How often is that? How often do you contribute from such an environment? And most importantly- why? Do you really think the amount of money and effort required to support ancient and now esoteric browsers is worth it?
I'm genuinely curious here. I see way more people on slashdot making these claims than I would ever expect.
Oh please- using Slashdot trolls as evidence of anything other than people being morons is just stupid. They're god damn trolls! The reason that type of troll is so common is because you all feed them.
Bieber has no real virtues over others you would call his "peers". He's not more talented and he's not better looking. He won the fame lottery and capitalised on it.
Carlsen got to where he is by beating his peers. That is why people here respect him more.
Actually it is simple fact that some random example from some clown on the Internet is not precedent.. Even if Geekoid was appointed to the bench he could not use your little example as precedent.
It's easy really. You just tie the "Feature Enabler Module" into a key safety system. Now all you have to say is that you can't verify its safety if it has been tampered with.
And that might be a relevant point if the USA were getting record breaking cold winters year after year and not just the one. Also you would have to think that there are no other places in the world besides the USA and Australia.
You keep telling me I don't understand things while continuously proving that it is you that does not. I'll try to lay things out as simply as possible for you.
even though there is a lot of visual information removed from the 1080p video, the 720p video started with less visual information, and they end up around the same quality.
Here you seem confused. You are basically agreeing with me- you just worded it very poorly. You are stating that reducing the bitrate of a 1080p video will remove visual information (which results in loss of quality) whereas a 720p video has less visual information and therefore does not need as high of a bitrate.
So by your own logic, 2 videos with the same bitrate, a 720p and a 1080p, have the same visual information, so why would one look like crap?
This is the crux of the issue. They don't have the same visual information. The 1080 resolution is a bigger space to fill (it has more pixels remember?) If you down scale that to 720 you can get away with reducing the bitrate because you are removing information by downscaling. If you keep it at 1080 you will want a higher bitrate than you would at 720.
When someone says "I want 1080p" they do not mean they want to see what looks like a 640×360 video upresed to 1920x1080. They want to see a crisp "HD" picture.
I don't even know why you are trying to disagree. It's just common sense that higher res will normally require a higher bitrate. Shall we see what youtube has to say on the subject? Citation! What do we notice here? As resolution goes up so does bitrate!
How is this insightful? Of course all new languages do the same thing as the old ones. They're all Turing complete! If you don't understand that then, yes, you probably should leave IT. And don't forget to program everything in Assembler! Kids these days and their C. Just a crutch.
I was directly replying to Eskarel. Ergo you were part of the same discussion. And why did you take such issue with me bringing up what Eskarel said and then went on to explain that you agreed 100% with them?
There is no easy entry into the middle class by non middle class people. It is always extremely difficult. Also I am pretty sure little female babies are born into middle class families at approximately the same rate as little male babies.
As to white correlation to middle class. That is partially because there tend to be more white people in western countries (because they were originally settled by Europeans). Family lines have had longer to establish themselves (again, being settled by Europeans it follows that Europeans have been there longer). A poor Georgian is going to be at the same disadvantage as a poor Angolan when immigrating to a western nation.
I do not reject the existence of racism but I do reject the scope and how "systemic" certain people claim it to be. But more importantly I take issue with how they say it.
Saying that it's the "same difference" to say that white people are privileged as it is to say there are a lot of white people whose families have been in the European settled western nations for many generations is just not true. It is a generalisation that seems to lay blame on people for being born into a certain socioeconomic status (but only if their skin is a certain colour). It is pretty much logically equivalent to saying that black people are criminals. We know that a large number of African people are born into poverty, we know that a lot of Africans are black and we know that poverty and crime are very strongly correlated. So would you say "same difference" there? I know I wouldn't.
It can only lower the bitrate while increasing the resolution by removing visual information! Are you daft? It's math not magic.
Have you ever encoded a video? No one is ever going to recommend you to use the same bitrate to encode a video to 1080P as they would to 720P.
Sure people don't always use a higher bitrate but if they don't it is almost always not the right choice. If they are aiming for a lower filesize they should just go with a lower resolution because making a high resolution with the bitrate too low will cause it to look terrible!
You are still wrong about it being correlated. More visual information requires more data there is no way around that. There are many factors that contribute to bitrate and resolution but when you account for the differences it is straight causation. I will repeat: math not magic.
Any reasonably intelligent, hard working, middle classed person is pretty much guaranteed to succeed in a western nation. It's the middle class part that is important.
