Add ability to cast to chromecastt!! :) Currently can only cast with a chrome extension, and tell it to cast whole desktop, and vlc plays verry choppy that way. Please add this ability and if its already there, please advise where is the 'How To', lol. Thx in advance, *User of VLC since VLC came out. Never have, nor never will use another video player. I even install it on client PC's and set as default to override media player, lol*

If (cursor = in text field) { backspace text } Else { Go Back one page } EOF

Again, didnt even cross my mind. thanks alot. I would also be interested in taking a look at assembly, but all I hear about it is that is very hard to grasp, and not necessary with all the languages out there. But I will deff take a look into it to get a better idea.

I see, thanks for the detailed explanation, I hadn't thought of those. I like the first example, and the fact that the compiler can recognize your code and make that replacement confidently. Thats just cool.

I'm not a programmer at all, but have dabbled in a few different languages, as I find programming very interesting. (Got pretty good at mirc scripting when I was younger, which lead to visual basic, C++, and now C# dballing that nvr leads to anything). This said, I have a basic knowledge of programming in general. My question is, What things can a compiler do to your code to 'optimize' it for you? I would think majority of any good optimizations might require rethinking whole methods of doing things and/or recoding chunks of code. If the compiler tries to do this, wouldn't it likely screw your code up? Or how would it know 'what' your really trying to do? Outside of removing comments, can someone please explain other Basic optimization methods, (I say basic, like removing comments - You know that cant screw anything up), that a compiler can do on your code that wont screw it up? Thanks in advance.

They have the time, money, and developers they can devote to a new project around creating their own video codec. They then can tailor it to their needs, as far as bitrate, size, quality, etc... There will have to be some sacrifices, as you cant have your cake and eat it to. Meaning they won't get what they really want even if they create their own, but they will end up with what they need. Then sell it like its the best thing since sliced bread. I honestly like the majority, if not all Google services that I use. They code things very well, with the user in mind. So I feel with Google ripping the browser game wide open with Chrome's speed, it now has it's own browser, thus the motivation to go forward with a project like this. And I'm all for it. Call it Google Video and Google Audio (.gvf and .gaf) 'Gee Vee F' has a nice ring to it and might catch on like MP3.

They are not dropping the tag from the standard, only the codec that it uses. Which is correct in my eyes. Html doesn't make dev's use a certain type of image with the tag, why restrict what the tag can do? Leave it open. Which is what they're doing. So that the tag is still in the standard and useable, but its up to the dev on which type of video to be played. Only seems logical.