But there ought to be a reasonable density that allows us to have space, and still mean we can have good mass transit.
Why must there 'ought' to be a 'reasonable density' that also allows 'good mass transit?'
Isn't it quite possible that all 'reasonable densities' do NOT allow 'good mass transit?'
And lets be quite clear that your definition of 'good mass transit' looks like shit compared to even higher densities than we have today anywhere on the planet. This is 'the cart before the horse' all the way to ultra-densities where everyone gets a 2 meter by 1 meter by 1 meter room and these rooms are stacked a couple hundred high...
The fact that one can envision scenarios in which FCC regulation would be bad
Lets be honest here. We can just point to existing FCC regulations in other industries for all the examples of "bad" that we need.
You want Net Neutrality? Great. So do I. Do you honestly believe that the FCC gives a fuck about Net Neutrality? I do not.
I know for sure that the FCC doesnt give a fuck about Net Neutrality. As has been pointed out time and again, the ISP's could be rolled up into Common Carrier status by the FCC today.. but thats not happening.
The FCC doesnt want your packets to be treated like a land-line phone call. They want to eventually regulate the content of those packets.
You people that want Net Neutrality so badly that you support the FCC are the fucking problem. You are setting us up for the loss of free speech, DOUCHE BAGS.
There is no way to measure the total entropy of a sequence, but instead only the entropy given a specific model of that sequence. There is also no way to show that a given model describes the optimal entropy.
So you have used a circular reference, by stating that optimal data compression is rigidly defined by moving the undefined parts to a word that you dont understand.
First you declare "optimal is NOT subjective at all. there is a fixed and easily definable limit to the amount of lossless compression a dataset can withstand." as a response to "optimal is subjective"
Now you claim "defining the average content stream and system requirements were NECESSARY BEFORE defining THE optimal solution."
Cart before the horse much? You originally had no idea that other factors besides "amount of lossless compression" were commonly important in data compression..
And the funniest part is that you declared that there was a "fixed and easily definable limit" to lossless compression. No sir, you are wrong. It is not easy to define at all. The estimate for English is somewhere between 0.6 and 1.3 bits per character, with the best compressors still performing on average worse than 1.0 bits per character. Nobody knows if 0.6 is possible or not, hence there cannot be an "easily definable limit"
But the problem with NOT having government regulation is that the monopolies fuck the consumer just as hard then.
Lets stick the the facts. Americans, who are stuck with monopolies, are not getting fucked in the face as hard as Canadians who are also stuck with monopolies.
The difference is that In Canada's case, the monopoly is explicitly regulated by the government.
In effect, its TWO monopolies doing the face fucking in Canada.. UBB and the Government.
but will reduce wasteful traffic, like illegal bittorrenting
I'm pretty sure that it will reduce legal torrenting more than it will illegal torrenting.
This is especially true if they hit you both on the up and on the down.
Think about it. For anything legal, there is always a simple alternative to torrenting. It is only the illegal stuff where there often isnt a simple alternative.
There are at least 4 metrics in the case of data compression that can be optimized for, and further that any metric can have a weighted level of importance:
1) Compression ratio.
2) Speed of compression.
3) Memory Overhead (the good compressors use a LOT of memory.. one compression competition limits memory use to "only" 1 gigabyte)
4) Recovery rate from corruption/transmission errors.
You are obviously one of those compression noobs that talks the big talk but doesnt have any applied experience in the matter.
The patents would most likely be related to speed, rather than compression ratio. For instance, all the good (fast) arithmetic encoders are still under patent. These trade a small bit of compression efficiency to avoid the expensive division per symbol that is otherwise required.
Indeed. I tried to tell all these young slashdotters that the FCC is *not* for freedom of speech, but none of them wanted to listen.
I told them how the FCC was considered very very very bad by my generation for good reasons, but they didn't want to listen. They were all dreamy-eyed about the wonders of "net neutrality" and refused to fucking listen, and were actually IN A FUCKING RUSH TO SUPPORT THE FCC.
Listen up fucking kids on slashdot. The FCC should never ever ever be allowed to regulate the internet. Ever. Period. Never fucking ever.