That's why I said "accelerating a car to a faster velocity requires more energy" and never "has more energy". You completely proved my point and it flew over your head entirely. A vehicle with better aerodynamics and less weight will require less energy to accelerate than a heavier one with worse aerodynamics.
A higher resolution causes a higher bitrate (this is why it is causative). There are other factors that can lower the bitrate. Things like less visual information will require a lower bitrate. A more efficient encoding will also require a lower bit rate. But when everything else is the same for a video file if you increase the resolution you will increase the bitrate. Do you know what causative means? It really seems that you don't.
You say... "I can never admit when I am wrong or when someone else is right", "Herp derp, I'm a fucking idiot"
Yes- we're all aware of what you just said. What everyone else seems to see except you, however, is that you are being obnoxiously obtuse. Resolution and bitrate are more than "just" correlated. It is causative. All other things being equal higher resolution requires higher bitrate. This means that in the vast majority of useful cases higher resolution will need a higher bitrate.
Let me break this down into a car analogy for you. This is what you did:
Accelerating a car to a faster velocity requires more energy.
No it doesn't! A race car can accelerate to 250kmph going down a hill using less energy than an Astro van to get to 150kmph going up a hill! Herp derp!
It's adorable that you think you are so intelligent.
Being as we're just making stuff up I just went ahead and asked Einstein (him and I are super close by the way; I invented a time machine so we could chill). He says you're completely full of shit.
Hawking thinks you should finish high school before trying to pretend to be smart on the Internet. He didn't say it quite that nicely but I didn't want to repeat it- it was kind of mean.
James Randi wants to see you believing things into existence. He tells me he'll give you a million dollars for it! I told him you probably make more money believing in winning the lottery though.
In any case, the four of us need to get back to our spaceship. We're making a road trip to Vulcan!
I never said it required a higher bitrate but do you know of anybody that builds their media library to have their 1080p files be lower quality than their 720p? That sounds rather foolish to me.
A 1080p file produces more pixels than a 720p file and therefore to maintain the same level of quality a 1080p file will require more bits and hence a higher bitrate.
Because most people wouldn't encode their 1080p files to carry less visual information than their 720p files and so: higher resolution requires a higher bitrate. Stop being obtuse.
How many replies do you have to make? That rambling certainly supports your claim to have a higher IQ than Stephen Hawking. Are you sure you didn't get IQ confused with your SAT score?
You didn't correct any "dichotomy". You spouted nonsense that you thought made you sound smart- it didn't.
Careful there, it's supported by over three schools of philosophical thought, quantum mechanics, and every poet.
I'm really not sure what you claim is supported. I assume wanting things to happen can make them happen. If that is the case then no- it is not supported by anything. A poet is less qualified to weigh in on matters of physics than Jenny McCarthy is on matters of medicin.
Stay in school. It seems to be the only hope for hopelessness.
I would suggest you try going to school instead of making up IQ scores.
If I believe something will happen, the likelihood of it occurring has been increased beyond measure.
No, it really hasn't. The fact that you state that indicates that you are a troll or the stupidest person on Slashdot (and that is almost supernaturally stupid).
You continue droning on with the coherence of a Markov chain also indicating a troll. Unfortunately there are probably other extremely stupid people that would buy into the pseudo-authoritative nonsense that you just wasted my bandwidth on. In other words:
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
However, once you stop equating the supernatural with religion,
You cannot stop equating the supernatural and religion. They are one in the same no matter what you want to believe.
it begins to make sense that there are invisible laws that govern that natural law is incapable of evaluating.
There is absolutely no reasoning behind that assertion other than to make people feel better about holding beliefs that all evidence contradicts. It is complete nonsense. Spurious reasoning and pseudo-insightfulness is not an argument.
Science is only one method of reason and measurement
Another statement complete void of meaning. Name one other method- one that isn't purely begging the question.
What we attribute to being of the supernatural is the occurrence of the improbable and impossible.
Bolded for emphasis. We call it "impossible" because it can't actually happen, like the supernatural. The improbable is not supernatural. Rolling 10 sixes in a row on an unweighted die is improbable but not supernatural. Things considered supernatural are not improbable- they are impossible. That is why they are labelled supernatural.
Science is still in its infancy and today depends upon higher schools of thought to direct its pursuits. Perhaps one day it will have a broader reach.
And by this what you actually mean is: I don't fully agree with the implications so I'll assert that it doesn't apply.
Slashdot Mirror
How often is that? How often do you contribute from such an environment? And most importantly- why? Do you really think the amount of money and effort required to support ancient and now esoteric browsers is worth it?
I'm genuinely curious here. I see way more people on slashdot making these claims than I would ever expect.
