If you flip a coin 30 times and get a heads every time, then I'm betting on heads for the 31st flip.
30 in a row is a billion to one against, assuming the coin is fair. It is that pesky assumption that is the problem. What are the odds that the coin-is-fair hypothesis is correct?
In real life, very little is a certainty. Some coins are not fair.
And then with their newly acquired purview betray the open internet groups by implementing draconian regulations that will inevitably consolidate control even further.
This could manifest itself as sanctioning mergers between content producers and content providers. Maybe someday you might even see them sanction the merger of Comcast and NBC....
At least with net neutrality regulation, they'll at least have to ask the FCC before they do it. It's not the best possible world, but it's better than the one we get without net neutrality.
I am going to be extremely fucking rude here, because you fuckers dont' fucking get it.
You got your precious fucking FCC net neutrality regulations. THEY PASSED THEM. They had nothing to fucking do with net neutrality.
The FCC hasn't done shit for net neutrality. Which fucking part of that don't you fucking get?
To the FCC, "Net Neutrality" is just a fucking label to be used to fuck YOU over.
Why are you so fucking stupid? We fucking told you that the FCC was going to fuck you over and since we did that they have done so twice. Which fucking part of that don't you fucking get?
Weren't you one of the slashdot guys telling us how great the FCC would be at regulating the internet?
We told you that the FCC had no intention of promoting net neutrality, but you didn't fucking listen. The FCC then put forth bullshit neutrality rules that not enforce neutrality.
Now the FCC is condoning the creation of a real neutrality problem (not just one you fucking imagined.)
Are you ready to concede, that the FCC should not to be in charge of regulating the internet?..or do you need the FCC to fuck you over a couple more times before you will listen?
People who give out their personal information to facebook, are the same people who will also give it out to someone else.
So what you describe as a 'problem' actually isn't. The argument then devolves into who you get to vilify for what is essentially inevitable. If not facebook, then twitter, google, microsoft, apple,...
You gave your phone number and address to facebook, so its your dumb-assed fault.
The rest of us have no sympathy for you, and don't care what "personal information" facebook gives out to its partners, because we have assumed all along that facebook gives 100% of information to its partners.
He also pioneered music-quality sound with his Paula device
No he didn't.
He copied, cheaply, from the synthesizer industry.. where more than a few companies were using sample-based synths.
Commodore should have stuck with the designer of the SID chip, because that guy is the one who revolutionized computer audio when he went to Ensoniq.
That 4-channel Amiga chip wasnt even the best in computers at the time, which happened to be in the AppleIIgs which sported a 16-channel Ensoniq DOC2 chip... and each channel was panable too. Fast foward a few years and the PC received the Ensoniq DOC3 chip, licensed by Gravis UltraSound (and dubbed the GF1), capable of 32 panable channels.
You've got the wrong guy. Jay Miner didnt have squat to do with the revolution other than designing a gimped knock off of what the music industry was already using.
Bob Yannes was the Commodore guy that revolutionized the computer audio industry, and he already produced something significantly better than Paula by the time the Amiga was even in draft.
I'm afraid that you've failed to grasp the fact that UNIX has been the industry standard for over 30 years now and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
What does that have to do with anything? You are proving the point that many of the posters here haven't a clue what a Computer Science course is supposed to teach, that in fact you are the shining beacon of the ignorance.
UNIX 101 class is not about using computers.
A UNIX 101 class *would* be about using computers, specifically computers running a UNIX derivative.
Have schools really downgraded this much? That might explain the hordes of new guys that don't know shit about algorithms, information theory, etc. You know, that stuff thats supposed to come first.. the whole Science part of Computer Science.
I am afraid the sophomore has failed to grasp the point of CS, and unfortunately it looks like most of the posters here dont have a grasp either.
You do have to make some specific choices when teaching CS, but never the whole god damned OS as the 'subject.' You would choose a specific set of programming languages when teaching computational theory, algorithms, and so forth..
They have some experience at this; they're probably a lot better than you are at finding the optimal price point that earns them (and you) the most money.
