The battle is far from lost.
Codec support on the desktop and in devices will follow what major content providers decide to do.
I would suggest the number one reason Flash gets installed on the desktop is to watch videos on YouTube.
If Google decided to favour Ogg Theora on YouTube tomorrow, support for Ogg Theora would blossom everywhere.
I think perhaps what Google will do is open source VP8 once they own it so everyone can use it without licencing hassles, stick it in an Ogg container, and make that their video platform of choice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041808</id>
	<title>A day late and a dollar short</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1265377980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Nuanti has produced a high-performance Ogg Theora decoder for Microsoft's Silverlight</i> </p><p> Hardware accelerated H.264 is in the 10.1 Flash Beta. Silverlight 4 will support Chrome. The "high performance" H.264 player will be everywhere and in everything in the next few weeks or months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuanti has produced a high-performance Ogg Theora decoder for Microsoft 's Silverlight Hardware accelerated H.264 is in the 10.1 Flash Beta .
Silverlight 4 will support Chrome .
The " high performance " H.264 player will be everywhere and in everything in the next few weeks or months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuanti has produced a high-performance Ogg Theora decoder for Microsoft's Silverlight  Hardware accelerated H.264 is in the 10.1 Flash Beta.
Silverlight 4 will support Chrome.
The "high performance" H.264 player will be everywhere and in everything in the next few weeks or months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31046700</id>
	<title>Re:Cluestick for the H264 crew</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1265482560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think they may still get into trouble for using FFMPEG at all? Or maybe the FFMPEG team will be taken down?</p><p>As much as I like everything open and open source, I like (quality) standards and unification even more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think they may still get into trouble for using FFMPEG at all ?
Or maybe the FFMPEG team will be taken down ? As much as I like everything open and open source , I like ( quality ) standards and unification even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think they may still get into trouble for using FFMPEG at all?
Or maybe the FFMPEG team will be taken down?As much as I like everything open and open source, I like (quality) standards and unification even more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043228</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1265390640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First.. I can't argue too much with the modding because you do keep confusing codecs with containers.  Ogg is NOT a set of codecs, it's just a file format.  Theora is a set of video codecs, and Vorbis is the audio codec.  MKV is a different container, and H.264 is a common video codec used in that container.  Divx is a bit more confusing because it can sometimes refer to both a container format and an *implementation* of MPEG4 pt2 or H.264 (aka MPEG4 pt 10).  Anyway - the main point is there are video and audio codecs (essentially "elementary bitstreams") and file formats to contain those codecs along with information to sync the audio and video - understand the distinction and you have taken a big step<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>But after all that, I think you make a very good point in there.  H.264 will be THE standard video codec for the near future, because it is now almost universally supported by set-top and mobile chipsets.  And beyond "Internet video", all of the major cable and satellite systems have spent the last several years converting their systems to use H.264 in their transport streams (another *container*!), so more than likely if you are watching anything other than a terrestrial ATSC channel (already soooo obsoleted!) it's H.264!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First.. I ca n't argue too much with the modding because you do keep confusing codecs with containers .
Ogg is NOT a set of codecs , it 's just a file format .
Theora is a set of video codecs , and Vorbis is the audio codec .
MKV is a different container , and H.264 is a common video codec used in that container .
Divx is a bit more confusing because it can sometimes refer to both a container format and an * implementation * of MPEG4 pt2 or H.264 ( aka MPEG4 pt 10 ) .
Anyway - the main point is there are video and audio codecs ( essentially " elementary bitstreams " ) and file formats to contain those codecs along with information to sync the audio and video - understand the distinction and you have taken a big step ; ) But after all that , I think you make a very good point in there .
H.264 will be THE standard video codec for the near future , because it is now almost universally supported by set-top and mobile chipsets .
And beyond " Internet video " , all of the major cable and satellite systems have spent the last several years converting their systems to use H.264 in their transport streams ( another * container * !
) , so more than likely if you are watching anything other than a terrestrial ATSC channel ( already soooo obsoleted !
) it 's H.264 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First.. I can't argue too much with the modding because you do keep confusing codecs with containers.
