You are mixing QoS and net neutrality.
Net neutrality, in a car analogy implies that the car is made for one type of pump only. You have to pay, or the pump owner have to pay, to put gas from another pump inside your car. Thus making you dependent of a company.
Or they sell you a radio in your car, but you can just listen to a specific frequency only, blocking the other one around (Unless they pay, too)
No confusion, data discrimination is clearly a violation of net neutrality. It doesn't matter if it's just an adjustment of speed or a surcharge for particular data.
The Time Warner issue is like a gas company having given you an "unlimited gas" plan usable only at a fixed rate of consumption. Then planning to change their plan to charge you for a certain amount (say, 50 dollars for 25 gallons) and then an extra 20 dollars per gallon after you go over.
The net neutrality issue would be like your car being designed such that gas from BP only pumps into your car at a rate of 1 gallon per 3 minutes, whereas Shell pumps into your car at 1 gallon per second.
(Of course, these analogies are useless because Time Warner doesn't have to pay per bit trafficked. They maintain a fixed cost system with a maximum throughput. The only extra cost would be increasing the throughput. Ass holes.)
This has nothing to do with Boxee. Hulu does not stream content outside the United States because the content is provided by US television networks. (I'm not saying I agree with this, but that is certainly the rationalization.)
Ouch! Not sure how you got modded down with the OP as a 5!
In fact, the article mentions no latest hulu improvements, it merely mentions it is now supported on Boxee for Linux.
Secondly, you are absolutely correct. The ball is not in Hulu's court to be supported outside of the US. In order to provide their FREE content they have to abide by the content provider's requirements and restrictions. I'm certain if they were allowed to they'd open it up in a heartbeat. Hence, it's also not technically a Hulu improvement to open it up outside of the US, more of a content provider's restriction change.
OK, at this point I'm not even sure what you're arguing lol. Maybe arguing for the sake of argument? My original argument is that saying that Adobe sucks for the purposes of this article's described product because it has a memory leak in a one off instance doesn't hold up. And I still stand to that.
You seem to have done a test several years ago (which makes it obsolete, but anyways) in which you compared CPU usage of viewing a streaming youtube video to viewing an.flv file locally. This is, indeed, comparing apples to oranges. The likely difference is in both streaming processing + player optimization. In fact, I'm fairly confident that is the case. Whether that's good or bad is up to someone else to decide, I'm sure the in browser player could be optimized more.
My statement about HD video (when used in context) is actually explaining that your statement about how video games run in comparison to how a video runs is comparing apples to oranges. Which it is, video players don't (or didn't, some do now) take advantage of graphics cards by default (because they didn't need to) whereas 3d video games do (because they have to). Render that 2d vector animation using a graphics card and see how well it runs (see how it takes 0 CPU, cuz it's on the GPU lawl, and how it runs even faster on the GPU since it's optimized for graphics).
Anyhow... most good streaming content is done through Adobe Flash right now (youtube, hulu, pandora, etc.). The only other real competition is Silverlight, and their only foothold in the streaming player market is in Netflix, and that's only because they have a contract with microsoft to use netflix on the 360, otherwise I'm sure they'd be using flash as well.
I'm sure that flash players can be optimized and improved and some versions are buggy, just like I'm sure a lot of flash programs themselves are buggy. The "adobe flash" thing overall is pretty powerful, has a massive market share and has an army of developers with experience already built up in it. I'm sure that all of these things make it a natural choice for manufacturers looking to provide built in streaming content functionality.
A lot of the arguments people have regarding implementation, such as memory leaks and high CPU usage, will be a non-issue for what this article is talking about. It'll be an optimized implementation, it's a closed box, it's a piece of hardware that uses flash probably to provide out of the box support for streaming internet content.
Kinda rambling here, not sure what this argument, if there was an argument, is even about other than for the sake of arguing hah.
lol, that video hovered around 5% or less for the duration, not sure what kind of processor you're using. Youtube goes up to 20% at full screen, 10% or less in windowed. That's really not bad at all for full screen video rendering buddy (plus any additional processing that's being done for streaming content).