If both you and Amazon are each getting a flat percentage of the sale, then the optimal price point is the same for both of you.
However, if it is not always a flat percentage, then the optimal price point may be different for both of you. Amazon is in control of the matter so it will only be looking to optimally price for itself.
If only one of these patent pools would patent multiple methods of doing the same thing so that implementors would have a choice of algorithms likely to be efficient on their hardware.
I'm not quite getting your point here. Is your argument that at least with H.264 we know we're fucked? That we should just give up on open and royalty-free standards and open source until the U.S. gets a patent reform?
Sigh.. I'm saying that any re-implementation that isnt the reference is very likely to infringe on patents.
Are you just too stubborn to admit it to yourself that you have to pretend to struggle with this idea?
Take a look at H.264's patent pool sometime. Many methods of implementing the same equivalent thing are in there for a reason, so that implementors have options. VP8 gives no options.
ffmpeg has an independent implementation of the decoder, but for the encoder you are correct.
..which may, or may not, violate patents not covered by the ones Google acquired.
Some people seem to be having trouble with this concept, so I'll use a little analogy.
I can patent a sorting method.. lets call it RockoonSort(). I can develop a compression algorithm that requires sorting and use my sorting method in it.
I cannot patent sorting itself, so you could go ahead and avoid my patent by using qsort(), heapsort(), mergesort(), bogosort(),...
All of these video codecs use arithmetic coding, and many of the various algorithms that implement it are covered by patents. They all do the same thing, and quite a few are even functionally interchangeable (for a given input, the exact same output) but are none-the-less owned by different folks (hello IBM.)
This all boils down to methods of doing it efficiently. Using a particular kind of lookup table to avoid an expensive division? Well thats owned by someone (hello MPEG-LA) but using the expensive division is out of patent now and everyone can go ahead and do it that way (ie, slowly.) Patents on doing it without multiplications? Yep. Doing it with binary trees? Yep. Doing multiple symbols in in parallel? Yep.
Even if you accept that the reference does not violate anyones IP, you cannot accept that changes to the reference for efficiency or even porting reasons (for hardware without specific capabilities) will also keep you free and clear.
Except that the method is the format. Without the format conversion, all you have are semi-random bits.
Not a programmer, are you? You do realize that there is more than one way to implement something identical, right? No? Yeah... thats how I know that you arent a programmer.
That DOES NOT MAKE IT NONSTANDARD.
Nobody said that it did. You, however, seem to think that source code makes a standard.
Plus, I suspect that you're wrong. There are several implementations of the standard.
If they are not identical, then only one of which is owned by Google and as such only one of which is covered by Googles "we wont sue you, unless.." terms.
The other could contain patented algorithms not owned by Google and STILL DECODE THE SAME STREAMS.
Do you not understand that?
You use a lot of words and have only managed to display your ignorance.
Comming from someone that doesnt know what patents cover (WebM is not patented, although might be in the future, but the VP8 algorithms ARE patented.. the ALGORITHMS, not the format.)
Dont be such an ignorant rude fuck, asshole, especially when you dont have a fucking clue what you are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Are saying is that if Microsoft was doing this, then it could not be tolerated?
I mean, it sounds like what you are saying. That Google can do this, and its awesome, but it cannot be tolerated if we do a 's/Google/Microsoft' ?
If you flip a coin 30 times and get a heads every time, then I'm betting on heads for the 31st flip.
30 in a row is a billion to one against, assuming the coin is fair. It is that pesky assumption that is the problem. What are the odds that the coin-is-fair hypothesis is correct?
In real life, very little is a certainty. Some coins are not fair.
Its the same reason that border patrol reality television is on the National Geographic channel.
Its cheap. The cost per viewer is exceptionally low, and that trumps sticking with your stations traditional niche.
And then with their newly acquired purview betray the open internet groups by implementing draconian regulations that will inevitably consolidate control even further.
This could manifest itself as sanctioning mergers between content producers and content providers. Maybe someday you might even see them sanction the merger of Comcast and NBC....
...oh... wait....
RAID is not a backup solution. RAID is an uptime solution.