Whats that from? I am only pointing out that the guy who has enough free time to regularly schedule play-dates with his or her friends has probably not grown up, and certainly doesnt have much responsibility.
No, the FCC is totally for free speech and an unregulated internet, without question. We should trust them completely because they have NEVER done what the critics are afraid of.
Its a good thing that Slashdot supports putting the FCC in charge of regulating the Internet in America, because they have never censored any sort of content with any sort of filter in the past.
Rest assured that the FCC would never break its long standing and strong track record of never censoring any content.
Slashdot Mirror
But there ought to be a reasonable density that allows us to have space, and still mean we can have good mass transit.
Why must there 'ought' to be a 'reasonable density' that also allows 'good mass transit?'
Isn't it quite possible that all 'reasonable densities' do NOT allow 'good mass transit?'
And lets be quite clear that your definition of 'good mass transit' looks like shit compared to even higher densities than we have today anywhere on the planet. This is 'the cart before the horse' all the way to ultra-densities where everyone gets a 2 meter by 1 meter by 1 meter room and these rooms are stacked a couple hundred high...
The fact that one can envision scenarios in which FCC regulation would be bad
Lets be honest here. We can just point to existing FCC regulations in other industries for all the examples of "bad" that we need.
You want Net Neutrality? Great. So do I. Do you honestly believe that the FCC gives a fuck about Net Neutrality? I do not.
I know for sure that the FCC doesnt give a fuck about Net Neutrality. As has been pointed out time and again, the ISP's could be rolled up into Common Carrier status by the FCC today.. but thats not happening.
The FCC doesnt want your packets to be treated like a land-line phone call. They want to eventually regulate the content of those packets.
You people that want Net Neutrality so badly that you support the FCC are the fucking problem. You are setting us up for the loss of free speech, DOUCHE BAGS.
Quite the opposite is true.
Emulating the x86 instruction set with regards to its flags register will take considerable development effort, and thats just one thing.
RISC is much easier to emulate on CISC.
OK. The fixed bitstream I submit is the enwik8 text file used in the Hutter Prize compression competition.
I do not want your results. I want you to claim the bulk of the Hutter Prize money. I look forward to seeing Michael Kristopeit as the top entry.
Except that quote doesn't apply since Net Neutrality is attempting to secure LIBERTY for the consumers.
The FCC ins't attempting to secure LIBERTY for the consumers.
Why do you continue to equate the FCC with Net Neutrality? Are you fucking stupid?
And even without any compatibility headaches, most Windows applications weren't written with a touch interface in mind
Are you missing the part where it will be using ARM CPU's, thus what "most windows apps" are doing is moot?
This is like pointing at a Linux tablet and asking "Why are they trying to keep Linux?"
There is no way to measure the total entropy of a sequence, but instead only the entropy given a specific model of that sequence. There is also no way to show that a given model describes the optimal entropy.
So you have used a circular reference, by stating that optimal data compression is rigidly defined by moving the undefined parts to a word that you dont understand.
i said there was a fixed and easily definable limit TO A GIVEN DATASET.
No there isn't.
Let me quote you:
First you declare "optimal is NOT subjective at all. there is a fixed and easily definable limit to the amount of lossless compression a dataset can withstand." as a response to "optimal is subjective"
Now you claim "defining the average content stream and system requirements were NECESSARY BEFORE defining THE optimal solution."
Cart before the horse much? You originally had no idea that other factors besides "amount of lossless compression" were commonly important in data compression..
And the funniest part is that you declared that there was a "fixed and easily definable limit" to lossless compression. No sir, you are wrong. It is not easy to define at all. The estimate for English is somewhere between 0.6 and 1.3 bits per character, with the best compressors still performing on average worse than 1.0 bits per character. Nobody knows if 0.6 is possible or not, hence there cannot be an "easily definable limit"
But the problem with NOT having government regulation is that the monopolies fuck the consumer just as hard then.
Lets stick the the facts. Americans, who are stuck with monopolies, are not getting fucked in the face as hard as Canadians who are also stuck with monopolies.
The difference is that In Canada's case, the monopoly is explicitly regulated by the government.
