Already done. Look for "TrustZone" in AMD GPUs.

Buy up weapons. Prepare for da revolution.

Yeah, I doubt it. But it will give the DRM conspiracy theorists something else to whine about.

That is an amazing link. Thank you very much for your info on FLIF. I don't know any of the authors of FLIF. What else has _wb_ (I assume its him you call genius) been involved in?

Let us hope FLIF has a faster acceptance rate than PNG did. People thought I was crazy, asking "what is wrong with GIF/JPEG? It works just fine for me."

Hmmm Just a 256 color palette image that uses a compression algorithm that's under patent, or a lossy image compression that leaves artifacts everywhere... Nope... nothing wrong with either of them....

<.<
>.>

Although i've seen a number of programs use bmp and pcx for image/screenshot outputs, which are uncompressed (being the main gripe, not that RLE compression on BMP files meant anything).

You're welcome.
Yes, I meant _wb_, he is doing computer science research in his actual job and FLIF is a little side project of him which turns out to be pretty awesome if you consider the results of all the tests that were made until now.

Since it is easier to copy stuff, government needs to create laws to limit that ability. Who needs copyright when it took months for a group of monks to copy one book? When you actually needed musicians to play a tune?

I do wonder if, in centuries, historians will look back at a big cultural black hole in the 21st century and nod their heads, saying "what were they thinking?".

It couldn't possibly get worse.
Unnamed man who was shortly thereafter mauled to death by a cannibal Nazi zombie, 1944

Already historians are saying there's a black hole; contents on pen and paper can last decades while digital media disappears entirely, so all email and digital distribution is making data gathering of this nature an issue.

At least he wasn't DRMed.
Unnamed man after being mauled to death by a cannibal Nazi zombie, 1944

It's GPL. It has no chance of ever being widely used. Otherwise I agree it's a worthwhile new image compression technology.

Care to explain, why GPL should have a negative effect
and which license would have protected it better from being stolen and sold by big corporations?

web adoption would greatly depend on whether web developers and users would use it. hardware adoption is tougher, and would depend on manufacturers' whims .

e.g. Ogg Vorbis is mostly GPL. most manufacturers still don't care to support it even if it's free and efficient.

another format worth mentioning is Scalable Vector Graphics(SVG). totally overshadowed by Adobe's Shockwave Flash(SWF), though that might change as flash is known be a memory hog and impractical for mobile devices.

The second line pretty much answers the first. If you want to give something to people, then thinking of someone using it as theft is ludicrous. Big companies make most of the products that people use, so putting a technology out of their reach means putting it out of most people's hands, simple as that.

It's easy to offer a dual license, and have companies pay for a technology. That way they don't 'steal' it, and everything is fine. But if someone prefers to stick to pure GPL on principle, that's their problem (and frankly a problem for anyone else who wants to see the tech adopted).

Not to mention it always by default forces high quality graphics and 99% of the time that's the wrong thing to do. Among other annoyances with flash.