Ogg is NOT a set of codecs, it's just a file format.
Theora is a set of video codecs, and Vorbis is the audio codec.
MKV is a different container, and H.264 is a common video codec used in that container.
Divx is a bit more confusing because it can sometimes refer to both a container format and an *implementation* of MPEG4 pt2 or H.264 (aka MPEG4 pt 10).
Anyway - the main point is there are video and audio codecs (essentially "elementary bitstreams") and file formats to contain those codecs along with information to sync the audio and video - understand the distinction and you have taken a big step ;)But after all that, I think you make a very good point in there.
H.264 will be THE standard video codec for the near future, because it is now almost universally supported by set-top and mobile chipsets.
And beyond "Internet video", all of the major cable and satellite systems have spent the last several years converting their systems to use H.264 in their transport streams (another *container*!
), so more than likely if you are watching anything other than a terrestrial ATSC channel (already soooo obsoleted!
) it's H.264!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041748</id>
	<title>Stick that up your Flash, Adobe!</title>
	<author>david.emery</author>
	<datestamp>1265377680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Nuanti's Highgate Media Suite will enable support for standards-based HTML5 video streaming with Theora in browsers that have Silverlight. It works entirely without requiring the users to install any additional software."</i><br>Makes Steve Job's opposition to Flash look prescient...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuanti 's Highgate Media Suite will enable support for standards-based HTML5 video streaming with Theora in browsers that have Silverlight .
It works entirely without requiring the users to install any additional software .
" Makes Steve Job 's opposition to Flash look prescient.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuanti's Highgate Media Suite will enable support for standards-based HTML5 video streaming with Theora in browsers that have Silverlight.
It works entirely without requiring the users to install any additional software.
"Makes Steve Job's opposition to Flash look prescient...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044128</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1265449440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IEEE1394 is a standard IO interconnect. If you call it Firewire, you owe Apple 30c per port. If you call it iLink, it's free 8). Standards can still be licence encumbered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IEEE1394 is a standard IO interconnect .
If you call it Firewire , you owe Apple 30c per port .
If you call it iLink , it 's free 8 ) .
Standards can still be licence encumbered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IEEE1394 is a standard IO interconnect.
If you call it Firewire, you owe Apple 30c per port.
If you call it iLink, it's free 8).
Standards can still be licence encumbered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042564</id>
	<title>Re:It will be Ogg Theora or VP8</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265384220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So because you can use it via Silverlight, you say that you can use Theora in Safari and IE?  Well, by that standard, you'd have to say that h.264 is just as well supported, because you can use it in Firefox via Flash or Quicktime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So because you can use it via Silverlight , you say that you can use Theora in Safari and IE ?
Well , by that standard , you 'd have to say that h.264 is just as well supported , because you can use it in Firefox via Flash or Quicktime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So because you can use it via Silverlight, you say that you can use Theora in Safari and IE?
Well, by that standard, you'd have to say that h.264 is just as well supported, because you can use it in Firefox via Flash or Quicktime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31048328</id>
	<title>Re:Why doesn't Adobe just open-source Flash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265455140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open sourcing something doesn't grant patent rights.</p><p>Adobe could open source flash tomorrow, it wouldn't mean that someone could legally use that open source flash to decode h264. Google has h264 in Chrome, but it isn't in Chromium, because their license to h264 isn't something they can share.</p><p>The problem with patents is that they're patents, not that they prevent people from sharing code. heck, patents are supposed to describe the blueprints. The patent entitles the owner to the right to control who uses their blueprint for a certain limited time period (which really should be measured in Netscape net years [roughly dog years], but is sadly measured in generations)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open sourcing something does n't grant patent rights.Adobe could open source flash tomorrow , it would n't mean that someone could legally use that open source flash to decode h264 .
Google has h264 in Chrome , but it is n't in Chromium , because their license to h264 is n't something they can share.The problem with patents is that they 're patents , not that they prevent people from sharing code .
heck , patents are supposed to describe the blueprints .