Try running any format of HD video locally and see how much CPU time it takes. It'll max out most processors (unless you have some rendering software that offputs to your graphics card and it's a good graphics card, xbmc just added this for their linux release actually). Running a game is entirely different than running a video, since a game is optimized for use on a graphics card.
I'm sure Adobe can improve on the way their video rendering, but this has nothing to do with the FILE STANDARD, which is what we're talking about here. I'd assume an optimized hardware implementation of flash rendering would be used for these TV's, or at least a CPU more than capable of displaying HD content streamed over a good flash player.
Actually yes, DVI == HDMI (video component). The only difference is that HDMI transmits the audio component as well.
Non-HDCP projectors (or TV's) cannot play HDCP signals. However, HDCP projectors (or TV's, which is basically all modern HDTV's) can display non HDCP encrypted signals.
Basically, your only problem arises if you have an old HDTV that doesn't support HDCP and you only have an HDCP encrypted signal output.
ANYWAYS... the moral of the story is that yes... DVI == HDMI (minus the audio).
Erm.. you're talking about the difference between just rendering a local video and streaming a video through a player developed in flash, huge huge difference.
Again, this seems like blaming a memory leak in C++ on the programming language rather than on the failure to cleanup objects or do garbage collection.
It's not the flash standard that's leaking, it's the player buddy (or possibly also the media itself).
Wording your case more appropriately, the flash codec that you are running through your particular browser has a memory leak issue when playing a lot of flash media. Have you tried multiple stand alone players? Plugins for WMP maybe? Multiple browsers? Different flash media?
That's like saying, I opened up an MPEG-2 in WMP the other day and my computer slowed to a crawl after a few hours (which I've seen on particular versions of WMP) and saying, "OMG MPEG-2 is leaking memory, this standard sucks!" Or (in the case of the media being poorly coded) like blaming a memory leak in C++ on the programming language itself instead of on the application.
Netflix streaming on my 52" LCD TV through my Xbox360 looks great, and I imagine it uses Silverlight.
I also have a 26" LCD computer monitor and streaming Hulu (flash) also looks damn good on full screen, as long as the connection is good (ie. my roommate isn't seeding porn).
Youtube intentionally runs everything on low resolution. It looks like shit in a 100x100 window, let along full screen. But most of the time, I'm not watching a youtube video for the quality (and I think there is a high quality section you can use?).
I actually envision a TV with an ethernet port and an option (selectable from a standard remote) to switch to a screen that allows you to select Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc.
Super easy and using flash as the standard will make things compatible across the board.
Open, standardized specs are what makes DVD's, CD's, Television, etc.. possible.
To someone who knows how to use computers, setting up a PC to watch videos on a TV is trivial. For everyone else, making products that make watching streaming content from the internet on a TV easy will need a standard.
Adobe just works. I'd at least prefer that over Silverlight. I think there's a lot of negative stigma left over from when Flash bogged down web sites and made annoying ads in the age of dial-up.
It may not change very quickly right now due to the economy, but I'm pretty sure most new TVs have PC-In and more PCs are coming with HDMI. All you need is a VGA or HDMI cable and an audio cable. It is amazing how many cool things there are to do that most people don't know about that only require one or two cables and equipment they already have. My wife and I watched a live event streamed over the internet using a wireless router, a laptop, a TV, and a receiver. It beat the hell out of watching it on just the laptop and we didn't even have to buy anything extra.
So really, just about every PC capable of rendering high quality video can be connected to a TV with HDMI. Not to mention a lot of HDTV's have a VGA connection. I mean really, HDTV's make the PC->TV connection trivial. As you said, they're just big monitors. Get a sound card with optical out and you're rocking.
You're an idiot, nobody's excusing anyone, just mapping out and studying addiction since it's something that affects a large number of people. Go read a few psychology books and get back to the subject.
Put more nicely, I understand your viewpoint, but I feel it is over aggressive, over generalized and a subjective interpretation of an objective conclusion.
Most of the PC viruses, malware, spyware and trojans I've seen and cleaned (or tried to clean) are from people downloading and installing stuff they shouldn't have. I guess the lesson is, all the root password protection in the world isn't going to save some (a lot of) people.
Wow, I totally screwed up that first sentence.. wish I could edit.
