whoosh

You *can* write such code, but how long will it take you to build up equivalent APIs in a low-level language that these higher-level languages give you out of the box, taking into account the time needed to eliminate bugs? Here's a hint: it took those multiple companies' worth of advanced programmers over a decade to get to that level.

It's almost as if you exhibit a polar extreme case of Not Invented Here syndrome. Just because you *can* do something does not make it a good or practical solution to real-world problems.

don't forget the chance of identical twins...

Ahaha brilliant!!

don't you mean in 4 years from now? 6*5 != 27...

It's not just F12. On some systems it is Delete, Esc, or Ctl-Shift-S, and any number of other potential combinations of modifier and F-keys.

So your approach is actually the perfect one for hacking into an unfamiliar system :).

Mod parent up. This would be a really nice, sensible state of things that I could imagine being realistically being applied to many (but probably not all) standards bodies.

But even more pertinent is the question, why is the W3C allowed to put H.264 in the HTML5 spec? The whole premise of the web is that its specifications are open (i.e. royalty free), and that is one of the reasons it has become so popular. Have we learned nothing from GIF? Media formats that are specified as being embedded within HTML should be treated as if they are part of the HTML specification--a specification which is supposed to be royalty-free! Allowing H.264 in there is the epitome of saying one thing while doing another--pure hipocrasy!

Agreed.

You've got to be kidding. Never mind that it has taken years to get Theora where it is now technically -- it is also a fact that there are only so many ways to cut down on video bitrates. This is why, even though Theora is theoretically a "new" codec, it still allegedly could be called out for violating MPEG patents.

Yet another "new" codec, short of some magical new video compression algorithm being discovered (chances slim to none), wouldn't change anything in regards to legal issues, and would need years to mature technically to the point where it is ready for prime time.

There is no question that patent and copyright reform are desperately needed, and are the best solution. But since it seems like this won't happen anytime soon, the simplest solution would be for the MPEG-LA to change the licensing to something that prohibits themselves from changing their minds and extracting royalties at a later date. (Somewhat similarly to how the GPL ensures that a company can never backtrack on the open-sourceness of code.)

Or, even better, make a legally binding promise to give up all royalties, commercial included, at a fixed date in the future. Something like the following would make the masses happy methinks:
(however IANAL so I can't speak for accuracy, enforceability or realisticness of the language)

"Until (--insert date here--), MPEG-LA garantees the royalty-free use of (--insert MPEG specs here--) for non-commercial purposes. Directly following this date, said specifications are to be available royalty free for both commercial and non-commercial purposes, indefinitely. Starting on said date, no royalties shall be applicable or enforceable by any party on the specifications in their current form as of this writing ((--current date--)). This statement is binding under law and cannot be retracted."

As for the date, 2012 sounds good to me. :)

I don't about you, but I thoroughly enjoy using CDs and DVDs for storage, particularly of pictures, music, videos and applications. They fulfill the purpose wonderfully, as Bluray will (/might) when (/if) Bluray burners become standard equipment. The point is not to back up the entire hard drive; the point is to share information with others and/or back up enough of the hard drive, in sensible categorized chunks, at a cheaper price point and theoretically with a longer shelf life than what you get by buying a second hard drive.