The patent entitles the owner to the right to control who uses their blueprint for a certain limited time period ( which really should be measured in Netscape net years [ roughly dog years ] , but is sadly measured in generations )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open sourcing something doesn't grant patent rights.Adobe could open source flash tomorrow, it wouldn't mean that someone could legally use that open source flash to decode h264.
Google has h264 in Chrome, but it isn't in Chromium, because their license to h264 isn't something they can share.The problem with patents is that they're patents, not that they prevent people from sharing code.
heck, patents are supposed to describe the blueprints.
The patent entitles the owner to the right to control who uses their blueprint for a certain limited time period (which really should be measured in Netscape net years [roughly dog years], but is sadly measured in generations)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043654</id>
	<title>Re:Why doesn't Adobe just open-source Flash?</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1265396700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No expert here, but one possible reason is that they have Intellectual "Property" in their codebase that they don't want to release. Same reason why you can't get, say, nVidia to open their drivers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No expert here , but one possible reason is that they have Intellectual " Property " in their codebase that they do n't want to release .
Same reason why you ca n't get , say , nVidia to open their drivers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No expert here, but one possible reason is that they have Intellectual "Property" in their codebase that they don't want to release.
Same reason why you can't get, say, nVidia to open their drivers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044704</id>
	<title>Re:Why doesn't Adobe just open-source Flash?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1265459520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flash has a lot of security vulnerabilities, and many other problems. Even open source can't fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flash has a lot of security vulnerabilities , and many other problems .
Even open source ca n't fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flash has a lot of security vulnerabilities, and many other problems.
Even open source can't fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042288</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Randle\_Revar</author>
	<datestamp>1265381820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;OGG's a fine set of codecs,<br>It isn't a codec or a set of codecs</p><p>You could have said "Xiph has a fine set of codecs..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; OGG 's a fine set of codecs,It is n't a codec or a set of codecsYou could have said " Xiph has a fine set of codecs... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;OGG's a fine set of codecs,It isn't a codec or a set of codecsYou could have said "Xiph has a fine set of codecs..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041864</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1265378520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ogg will never take off.</p></div> </blockquote><p>You can look into the future?</p><blockquote><div><p>Then you have various other mpeg4 flavors, and that's pretty much it in terms of getting HD content out there at reasonable bandwidth.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Most web video isn't HD. This isn't about streaming movies through services like NetFlix. It's about video sharing, first and foremost, like on YouTube.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ogg will never take off .
You can look into the future ? Then you have various other mpeg4 flavors , and that 's pretty much it in terms of getting HD content out there at reasonable bandwidth .
Most web video is n't HD .
This is n't about streaming movies through services like NetFlix .
It 's about video sharing , first and foremost , like on YouTube .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ogg will never take off.
You can look into the future?Then you have various other mpeg4 flavors, and that's pretty much it in terms of getting HD content out there at reasonable bandwidth.
Most web video isn't HD.
This isn't about streaming movies through services like NetFlix.
It's about video sharing, first and foremost, like on YouTube.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042418</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265382840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The future of web video isn't really in the browser. It's on low-powered appliances like XBoxes, iPhones, iPads, Playstations and the like</p></div></blockquote><p><em>And the like,</em> which to some people includes a low-powered Linux box with mplayer or mythtv installed.  And that's now.</p><blockquote><div><p>OGG's a fine set of codecs, but if I have to transcode out of it to play on anything but a desktop</p></div></blockquote><p>Get the right appliance, and you <em>don't</em> have to transcode.</p><p>Also, the whole idea of "no software installs" doesn't make sense.  When you're building any one of the boxes that you mention, whether it's a mythtv appliance or a playstation, someone's loading software onto it.  It sounds like you just don't want to be that person.  So buy your mplayerbox from someone, and you've got Ogg support.  You also have divx and h.264 support <strong>if the builder decided he could probably get away with breaking the law</strong> or licensed.</p><p>And that brings us to this:</p><blockquote><div><p>It's an insurance policy against your media not becoming obsolete like VHS and DVD.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ogg <strong>is</strong> the insurance policy that you're looking for.  h.264 will probably go obsolete in 6 years, when the submarine surfaces and the patent holders decide to start suing everyone who uses it.  When that happens, and then when your player breaks, you don't know whether or not you're going to be able to replace your player.</p><p>You see, freedom-to-implement isn't just a good idea and it's not all about lofty ideals.  It's practical.  It's the one way to know that your software, appliances, and the data that interacts with them, stays usable. h.264 is a codec du jour that people are using right now because MPEGLA's lawyers have been letting them get nice and comfortable.  The rug can be pulled out at any time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The future of web video is n't really in the browser .