While I fundamentally disagree with your entire belief that it should be the right of the creator to determine who gets to make a copy and use it, if the person who made a copy of it does not profit from that copy.
Just pretend I deleted everything in italics. It's about my own belief on the subject, where it should be legal to make copies if you don't profit from them, but I f'd it all up heh.
The only reason why I don't have the right is because there's a law that takes it away.
No, you have that backwards. It's not your "right" to reproduce someone else's work that's "taken away," it's the rights of the creator of that work to have a say in how and when its reproduced that are being preserved. If you don't like the fact that an artist or other creator wants to be in charge of their own work, then just walk away. You obviously don't like that artist anyway, since you don't respect the decisions they've made about how and when they wish to publish what they've created. There are plenty of artists that do grant you the license to do whatever you want with their work. Why not simply support them, instead of ripping off someone else?
While I fundamentally disagree with your entire belief that it should be the right of the creator to determine who gets to make a copy and use it, if the person who made a copy of it does not profit from that copy. I agree that I am bound by law to have no recourse other than to act on your last statement or vote and petition when possible.
So, I use pandora, go to concerts and listen to the radio. If a band has their music available or have publicly stated that they don't care about people downloading their shit then I will download their shit.
I estimate a.0000001% chance of being caught on any other illegal copies I make and use. If I am caught and sufficient proof is given, I take full responsibility since that's how the laws are stated (even if I believe they are BS).
In the case of TPB however, they have technically tip-toed around the current copyright laws. They aren't redistributing, they are "assisting in redistribution". They're making up a new law and retroactively prosecuting them. Who knows, maybe tomorrow they pass a law that makes it illegal to skip rocks and now I have to pay 500 dollars for every rock I've skipped in the past 5 years.
Slashdot Mirror
You are mixing QoS and net neutrality. Net neutrality, in a car analogy implies that the car is made for one type of pump only. You have to pay, or the pump owner have to pay, to put gas from another pump inside your car. Thus making you dependent of a company. Or they sell you a radio in your car, but you can just listen to a specific frequency only, blocking the other one around (Unless they pay, too)
No confusion, data discrimination is clearly a violation of net neutrality. It doesn't matter if it's just an adjustment of speed or a surcharge for particular data.
The Time Warner issue is like a gas company having given you an "unlimited gas" plan usable only at a fixed rate of consumption. Then planning to change their plan to charge you for a certain amount (say, 50 dollars for 25 gallons) and then an extra 20 dollars per gallon after you go over.
The net neutrality issue would be like your car being designed such that gas from BP only pumps into your car at a rate of 1 gallon per 3 minutes, whereas Shell pumps into your car at 1 gallon per second.
(Of course, these analogies are useless because Time Warner doesn't have to pay per bit trafficked. They maintain a fixed cost system with a maximum throughput. The only extra cost would be increasing the throughput. Ass holes.)
This has nothing to do with Boxee. Hulu does not stream content outside the United States because the content is provided by US television networks. (I'm not saying I agree with this, but that is certainly the rationalization.)
Ouch! Not sure how you got modded down with the OP as a 5!
In fact, the article mentions no latest hulu improvements, it merely mentions it is now supported on Boxee for Linux.
Secondly, you are absolutely correct. The ball is not in Hulu's court to be supported outside of the US. In order to provide their FREE content they have to abide by the content provider's requirements and restrictions. I'm certain if they were allowed to they'd open it up in a heartbeat. Hence, it's also not technically a Hulu improvement to open it up outside of the US, more of a content provider's restriction change.
OK, at this point I'm not even sure what you're arguing lol. Maybe arguing for the sake of argument? My original argument is that saying that Adobe sucks for the purposes of this article's described product because it has a memory leak in a one off instance doesn't hold up. And I still stand to that.
.flv file locally. This is, indeed, comparing apples to oranges. The likely difference is in both streaming processing + player optimization. In fact, I'm fairly confident that is the case. Whether that's good or bad is up to someone else to decide, I'm sure the in browser player could be optimized more.
