Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> no, it simply means MP4 does a way better job at compressing than DVD
> >>> codecs...
> >>> they are watching non-blurry HD streams, real-time.
> >>
> >> DVD is MPEG2. (?) I thought nobody had implemented MPEG4 yet.
> >
> > bluray is almost 6 years old already.
>
> And? I used standard definition video as an example because it has more
> modest data rate requirements. If broadband is too slow for standard
> definition, it is /obviously/ too slow for HD.
>
> > MP4 is almost already in every browser as part of HTML5 spec.
>
> I also thought nobody has implemented HTML5 yet. (Hell, I thought they
> hadn't even finished /specifying/ it yet - not that that ever stopped
> anybody. :-P )
>
> > see what you get for not reading slashdot feeds? You sound almost like a
> > caveman!
>
> Riiiight. Because if I visited Slashdot everyday I would already know
> all these things. Oh, wait...

"oh, wait!  I know nothing, I want to know nothing and I'm actually trying to
argue with people who know it better."

I don't think you're dumb actually.  I think you're a very skilled
attention-whore troll.

I don't time or fun any more for this BS routine...

Post a reply to this message