It 's on low-powered appliances like XBoxes , iPhones , iPads , Playstations and the likeAnd the like , which to some people includes a low-powered Linux box with mplayer or mythtv installed .
And that 's now.OGG 's a fine set of codecs , but if I have to transcode out of it to play on anything but a desktopGet the right appliance , and you do n't have to transcode.Also , the whole idea of " no software installs " does n't make sense .
When you 're building any one of the boxes that you mention , whether it 's a mythtv appliance or a playstation , someone 's loading software onto it .
It sounds like you just do n't want to be that person .
So buy your mplayerbox from someone , and you 've got Ogg support .
You also have divx and h.264 support if the builder decided he could probably get away with breaking the law or licensed.And that brings us to this : It 's an insurance policy against your media not becoming obsolete like VHS and DVD.Ogg is the insurance policy that you 're looking for .
h.264 will probably go obsolete in 6 years , when the submarine surfaces and the patent holders decide to start suing everyone who uses it .
When that happens , and then when your player breaks , you do n't know whether or not you 're going to be able to replace your player.You see , freedom-to-implement is n't just a good idea and it 's not all about lofty ideals .
It 's practical .
It 's the one way to know that your software , appliances , and the data that interacts with them , stays usable .
h.264 is a codec du jour that people are using right now because MPEGLA 's lawyers have been letting them get nice and comfortable .
The rug can be pulled out at any time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The future of web video isn't really in the browser.
It's on low-powered appliances like XBoxes, iPhones, iPads, Playstations and the likeAnd the like, which to some people includes a low-powered Linux box with mplayer or mythtv installed.
And that's now.OGG's a fine set of codecs, but if I have to transcode out of it to play on anything but a desktopGet the right appliance, and you don't have to transcode.Also, the whole idea of "no software installs" doesn't make sense.
When you're building any one of the boxes that you mention, whether it's a mythtv appliance or a playstation, someone's loading software onto it.
It sounds like you just don't want to be that person.
So buy your mplayerbox from someone, and you've got Ogg support.
You also have divx and h.264 support if the builder decided he could probably get away with breaking the law or licensed.And that brings us to this:It's an insurance policy against your media not becoming obsolete like VHS and DVD.Ogg is the insurance policy that you're looking for.
h.264 will probably go obsolete in 6 years, when the submarine surfaces and the patent holders decide to start suing everyone who uses it.
When that happens, and then when your player breaks, you don't know whether or not you're going to be able to replace your player.You see, freedom-to-implement isn't just a good idea and it's not all about lofty ideals.
It's practical.
It's the one way to know that your software, appliances, and the data that interacts with them, stays usable.
h.264 is a codec du jour that people are using right now because MPEGLA's lawyers have been letting them get nice and comfortable.
The rug can be pulled out at any time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041818</id>
	<title>H.274</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265378040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, this codec supports 3D ultra defenition holographic video and will only support Internet Explorer 13. The patents won't expire until 2099. So  take that Ogg boys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , this codec supports 3D ultra defenition holographic video and will only support Internet Explorer 13 .
The patents wo n't expire until 2099 .
So take that Ogg boys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, this codec supports 3D ultra defenition holographic video and will only support Internet Explorer 13.
The patents won't expire until 2099.
So  take that Ogg boys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043948</id>
	<title>Re:No additional software?</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265487900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love these assumptions. After all, if everyone has had VLC installed with any new Windows machine, Youtube would never have been necessary. It all comes down to the inaptitude of Microsoft to make a decent movie player...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love these assumptions .