You seem to have done a test several years ago (which makes it obsolete, but anyways) in which you compared CPU usage of viewing a streaming youtube video to viewing an
My statement about HD video (when used in context) is actually explaining that your statement about how video games run in comparison to how a video runs is comparing apples to oranges. Which it is, video players don't (or didn't, some do now) take advantage of graphics cards by default (because they didn't need to) whereas 3d video games do (because they have to). Render that 2d vector animation using a graphics card and see how well it runs (see how it takes 0 CPU, cuz it's on the GPU lawl, and how it runs even faster on the GPU since it's optimized for graphics).
Anyhow... most good streaming content is done through Adobe Flash right now (youtube, hulu, pandora, etc.). The only other real competition is Silverlight, and their only foothold in the streaming player market is in Netflix, and that's only because they have a contract with microsoft to use netflix on the 360, otherwise I'm sure they'd be using flash as well.
I'm sure that flash players can be optimized and improved and some versions are buggy, just like I'm sure a lot of flash programs themselves are buggy. The "adobe flash" thing overall is pretty powerful, has a massive market share and has an army of developers with experience already built up in it. I'm sure that all of these things make it a natural choice for manufacturers looking to provide built in streaming content functionality.
A lot of the arguments people have regarding implementation, such as memory leaks and high CPU usage, will be a non-issue for what this article is talking about. It'll be an optimized implementation, it's a closed box, it's a piece of hardware that uses flash probably to provide out of the box support for streaming internet content.
Kinda rambling here, not sure what this argument, if there was an argument, is even about other than for the sake of arguing hah.
lol, that video hovered around 5% or less for the duration, not sure what kind of processor you're using. Youtube goes up to 20% at full screen, 10% or less in windowed. That's really not bad at all for full screen video rendering buddy (plus any additional processing that's being done for streaming content).
Try running any format of HD video locally and see how much CPU time it takes. It'll max out most processors (unless you have some rendering software that offputs to your graphics card and it's a good graphics card, xbmc just added this for their linux release actually). Running a game is entirely different than running a video, since a game is optimized for use on a graphics card.
I'm sure Adobe can improve on the way their video rendering, but this has nothing to do with the FILE STANDARD, which is what we're talking about here. I'd assume an optimized hardware implementation of flash rendering would be used for these TV's, or at least a CPU more than capable of displaying HD content streamed over a good flash player.
Indoor soccer shoes.
Well said.. viewing on the wrong level looks like we're arguing though lol. Quotefail.
Actually yes, DVI == HDMI (video component). The only difference is that HDMI transmits the audio component as well.
Non-HDCP projectors (or TV's) cannot play HDCP signals. However, HDCP projectors (or TV's, which is basically all modern HDTV's) can display non HDCP encrypted signals.
Basically, your only problem arises if you have an old HDTV that doesn't support HDCP and you only have an HDCP encrypted signal output.
ANYWAYS... the moral of the story is that yes... DVI == HDMI (minus the audio).
Erm.. you're talking about the difference between just rendering a local video and streaming a video through a player developed in flash, huge huge difference.
.swf movies I play off of this site.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/plaid
I have almost no CPU usage for any
Don't you mean "Joe the Plumber" ?
Or possibly blaming Crysis locking your computer up on the game rather than on your Voodoo 2 video card.
Again, this seems like blaming a memory leak in C++ on the programming language rather than on the failure to cleanup objects or do garbage collection.
It's not the flash standard that's leaking, it's the player buddy (or possibly also the media itself).
Wording your case more appropriately, the flash codec that you are running through your particular browser has a memory leak issue when playing a lot of flash media. Have you tried multiple stand alone players? Plugins for WMP maybe? Multiple browsers? Different flash media?
That's like saying, I opened up an MPEG-2 in WMP the other day and my computer slowed to a crawl after a few hours (which I've seen on particular versions of WMP) and saying, "OMG MPEG-2 is leaking memory, this standard sucks!" Or (in the case of the media being poorly coded) like blaming a memory leak in C++ on the programming language itself instead of on the application.
Netflix streaming on my 52" LCD TV through my Xbox360 looks great, and I imagine it uses Silverlight.
I also have a 26" LCD computer monitor and streaming Hulu (flash) also looks damn good on full screen, as long as the connection is good (ie. my roommate isn't seeding porn).