Scenario:
Rogue program silently removes some files.
Standard operations over-write those sectors.
All RAID will do is echo these actions to both drives, permanently destroying your data.
You would be much better off using that "standard mode" and then periodically copying from one drive to the other.
Please do not put the HTML5 spec onto a Google Wave page, thanks.
Wave failed. Just bury it, please. Don't take HTML5 with it.
ISP mainly
If Microsoft finally catches up with IE9, there's going to be rejoicing, not complaining.
Did you keep a straight face while typing that?
At least with net neutrality regulation, they'll at least have to ask the FCC before they do it. It's not the best possible world, but it's better than the one we get without net neutrality.
I am going to be extremely fucking rude here, because you fuckers dont' fucking get it.
You got your precious fucking FCC net neutrality regulations. THEY PASSED THEM. They had nothing to fucking do with net neutrality.
The FCC hasn't done shit for net neutrality. Which fucking part of that don't you fucking get?
To the FCC, "Net Neutrality" is just a fucking label to be used to fuck YOU over.
Why are you so fucking stupid? We fucking told you that the FCC was going to fuck you over and since we did that they have done so twice. Which fucking part of that don't you fucking get?
Weren't you one of the slashdot guys telling us how great the FCC would be at regulating the internet?
..or do you need the FCC to fuck you over a couple more times before you will listen?
We told you that the FCC had no intention of promoting net neutrality, but you didn't fucking listen. The FCC then put forth bullshit neutrality rules that not enforce neutrality.
Now the FCC is condoning the creation of a real neutrality problem (not just one you fucking imagined.)
Are you ready to concede, that the FCC should not to be in charge of regulating the internet?
I see that when someone correct you, you jump to conclusions and go on the attack in order to deflect from your error.
FACT: Jay Miner did not, as you had claimed, pioneer music quality sound with Paula.
Just suck it up and live with your error, rude fan boy.
People who give out their personal information to facebook, are the same people who will also give it out to someone else.
...
So what you describe as a 'problem' actually isn't. The argument then devolves into who you get to vilify for what is essentially inevitable. If not facebook, then twitter, google, microsoft, apple,
So again I say "haa ha!"
You gave your phone number and address to facebook, so its your dumb-assed fault.
The rest of us have no sympathy for you, and don't care what "personal information" facebook gives out to its partners, because we have assumed all along that facebook gives 100% of information to its partners.
[pointing at you] haa ha!
He also pioneered music-quality sound with his Paula device
No he didn't.
He copied, cheaply, from the synthesizer industry.. where more than a few companies were using sample-based synths.
Commodore should have stuck with the designer of the SID chip, because that guy is the one who revolutionized computer audio when he went to Ensoniq.
That 4-channel Amiga chip wasnt even the best in computers at the time, which happened to be in the AppleIIgs which sported a 16-channel Ensoniq DOC2 chip... and each channel was panable too. Fast foward a few years and the PC received the Ensoniq DOC3 chip, licensed by Gravis UltraSound (and dubbed the GF1), capable of 32 panable channels.
You've got the wrong guy. Jay Miner didnt have squat to do with the revolution other than designing a gimped knock off of what the music industry was already using.
Bob Yannes was the Commodore guy that revolutionized the computer audio industry, and he already produced something significantly better than Paula by the time the Amiga was even in draft.
Why do we care about the policy choices of some Linux distros? You will always find policy choices that outlaw things.
Suppose a Linux distro had a policy choice that didn't allow VP8 to be bundled? What would your opinion on policy choices be then?
There are GPL H.264 encoders and decoders.
Why are you lying?
FFMPeg is GPL
x264 is also GPL
Do I need to go on and list a few more, or is two enough to snub your ignorance?
Everyone thinks that they at least pay their fair share of taxes.
The odds that the share you pay is fair is just about 0%. You either pay more or less than your fair share with almost certainty.
I'm afraid that you've failed to grasp the fact that UNIX has been the industry standard for over 30 years now and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
What does that have to do with anything? You are proving the point that many of the posters here haven't a clue what a Computer Science course is supposed to teach, that in fact you are the shining beacon of the ignorance.
