Numerous observers have shown that H.265 is better than VP9 on the quality/efficiency curve. But Google does not like to pay for real research and prefer to found alternative "free" copy-pasta codecs it controls. http://iphome.hhi.de/marpe/download/Performance_HEVC_VP9_X26... http://fr.slideshare.net/touradj_ebrahimi/spie2014-hev-cvsvp... edit: facts will get you downvoted on HN. Nice.
No, the rantings of a lunatic will. If you have issues with VP9 then take it elsewhere. Also, if you don't like the service then go elsewhere. No one is forcing VP9 on you. Go to a H.265 site and be quiet.
On Android Chrome isn't open source at all. On Windows/Linux several key parts are closed source, that's quite a bit more "than a bit of Google integration".
What key part is closed-source on Windows/Linux?
Maybe "key part" is overstating it a bit, but the auto-update, crash reporting and usage tracking systems are all closed-source, as are the Flash plugin and some non-free audio/video codecs that are bundled with Chrome.
Wouldn't the DRM spec have to explicitly permit MSE buffering? If Javascript could buffer the stream and send it to any destination other than a DRM-approved output device, that would defeat the DRM.
The way EME is designed, the browser is responsible for fetching the data from the network and passing it to the DRM module. This is no different with MSE, as far as I can tell; what you buffer up is the encrypted data, then pass it on to the DRM stuff.
Thanks, I'll run a test to see if it's possible to request an encrypted stream by timecode, then buffer it for composition with another encrypted stream.
> paint/refresh bugs while scrolling, Good to know I'm not the only one. I've become used to scrubbing the pointer up and down over the list of podcasts until the part I'm looking at is legible, and plugging my iPod in twice to get it to show up. But IMO iTunes is actually one of the less-bad recent Apple software screw-ups. At least it doesn't have enormous memory leaks, like Safari and Keynote, which regularly beac…
> But IMO iTunes is actually one of the less-bad recent Apple software screw-ups I would argue the peak in bug severity was 11.0, which randomly deleted podcasts: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5324634?tstart=0 For me that meant 30 GB of podcasts gone, most of which I can't download again (publisher went broke, original download required payments etc.) Sigh. I used to be a big fan of iTunes as well.
Podcasts used to be simple: follow an RSS feed, download the audio files, listen to them, delete them when you're done. Now they're "cloud," so your computer is just a cache, and God only knows when you have those files, or when some program lets you use them.
YouTube, Spotify, Google Play Music, SoundCloud, Pandora, et. al.
Those just aren't sufficient IMO. I like being able to listen to music when I have no internet connection. I like being able to listen to something when the original was taken down. I like being able to listen to something that the vendor no longer offers. I like having smart playlists in my library and on my devices that automatically update themselves based on meta data such as what I've played recently. Unfortunat…
Maybe not for you, but the original question was what do other people use.
I'm saying that whoever was proving a violation would have to show infringing distribution of a protected work. Bit torrent pieces generally contain a small fraction of the total work, which could easily be fair use. You'd have to show that the person was actually transmitting a protected work against its license. That piece may have been a short clip in a more encompassing work. You won't know until you get more of…
Nope, still wrong (not 'arguably wrong', plain factually wrong). That's not how 'fair use' works - it's not because you send a part (what you call a 'clip') of a work, that it becomes fair use all of a sudden.
I'm not sure what you're reading, but I never said that sending part of a work makes it fair use. I said that there are fair uses that involve sending parts of a work and that proving a single or small number of pieces were transmitted between parties is not ipso facto evidence of infringement.
Both Google and Yahoo Finance already adjust for splits. Yahoo has an 'adjusted close' value that reports the price adjusted for dividends, but these adjustments don't change the stock price so much that it would make comparing unadjusted values 'not meaningful'.
It's not meaningful to compare because they are different companies with different market caps. I actually hear people talk about stock prices as normalized values in every day conversation, but don't know any way polite enough or fast enough to correct them.
Although true, that's not relevant in this situation: both links posted by @smacktoward deal with percentage change in stock price, not actual stock price. Double-check the y-axis values.