Youtube intentionally runs everything on low resolution. It looks like shit in a 100x100 window, let along full screen. But most of the time, I'm not watching a youtube video for the quality (and I think there is a high quality section you can use?).
I actually envision a TV with an ethernet port and an option (selectable from a standard remote) to switch to a screen that allows you to select Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, etc.
Super easy and using flash as the standard will make things compatible across the board.
Open, standardized specs are what makes DVD's, CD's, Television, etc.. possible.
To someone who knows how to use computers, setting up a PC to watch videos on a TV is trivial. For everyone else, making products that make watching streaming content from the internet on a TV easy will need a standard.
Adobe just works. I'd at least prefer that over Silverlight. I think there's a lot of negative stigma left over from when Flash bogged down web sites and made annoying ads in the age of dial-up.
It may not change very quickly right now due to the economy, but I'm pretty sure most new TVs have PC-In and more PCs are coming with HDMI. All you need is a VGA or HDMI cable and an audio cable. It is amazing how many cool things there are to do that most people don't know about that only require one or two cables and equipment they already have. My wife and I watched a live event streamed over the internet using a wireless router, a laptop, a TV, and a receiver. It beat the hell out of watching it on just the laptop and we didn't even have to buy anything extra.
Also, DVI == HDMI.
http://www.amazon.com/DVI-HDMI-Cable-6ft-Male-Male/dp/B0002CZHN6
So really, just about every PC capable of rendering high quality video can be connected to a TV with HDMI. Not to mention a lot of HDTV's have a VGA connection. I mean really, HDTV's make the PC->TV connection trivial. As you said, they're just big monitors. Get a sound card with optical out and you're rocking.
You're an idiot, nobody's excusing anyone, just mapping out and studying addiction since it's something that affects a large number of people. Go read a few psychology books and get back to the subject.
Put more nicely, I understand your viewpoint, but I feel it is over aggressive, over generalized and a subjective interpretation of an objective conclusion.
evil^10^100?
Most of the PC viruses, malware, spyware and trojans I've seen and cleaned (or tried to clean) are from people downloading and installing stuff they shouldn't have. I guess the lesson is, all the root password protection in the world isn't going to save some (a lot of) people.
Because PHP and ASP programmers have sandpaper over their keys? I don't get it.
Google IS evil, they are "assisting the redistribution" of copyrighted material on a massive scale! They must be stopped!
Wow, I totally screwed up that first sentence.. wish I could edit.
While I fundamentally disagree with your entire belief that it should be the right of the creator to determine who gets to make a copy and use it, if the person who made a copy of it does not profit from that copy.
Just pretend I deleted everything in italics. It's about my own belief on the subject, where it should be legal to make copies if you don't profit from them, but I f'd it all up heh.
The only reason why I don't have the right is because there's a law that takes it away. No, you have that backwards. It's not your "right" to reproduce someone else's work that's "taken away," it's the rights of the creator of that work to have a say in how and when its reproduced that are being preserved. If you don't like the fact that an artist or other creator wants to be in charge of their own work, then just walk away. You obviously don't like that artist anyway, since you don't respect the decisions they've made about how and when they wish to publish what they've created. There are plenty of artists that do grant you the license to do whatever you want with their work. Why not simply support them, instead of ripping off someone else?
While I fundamentally disagree with your entire belief that it should be the right of the creator to determine who gets to make a copy and use it, if the person who made a copy of it does not profit from that copy. I agree that I am bound by law to have no recourse other than to act on your last statement or vote and petition when possible.
So, I use pandora, go to concerts and listen to the radio. If a band has their music available or have publicly stated that they don't care about people downloading their shit then I will download their shit.
I estimate a .0000001% chance of being caught on any other illegal copies I make and use. If I am caught and sufficient proof is given, I take full responsibility since that's how the laws are stated (even if I believe they are BS).
In the case of TPB however, they have technically tip-toed around the current copyright laws. They aren't redistributing, they are "assisting in redistribution". They're making up a new law and retroactively prosecuting them. Who knows, maybe tomorrow they pass a law that makes it illegal to skip rocks and now I have to pay 500 dollars for every rock I've skipped in the past 5 years.
yes^10^100