In effect, its TWO monopolies doing the face fucking in Canada.. UBB and the Government.
Anyone that thinks NN is strictly about regulation had it explained to them by someone with bad intentions.
Anyone who thinks the FCC gives a fuck about Net Neutrality had it explained to them by someone that fucking doesnt know the history of the FCC.
The FCC originally didnt censor broadcasting, either.
The FCC has limited free speech my entire life.
ITS WHAT THEY DO.
THIS IS HOW THEY DO IT.
IT LEADS TO THINK-OF-THE-CHILDREN MANDATORY HARDWARE ON ALL DEVICES
I'll take a throttled torrent over censorship EVERY FUCKING DAY OF THE FUCKING WEEK.
WAKE THE FUCK UP. THE FCC IS FUCKING BAD FOR THE INTERNET.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." - Franklin
but will reduce wasteful traffic, like illegal bittorrenting
I'm pretty sure that it will reduce legal torrenting more than it will illegal torrenting.
This is especially true if they hit you both on the up and on the down.
Think about it. For anything legal, there is always a simple alternative to torrenting. It is only the illegal stuff where there often isnt a simple alternative.
there is only ONE optimal solution for fixed parameters and fixed input.
Which means that optimal is based on subjective choices of parameters, which you claimed wasn't true.
You: modded both troll and flamebait
Me: modded informative
You: don't understand the subject
Me: been dealing with this subject for several decades
also considering that those very weighted levels DEFINE AN OPTIMAL SOLUTION... I'm an idiot."
Fixed that for the douche bag.
uh... optimal is NOT subjective at all.
Wrong, douche bag.
There are at least 4 metrics in the case of data compression that can be optimized for, and further that any metric can have a weighted level of importance:
1) Compression ratio.
2) Speed of compression.
3) Memory Overhead (the good compressors use a LOT of memory.. one compression competition limits memory use to "only" 1 gigabyte)
4) Recovery rate from corruption/transmission errors.
You are obviously one of those compression noobs that talks the big talk but doesnt have any applied experience in the matter.
"Optimal" is subjective.
The patents would most likely be related to speed, rather than compression ratio. For instance, all the good (fast) arithmetic encoders are still under patent. These trade a small bit of compression efficiency to avoid the expensive division per symbol that is otherwise required.
Indeed. I tried to tell all these young slashdotters that the FCC is *not* for freedom of speech, but none of them wanted to listen.
I told them how the FCC was considered very very very bad by my generation for good reasons, but they didn't want to listen. They were all dreamy-eyed about the wonders of "net neutrality" and refused to fucking listen, and were actually IN A FUCKING RUSH TO SUPPORT THE FCC.
Listen up fucking kids on slashdot. The FCC should never ever ever be allowed to regulate the internet. Ever. Period. Never fucking ever.
This will be the future of forums.
This will be the future of running a web site.
You fuckers wanted to END FREE SPEECH just so your fucking torrent wont get throttled... FUCK YOU.
Whats that from? I am only pointing out that the guy who has enough free time to regularly schedule play-dates with his or her friends has probably not grown up, and certainly doesnt have much responsibility.
Completely destructible 32-voxel world, bad things spawn in the dark. The object is to survive through mining, crafting, and building.
Very Few Other People
Perhaps you have gotten older, but have not grown up?
Any purely anarchistic system will eventually give birth to a totalitarian establishment unless measures are put in place to prevent it before hand.
Well I'm pretty sure that the very first step towards a totalitarian internet is to hand over regulatory control to the government.
Its not like the FCC has a track record of censoring free speech, nor has it ever mandate that specific censor-based hardware be included with all content devices.
No, the FCC is totally for free speech and an unregulated internet, without question. We should trust them completely because they have NEVER done what the critics are afraid of.
I have recently discovered that apparently you dont know shit about Opera, but like making claims like you do.
Have fun with your karma loss, troll.
Its a good thing that Slashdot supports putting the FCC in charge of regulating the Internet in America, because they have never censored any sort of content with any sort of filter in the past.
Rest assured that the FCC would never break its long standing and strong track record of never censoring any content.