After all , if everyone has had VLC installed with any new Windows machine , Youtube would never have been necessary .
It all comes down to the inaptitude of Microsoft to make a decent movie player.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love these assumptions.
After all, if everyone has had VLC installed with any new Windows machine, Youtube would never have been necessary.
It all comes down to the inaptitude of Microsoft to make a decent movie player...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042654</id>
	<title>Re:H.264 is ISO/IEC 14496-10, not a de facto stand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265385180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lets just clarify the statement you made to clear it up for you:</p><p>Ten years ago, Linux users complained that they could not view the video on the Web because it was in QuickTime containers with [patented] video and [patented] audio and that was all proprietary, not standardized. Now, the video is all in ISO [patented] containers, with ISO [patented] video and ISO [patented] audio and is playable on Linux in FlashPlayer and WebKit browsers and other players, and the complaining continues. It is disheartening.</p><p>Patents do not work well in the open source world.  What surprises you about that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets just clarify the statement you made to clear it up for you : Ten years ago , Linux users complained that they could not view the video on the Web because it was in QuickTime containers with [ patented ] video and [ patented ] audio and that was all proprietary , not standardized .
Now , the video is all in ISO [ patented ] containers , with ISO [ patented ] video and ISO [ patented ] audio and is playable on Linux in FlashPlayer and WebKit browsers and other players , and the complaining continues .
It is disheartening.Patents do not work well in the open source world .
What surprises you about that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets just clarify the statement you made to clear it up for you:Ten years ago, Linux users complained that they could not view the video on the Web because it was in QuickTime containers with [patented] video and [patented] audio and that was all proprietary, not standardized.
Now, the video is all in ISO [patented] containers, with ISO [patented] video and ISO [patented] audio and is playable on Linux in FlashPlayer and WebKit browsers and other players, and the complaining continues.
It is disheartening.Patents do not work well in the open source world.
What surprises you about that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043520</id>
	<title>Re:At least you can see the dangling sword</title>
	<author>randallman</author>
	<datestamp>1265394540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's no more a schrodinger than h.264.  Both have known patent holders.  Both may still have patent trolls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no more a schrodinger than h.264 .
Both have known patent holders .
Both may still have patent trolls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no more a schrodinger than h.264.
Both have known patent holders.
Both may still have patent trolls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31046784</id>
	<title>Re:Eww...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265483280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...only from an even scummier company[citation needed].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...only from an even scummier company [ citation needed ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...only from an even scummier company[citation needed].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041504</id>
	<title>It will be Ogg Theora or VP8</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265376000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only video codec that every browser <i>can</i> use at the moment is Ogg Theora. Unlike H.264, there are no costs involved beyond implementing support for it in your browser and there are no licencing issues that prevent distribution. Firefox, Opera, and Chrome currently support Ogg Theora. It's a shame that Safari and IE won't support it by default in the near to medium term.</p><p>It will be interesting to see what Google does once they own On2 Technologies. They may choose to open source the VP8 codec so every browser can use it and make it the default codec for YouTube, possibly as VP8 in Ogg as Ogg is a pretty good container format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only video codec that every browser can use at the moment is Ogg Theora .
Unlike H.264 , there are no costs involved beyond implementing support for it in your browser and there are no licencing issues that prevent distribution .
Firefox , Opera , and Chrome currently support Ogg Theora .
It 's a shame that Safari and IE wo n't support it by default in the near to medium term.It will be interesting to see what Google does once they own On2 Technologies .
They may choose to open source the VP8 codec so every browser can use it and make it the default codec for YouTube , possibly as VP8 in Ogg as Ogg is a pretty good container format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only video codec that every browser can use at the moment is Ogg Theora.
Unlike H.264, there are no costs involved beyond implementing support for it in your browser and there are no licencing issues that prevent distribution.
Firefox, Opera, and Chrome currently support Ogg Theora.
It's a shame that Safari and IE won't support it by default in the near to medium term.It will be interesting to see what Google does once they own On2 Technologies.