Oh please- using Slashdot trolls as evidence of anything other than people being morons is just stupid. They're god damn trolls! The reason that type of troll is so common is because you all feed them.
Garbage In Garbage Out?
Bieber has no real virtues over others you would call his "peers". He's not more talented and he's not better looking. He won the fame lottery and capitalised on it.
Carlsen got to where he is by beating his peers. That is why people here respect him more.
Actually it is simple fact that some random example from some clown on the Internet is not precedent.. Even if Geekoid was appointed to the bench he could not use your little example as precedent.
It's easy really. You just tie the "Feature Enabler Module" into a key safety system. Now all you have to say is that you can't verify its safety if it has been tampered with.
Was that a notification?
Yeah! And last summer they said it was going to be crazy hot but one time I had to put on a sweater! /sarcasm
And that might be a relevant point if the USA were getting record breaking cold winters year after year and not just the one. Also you would have to think that there are no other places in the world besides the USA and Australia.
I guess you miss the point of new languages. The entire point is the get the same results without "doing the same thing over and over again".
You keep telling me I don't understand things while continuously proving that it is you that does not. I'll try to lay things out as simply as possible for you.
even though there is a lot of visual information removed from the 1080p video, the 720p video started with less visual information, and they end up around the same quality.
Here you seem confused. You are basically agreeing with me- you just worded it very poorly. You are stating that reducing the bitrate of a 1080p video will remove visual information (which results in loss of quality) whereas a 720p video has less visual information and therefore does not need as high of a bitrate.
So by your own logic, 2 videos with the same bitrate, a 720p and a 1080p, have the same visual information, so why would one look like crap?
This is the crux of the issue. They don't have the same visual information. The 1080 resolution is a bigger space to fill (it has more pixels remember?) If you down scale that to 720 you can get away with reducing the bitrate because you are removing information by downscaling. If you keep it at 1080 you will want a higher bitrate than you would at 720.
When someone says "I want 1080p" they do not mean they want to see what looks like a 640×360 video upresed to 1920x1080. They want to see a crisp "HD" picture.
I don't even know why you are trying to disagree. It's just common sense that higher res will normally require a higher bitrate. Shall we see what youtube has to say on the subject? Citation! What do we notice here? As resolution goes up so does bitrate!
How is this insightful? Of course all new languages do the same thing as the old ones. They're all Turing complete! If you don't understand that then, yes, you probably should leave IT. And don't forget to program everything in Assembler! Kids these days and their C. Just a crutch.
I was directly replying to Eskarel. Ergo you were part of the same discussion. And why did you take such issue with me bringing up what Eskarel said and then went on to explain that you agreed 100% with them?
There is no easy entry into the middle class by non middle class people. It is always extremely difficult. Also I am pretty sure little female babies are born into middle class families at approximately the same rate as little male babies.
As to white correlation to middle class. That is partially because there tend to be more white people in western countries (because they were originally settled by Europeans). Family lines have had longer to establish themselves (again, being settled by Europeans it follows that Europeans have been there longer). A poor Georgian is going to be at the same disadvantage as a poor Angolan when immigrating to a western nation.
I do not reject the existence of racism but I do reject the scope and how "systemic" certain people claim it to be. But more importantly I take issue with how they say it.
Saying that it's the "same difference" to say that white people are privileged as it is to say there are a lot of white people whose families have been in the European settled western nations for many generations is just not true. It is a generalisation that seems to lay blame on people for being born into a certain socioeconomic status (but only if their skin is a certain colour). It is pretty much logically equivalent to saying that black people are criminals. We know that a large number of African people are born into poverty, we know that a lot of Africans are black and we know that poverty and crime are very strongly correlated. So would you say "same difference" there? I know I wouldn't.
If it is the same difference then why did Eskarel have to add white and male into the mix?
It can only lower the bitrate while increasing the resolution by removing visual information! Are you daft? It's math not magic.
Have you ever encoded a video? No one is ever going to recommend you to use the same bitrate to encode a video to 1080P as they would to 720P.
Sure people don't always use a higher bitrate but if they don't it is almost always not the right choice. If they are aiming for a lower filesize they should just go with a lower resolution because making a high resolution with the bitrate too low will cause it to look terrible!
You are still wrong about it being correlated. More visual information requires more data there is no way around that. There are many factors that contribute to bitrate and resolution but when you account for the differences it is straight causation. I will repeat: math not magic.
Any reasonably intelligent, hard working, middle classed person is pretty much guaranteed to succeed in a western nation. It's the middle class part that is important.