UNIX 101 class is not about using computers.
A UNIX 101 class *would* be about using computers, specifically computers running a UNIX derivative.
Have schools really downgraded this much? That might explain the hordes of new guys that don't know shit about algorithms, information theory, etc. You know, that stuff thats supposed to come first.. the whole Science part of Computer Science.
Why are you teaching an OS to CS students?
Seriously WTF... and to *freshman* no less?
I am afraid the sophomore has failed to grasp the point of CS, and unfortunately it looks like most of the posters here dont have a grasp either.
You do have to make some specific choices when teaching CS, but never the whole god damned OS as the 'subject.' You would choose a specific set of programming languages when teaching computational theory, algorithms, and so forth..
CS is not equal to "using computers"
It becomes legal to look at your boobies
They have some experience at this; they're probably a lot better than you are at finding the optimal price point that earns them (and you) the most money.
If both you and Amazon are each getting a flat percentage of the sale, then the optimal price point is the same for both of you.
However, if it is not always a flat percentage, then the optimal price point may be different for both of you. Amazon is in control of the matter so it will only be looking to optimally price for itself.
If only one of these patent pools would patent multiple methods of doing the same thing so that implementors would have a choice of algorithms likely to be efficient on their hardware.
Oh.. wait.. MPEG-LA did exactly that.
I'm not quite getting your point here. Is your argument that at least with H.264 we know we're fucked? That we should just give up on open and royalty-free standards and open source until the U.S. gets a patent reform?
Sigh.. I'm saying that any re-implementation that isnt the reference is very likely to infringe on patents.
Are you just too stubborn to admit it to yourself that you have to pretend to struggle with this idea?
Take a look at H.264's patent pool sometime. Many methods of implementing the same equivalent thing are in there for a reason, so that implementors have options. VP8 gives no options.
Why is this so hard?
ffmpeg has an independent implementation of the decoder, but for the encoder you are correct.
Some people seem to be having trouble with this concept, so I'll use a little analogy.
I can patent a sorting method.. lets call it RockoonSort(). I can develop a compression algorithm that requires sorting and use my sorting method in it.
I cannot patent sorting itself, so you could go ahead and avoid my patent by using qsort(), heapsort(), mergesort(), bogosort(),
All of these video codecs use arithmetic coding, and many of the various algorithms that implement it are covered by patents. They all do the same thing, and quite a few are even functionally interchangeable (for a given input, the exact same output) but are none-the-less owned by different folks (hello IBM.)
This all boils down to methods of doing it efficiently. Using a particular kind of lookup table to avoid an expensive division? Well thats owned by someone (hello MPEG-LA) but using the expensive division is out of patent now and everyone can go ahead and do it that way (ie, slowly.) Patents on doing it without multiplications? Yep. Doing it with binary trees? Yep. Doing multiple symbols in in parallel? Yep.
Even if you accept that the reference does not violate anyones IP, you cannot accept that changes to the reference for efficiency or even porting reasons (for hardware without specific capabilities) will also keep you free and clear.
Except that the method is the format. Without the format conversion, all you have are semi-random bits.
Not a programmer, are you? You do realize that there is more than one way to implement something identical, right? No? Yeah... thats how I know that you arent a programmer.
That DOES NOT MAKE IT NONSTANDARD.
Nobody said that it did. You, however, seem to think that source code makes a standard.
Plus, I suspect that you're wrong. There are several implementations of the standard.
If they are not identical, then only one of which is owned by Google and as such only one of which is covered by Googles "we wont sue you, unless.." terms.
The other could contain patented algorithms not owned by Google and STILL DECODE THE SAME STREAMS.
Do you not understand that?
You use a lot of words and have only managed to display your ignorance.
Comming from someone that doesnt know what patents cover (WebM is not patented, although might be in the future, but the VP8 algorithms ARE patented .. the ALGORITHMS, not the format.)
Dont be such an ignorant rude fuck, asshole, especially when you dont have a fucking clue what you are talking about.