That's mostly partial acceleration. Chips now support a lot of codecs. And aside H264/AVC chips makers cannot afford to use so much hardware surface for codecs that are not so popular.
I'd be surprised if that were true. (Do they donate anything? I'd be surprised if they did, I suspect they merely pay their membership dues.) The membership fees come at five levels, mostly dependent upon annual revenue; Apple, Microsoft, Google all pay the same as Adobe, Boeing, Dell, Facebook, HP, LG, Netflix, Siemens, Sony, Disney…
You're right, I meant "contributors". It is not only a question of money: these companies can dedicate people to lead the standardization tasks and push their own interests. That's mostly visible at MPEG with patents (yet another hot subject).
Standards are very important. But the way we make them is still highly improvable.
The ETSI thing doesn't solve problems. It creates a layer of abstraction that in theory makes the key acquisition protocol defined by whatever runs on the ETSI layer, but now you have the problem of remotely attesting the tamper-resistance of the ETSI layer itself. It would make more sense to standardize the protocol than to define an execution environment for arbitrary protocol engines.
Agreed. That's one of the reason why this initiative stalls. However the back idea is to standardize a DRM protocol that would be accepted by the copyright owners and that's a step in the right direction.
That post is less "I'm getting away from C++ because it's a poor language" and more "I'm retiring from my role as C++ advocate because there are plenty of quality resources available".
Thanks! I'm contributing to an open-source project where we do a lot of standardization (including MP4). We're trying to improve the parser generation by using a model from the specification. We even have some funding for this. I'd be happy if we could discuss this (contact@gpac.io). Better standards means a better world for everyone :)
Yes that's exactly what it is about! Unfortunately, our current result shows that it still requires much time to model the spec correctly. Any help appreciated, my contact is available on the message above :)
Honestly, I haven't tried D, but if it hadn't got traction in 14 years, I'd say it was a miss. It's not enough to be a good language -- documentation, tools, libraries, community, adoption in open source projects is, arguably, even more important.
It is not a hasard to have this kind of laws in France. France hasn't known dictatorship for long. French representatives don't know what a Stasi-like security state would look like. It would be harder to have such a law in Germany.
The low number of delegates during the vote whows how archaic the French politic system is: they are against their own party so they prefer to be missing. There is little discussion. And there is no way to make a petition in France that would go to the parliament or provoke a referendum.
France just shows how current institutions are overwhelmed by new technologies.
>It would be harder to have such a law in Germany.
No, we already have this law. Companies with over 10k users need to install a black box to make easy access for the state. There is also a proposal to save communication for 8 weeks, of course just to protect against terrorists.
You probably meant "Its not by chance that France get this kind of law". Because "Not a hasard" (hazard) means "not dangerous", making your whole post confusing.
He meant it's not a hazard to the politicians careers to introduce such a law as the public don't really know what it means in reality unlike Germany say who have such direct experience, I think.
If you read enough French history you realize how paranoid governments there are about anything that might damage the power of the government, whether it be royal, republican or communist. You have enough coups and the like over time you tend to do anything to keep it from happening again. Though of course it does anyway...