That's why I said "accelerating a car to a faster velocity requires more energy" and never "has more energy". You completely proved my point and it flew over your head entirely. A vehicle with better aerodynamics and less weight will require less energy to accelerate than a heavier one with worse aerodynamics.
A higher resolution causes a higher bitrate (this is why it is causative). There are other factors that can lower the bitrate. Things like less visual information will require a lower bitrate. A more efficient encoding will also require a lower bit rate. But when everything else is the same for a video file if you increase the resolution you will increase the bitrate. Do you know what causative means? It really seems that you don't.
You say ... "I can never admit when I am wrong or when someone else is right", "Herp derp, I'm a fucking idiot"
Pot meet kettle?
Yes- we're all aware of what you just said. What everyone else seems to see except you, however, is that you are being obnoxiously obtuse. Resolution and bitrate are more than "just" correlated. It is causative. All other things being equal higher resolution requires higher bitrate. This means that in the vast majority of useful cases higher resolution will need a higher bitrate.
Let me break this down into a car analogy for you. This is what you did:
Accelerating a car to a faster velocity requires more energy.
No it doesn't! A race car can accelerate to 250kmph going down a hill using less energy than an Astro van to get to 150kmph going up a hill! Herp derp!
No, you're the one saying that stereotypes can never be accurate. They often can be- especially when they're of the form: __ likes $DeliciousThing.
It's adorable that you think you are so intelligent.
Being as we're just making stuff up I just went ahead and asked Einstein (him and I are super close by the way; I invented a time machine so we could chill). He says you're completely full of shit.
Hawking thinks you should finish high school before trying to pretend to be smart on the Internet. He didn't say it quite that nicely but I didn't want to repeat it- it was kind of mean.
James Randi wants to see you believing things into existence. He tells me he'll give you a million dollars for it! I told him you probably make more money believing in winning the lottery though.
In any case, the four of us need to get back to our spaceship. We're making a road trip to Vulcan!
I never said it required a higher bitrate but do you know of anybody that builds their media library to have their 1080p files be lower quality than their 720p? That sounds rather foolish to me.
A 1080p file produces more pixels than a 720p file and therefore to maintain the same level of quality a 1080p file will require more bits and hence a higher bitrate.
Because most people wouldn't encode their 1080p files to carry less visual information than their 720p files and so: higher resolution requires a higher bitrate. Stop being obtuse.
How many replies do you have to make? That rambling certainly supports your claim to have a higher IQ than Stephen Hawking. Are you sure you didn't get IQ confused with your SAT score?
You didn't correct any "dichotomy". You spouted nonsense that you thought made you sound smart- it didn't.
Careful there, it's supported by over three schools of philosophical thought, quantum mechanics, and every poet.
I'm really not sure what you claim is supported. I assume wanting things to happen can make them happen. If that is the case then no- it is not supported by anything. A poet is less qualified to weigh in on matters of physics than Jenny McCarthy is on matters of medicin.
Stay in school. It seems to be the only hope for hopelessness.
I would suggest you try going to school instead of making up IQ scores.
If I believe something will happen, the likelihood of it occurring has been increased beyond measure.
No, it really hasn't. The fact that you state that indicates that you are a troll or the stupidest person on Slashdot (and that is almost supernaturally stupid).
You continue droning on with the coherence of a Markov chain also indicating a troll. Unfortunately there are probably other extremely stupid people that would buy into the pseudo-authoritative nonsense that you just wasted my bandwidth on. In other words:
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
However, once you stop equating the supernatural with religion,
You cannot stop equating the supernatural and religion. They are one in the same no matter what you want to believe.
it begins to make sense that there are invisible laws that govern that natural law is incapable of evaluating.
There is absolutely no reasoning behind that assertion other than to make people feel better about holding beliefs that all evidence contradicts. It is complete nonsense. Spurious reasoning and pseudo-insightfulness is not an argument.
Science is only one method of reason and measurement
Another statement complete void of meaning. Name one other method- one that isn't purely begging the question.
What we attribute to being of the supernatural is the occurrence of the improbable and impossible.
Bolded for emphasis. We call it "impossible" because it can't actually happen, like the supernatural. The improbable is not supernatural. Rolling 10 sixes in a row on an unweighted die is improbable but not supernatural. Things considered supernatural are not improbable- they are impossible. That is why they are labelled supernatural.
Science is still in its infancy and today depends upon higher schools of thought to direct its pursuits. Perhaps one day it will have a broader reach.
And by this what you actually mean is: I don't fully agree with the implications so I'll assert that it doesn't apply.