They all use steroids to enhance their game performance. This is the steroid league. If you want "natural" competition, go to www.speeddemosarchive.com , but they're just afraid to reach their full potential.
That makes about as much sense as saying that Michael Schumacher is giving himself an unfair advantage over Asafa Powell by using a car.
A troll who says, in essence, "wow, you guys are good" and also thanks Bisqwit after being pointed in the right direction for understanding what the runs are (and what they're not)?
Unlikely, I'd say. Most trolls have a tendency to actually, you know, troll. :)
Isn't it possible to merge them? There's also movies with more than one video, for example (MKV and OGM or MKV and AVI, IIRC), so why not one with both an FMV and an FCM? :)
2006-04-11 08:11:48 The Nonsense About AdSense (Your Rights Online,Google) (rejected)
Just try again in a few days... Slashdot editors can be rather random. I've submitted stories in the past that got rejected only to see someone else's submission of the same story get accepted later, so it can't really be the merit of the story itself that decides whether something's rejected or not...
Instead, I decided to sign PinkNews up to Yahoo!'s pay per click programme, carefully noting the right to speak to a real human being, 24/7, if we were unhappy with the figures they provided.
Well, strictly speaking, you did violate section 3 and possibly 15.
3. Communications Solely With Google. You agree to direct to Google, and not to any advertiser, any communication regarding any Ad(s) or Link(s) displayed in connection with Your Site(s).
By making this topic, you started a discussion about the Google Ads with someone else than Google. That's technically a violation of the terms of use, although I've seen many sites make a topic on their forum about the ads, so I don't think that this would be the cause.
I'm not sure about that - the clause you quote sounds more like a "if you got a problem with an ad being displayed on your site, contact us instead of the operator of the website that's being advertised" kind of thing, not like a general prohibition to talk about google ads (in general or specific ones) with anyone except google.
The best-case scenario is that they notice some misinterpretation in their results and fix things, and don't reset my statistics.
Let's hope that that's what'll happen. :/ But the rules seem really strict to me, too - particularly, the "a publisher encouraging others to click on his ads" one.
Oh well. Are there any other advertising networks using text ads that you could utilise if Google refuses to re-enable your account?
Oh stop. Just because I'm assertive doesn't mean I'm being impolite or uncivilized.
Well...
Only in MPC's case, due to its schizophrenia of having potentially three fucking decoders in separate places that do the same goddam [sic] thing.
MPEG-4 gets me angry, man. Some people get pissed about sloppy, IE-only web design. For me, it's about the general apathy towards seeing the best media format on earth go to shit.
And I'm not getting "worked up." I've been up over 24 hours at this point. I feel like Jack Bauer. Hunting down the evil AVI-using terrorists.
There always seems to be a catch with open-source, because everything's built to be just adequate enough for whatever they're doing -- if you want to add anything else to it, they think, you can write it yourself, because everyone in Linux Land is a programmer.
I'm just saying that you should probably try to come across as less of a zealot - it tends to alienate people.
There's nothing stopping MP3 audio from going into an MP4 file -- it's part of the spec -- but "mp4box" wasn't built to recognize MP3. There always seems to be a catch with open-source, because everything's built to be just adequate enough for whatever they're doing -- if you want to add anything else to it, they think, you can write it yourself, because everyone in Linux Land is a programmer.
Well, that's what free software is about, isn't it? Scratching your own itch, and then making the scratch available to others who might have the same itch. :)
That being said, many free software programmers are happy to take suggestions... as long as they're being made in a nice, polite and civilised way. You may want to try that.
The published files work in players specifically designed to accomodate them, not on the rest of the MPEG-4 platform. Any commercial version of MPEG-4 -- QuickTime, an iPod, an HD-DVD you burned that you want to work in an HD-DVD player, or maybe on the PS3's media center capabilities -- that is actually following the spec and going by the book doesn't know how to read AVI, because it's not part of the spec.
In other words... the problem with AVI is that players not designed to play AVI files cannot play AVI files?
You could use the same reasoning to argue that we shouldn't use H.264 at all because DivX-certified DVD players won't be able to play that. But you're missing the point, I think: the main concern [1] is that people can watch these videos on their computers, so while the ability to watch stuff on other devices is a plus, it's not really relevant for determining what the best container format, codec and all that is.
1. Well, as far as I can see... someone correct me if I'm wrong. :)
And I'm not getting "worked up." I've been up over 24 hours at this point. I feel like Jack Bauer. Hunting down the evil AVI-using terrorists.
MPEG-4 gets me angry, man. Some people get pissed about sloppy, IE-only web design. For me, it's about the general apathy towards seeing the best media format on earth go to shit.
I'm not quite sure I'm following you, myself. The published movies work - what else do you expect? They're not going to work more because you use a different container format. :)
That being said... chill and relax. It's not worth it getting that worked up over things like this. :)
Sorry, I only trust fake statistics I created myself.
The point was basically just to show that 100% of people have MP4 support, which they do.
Maybe you skipped this:
No, I didn't skip that. FWIW, I didn't/don't want to say that either MP4 or AVI is better, anyway; I just wanted to point out that it's silly to create graphs from thin air when you have no data to base them on at all.
That was really neat. One thing I'm wondering about, though - are those "this is a tool-assisted recording" reminders throughout the movie really necessary? I can see why they're there, but I found them to be rather distracting myself.
Google's at least aren't - that's why I think it's better to go with Google ads even when they pay per click rather than per impression. :) The problem with being paid for ad impressions is that the ads'll REALLY want to make an impression...