They may choose to open source the VP8 codec so every browser can use it and make it the default codec for YouTube, possibly as VP8 in Ogg as Ogg is a pretty good container format.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043850</id>
	<title>Re:Doublespeak</title>
	<author>CSMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1265399700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Divx just slides in because most devices will play it hardware assisted even though you need to install the codecs on a desktop.</p></div><p>Before MPEG 4 Part 2 (a.k.a. "DivX) became popular on the desktop, how many DivX-compatible devices did you see in the marketplace?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Divx just slides in because most devices will play it hardware assisted even though you need to install the codecs on a desktop.Before MPEG 4 Part 2 ( a.k.a .
" DivX ) became popular on the desktop , how many DivX-compatible devices did you see in the marketplace ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Divx just slides in because most devices will play it hardware assisted even though you need to install the codecs on a desktop.Before MPEG 4 Part 2 (a.k.a.
"DivX) became popular on the desktop, how many DivX-compatible devices did you see in the marketplace?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042338</id>
	<title>Re:Video for Everyone code hack is the solution</title>
	<author>jroysdon</author>
	<datestamp>1265382180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any H.264 solution requires some form of playback support (either native in the browser, like Chrome and I believe Opera) or Flash.  That means someone must agree to MPEG LA licensing.</p><p>This solution (Video for Everyone) doesn't require H.264, and in fact prefers FOSS/license-free Ogg Theora first.</p><p>It falls back to H.264 if OGV fails, then H.264 via Flash, and then telling the user to use one of the 2 download links.</p><p>It's not a perfect solution, but it solves things where they are right now until Microsoft and Apple can get their heads out of their behinds and support Ogg Theora, or until H.264/MPEG LA opens up H.264 license-free, or until all users install Firefox/Chrome/Opera.  Which do you think will happen sooner?</p><p>None of the above, so we support all 4 work-arounds with Video for Everyone, and no one has to install anything if they don't want to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any H.264 solution requires some form of playback support ( either native in the browser , like Chrome and I believe Opera ) or Flash .
That means someone must agree to MPEG LA licensing.This solution ( Video for Everyone ) does n't require H.264 , and in fact prefers FOSS/license-free Ogg Theora first.It falls back to H.264 if OGV fails , then H.264 via Flash , and then telling the user to use one of the 2 download links.It 's not a perfect solution , but it solves things where they are right now until Microsoft and Apple can get their heads out of their behinds and support Ogg Theora , or until H.264/MPEG LA opens up H.264 license-free , or until all users install Firefox/Chrome/Opera .
Which do you think will happen sooner ? None of the above , so we support all 4 work-arounds with Video for Everyone , and no one has to install anything if they do n't want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any H.264 solution requires some form of playback support (either native in the browser, like Chrome and I believe Opera) or Flash.
That means someone must agree to MPEG LA licensing.This solution (Video for Everyone) doesn't require H.264, and in fact prefers FOSS/license-free Ogg Theora first.It falls back to H.264 if OGV fails, then H.264 via Flash, and then telling the user to use one of the 2 download links.It's not a perfect solution, but it solves things where they are right now until Microsoft and Apple can get their heads out of their behinds and support Ogg Theora, or until H.264/MPEG LA opens up H.264 license-free, or until all users install Firefox/Chrome/Opera.
Which do you think will happen sooner?None of the above, so we support all 4 work-arounds with Video for Everyone, and no one has to install anything if they don't want to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31051748</id>
	<title>Re:No additional software?</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1265548200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As soon as people have to start paying for H264, ogg theora will take over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as people have to start paying for H264 , ogg theora will take over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as people have to start paying for H264, ogg theora will take over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041462</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31045460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044796
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31047436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31048274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31051748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31050148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31046700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31045106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31048328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31046784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31045148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31085734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31045872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2345210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31046784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31046700
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042392
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043934
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31045460
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043520
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31048274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31048328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31051748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31085734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042760
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31045106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31045872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31045148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31047436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31042338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31050148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31044428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31043044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2345210.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2345210.31041814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
