I'm saying that each person was free to choose one side or the other independently from every other person. Here I am calculating the probability that they came to either conclusion (either n - 1 right and 1 wrong or vice versa) by chance. This is without regard to the knowledge we have about them agreeing. Then I calculate the conditional probabilities based on the event that they agree (i.e. the event that either n - 1 are right and 1 is wrong or vice versa).
To generalize this from 10 others to n others would give conditional probabilities of (1-p)^(n-1)/((1-p)^(n-1) + p^(n-1)) and p^(n-1)/((1-p)^(n-1) + p^(n-1)). So this result holds for any n greater than 1.
I think your statics are flawed. To give equal weight to each person's opinion we should assume that each person has an independent probability, p, of being right. Then the probability of Zed being right and the others being wrong would be p (1-p)^10 while the probability of the others being right and Zack being would be p^10 (1-p). Since these events are disjoint the probability Zack being right given that one of these two events occured would p (1-p)^10 / (p (1-p)^10 + p^10 (1-p)) = (1-p)^9 / ((1-p)^9 + p^9) while the probability of the others being right would be p^9 / ((1-p)^9 + p^9). Thus if p is less than 1/2 then Zed is more likely to be correct.
Not true. x264 improves on 1-pass encoding, but there are plenty of ways to improve quality that require 2 passes (or a much larger buffer) to work properly.
The difference between direct spacial and temporal will be trivial. As explained here http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-143904.html by Dark Shikari, an active x264 dev, 2-pass encoding is no more efficient than crf.
"CRF, 1pass, and 2pass all use the same bit distribution algorithm. 2-pass tries to approximate CRF by using the information from the first pass to decide on a constant quality factor. 1-pass tries to approximate CRF by guessing a quality factor over time and varying it to reach the target bitrate."
The idea that multiple passes increases quality is left over from the time of mpeg-4 part 2 and part 4 encoders where this was the case.
As for the sliceless multi-threading used by x264 there should be no significant quality loss unless the number of threads exceeds video_width/mvrange, so it depends on what you mean by a large number of threads and what you consider a reasonable mvrange to be. If you are unhappy with this limitation look at how x264farm works: http://omion.dyndns.org/x264farm/x264farm.html. It splits a video at scene-cuts and allows the scenes to be encoded in parallel as mentioned earlier. And yes it does work with multi-pass encoding.
While many video codecs have been multi-threading enabled, they always do so at a significant quality reduction.
x264 has supported frame-based parallel encoding for a long time now and it definitely does not result in significant quality loss. This works because the motion vectors are usually limited to 16-24 pixels in length so subsequent frames can start encoding after only a small portion of the current frame has finished.
That would only make ANY sense with fixed bitrate encoding.
That would also make perfect sense with crf encoding and there's hardly any reason to use 2-pass encoding over crf encoding unless you are still burning your videos to optical media.
I see your point about keeping the government in check, but that's why I said a blog or a forum and the general libertarian belief that anything that they disagree with is unconstitutional is not automatically unconstitutional. Specific elements of the government determine constitutionality, not some guy on slashdot. Maybe I was wrong saying it is a judge or a court, but it clearly isn't in the hands of the common man to determine what is constitutional or not. Otherwise we wouldn't need attorneys now, would we?
Adam was claiming that their policy is unconstitutional, and gave his reasons. A judge isn't needed for something to be constitutional or unconstitutional, either it is or it isn't! Either you think his reasons are valid and you agree that the policy is unconstitutional, or you think his reasons are invalid. It doesn't make any sense to say, 'well maybe that should be unconstitutional, but a judge hasn't said it yet!'
A court ruling that something is unconstitutional is not the same as a court making something unconstitutional. If a court rules that a policy is unconstitutional, the court isn't making that policy unconstitutional from that point forward. It is ruling that the policy always was unconstitutional. It's not like Adam said "I'm making this unconstitutional, because I said so," rather he said he believed it to be unconstitutional.
Slashdot Mirror
I always interpreted that quote as a comment on the existence of the real numbers.
2/3 is finite.
In my analysis I assumed that they were disagreeing over a proposition so that all those who disagreed with Zed were agreeing.
I'm saying that each person was free to choose one side or the other independently from every other person. Here I am calculating the probability that they came to either conclusion (either n - 1 right and 1 wrong or vice versa) by chance. This is without regard to the knowledge we have about them agreeing. Then I calculate the conditional probabilities based on the event that they agree (i.e. the event that either n - 1 are right and 1 is wrong or vice versa).
To generalize this from 10 others to n others would give conditional probabilities of (1-p)^(n-1) /((1-p)^(n-1) + p^(n-1)) and p^(n-1) /((1-p)^(n-1) + p^(n-1)). So this result holds for any n greater than 1.
sorry, Zed not Zack, should have read this more carefully...
I think your statics are flawed. To give equal weight to each person's opinion we should assume that each person has an independent probability, p, of being right. Then the probability of Zed being right and the others being wrong would be p (1-p)^10 while the probability of the others being right and Zack being would be p^10 (1-p). Since these events are disjoint the probability Zack being right given that one of these two events occured would p (1-p)^10 / (p (1-p)^10 + p^10 (1-p)) = (1-p)^9 / ((1-p)^9 + p^9) while the probability of the others being right would be p^9 / ((1-p)^9 + p^9). Thus if p is less than 1/2 then Zed is more likely to be correct.
We are all just passing time until we die.
Actually, six times. 0.9^7 0.5 0.9^6.
Unless the head has some property that consumes any other value paired with it such that it always produces the value of the head.
If by + you are referring to a group operation then it could not have such a property.
The idea that multiple passes increases quality is left over from the time of mpeg-4 part 2 and part 4 encoders where this was the case.
Sorry I meant mpeg-4 part 2 and mpeg-2 here.
Not true. x264 improves on 1-pass encoding, but there are plenty of ways to improve quality that require 2 passes (or a much larger buffer) to work properly.
The difference between direct spacial and temporal will be trivial. As explained here http://forum.doom9.org/archive/index.php/t-143904.html by Dark Shikari, an active x264 dev, 2-pass encoding is no more efficient than crf.
"CRF, 1pass, and 2pass all use the same bit distribution algorithm. 2-pass tries to approximate CRF by using the information from the first pass to decide on a constant quality factor. 1-pass tries to approximate CRF by guessing a quality factor over time and varying it to reach the target bitrate."
Here http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=134545 he says "2pass is not measurably better than CRF, in general."
The idea that multiple passes increases quality is left over from the time of mpeg-4 part 2 and part 4 encoders where this was the case.
As for the sliceless multi-threading used by x264 there should be no significant quality loss unless the number of threads exceeds video_width/mvrange, so it depends on what you mean by a large number of threads and what you consider a reasonable mvrange to be. If you are unhappy with this limitation look at how x264farm works: http://omion.dyndns.org/x264farm/x264farm.html. It splits a video at scene-cuts and allows the scenes to be encoded in parallel as mentioned earlier. And yes it does work with multi-pass encoding.
While many video codecs have been multi-threading enabled, they always do so at a significant quality reduction.
x264 has supported frame-based parallel encoding for a long time now and it definitely does not result in significant quality loss. This works because the motion vectors are usually limited to 16-24 pixels in length so subsequent frames can start encoding after only a small portion of the current frame has finished.
That would only make ANY sense with fixed bitrate encoding.
That would also make perfect sense with crf encoding and there's hardly any reason to use 2-pass encoding over crf encoding unless you are still burning your videos to optical media.
And engineering doesn't benefit from creativity? Just because something requires creativity doesn't make it an art.
I see your point about keeping the government in check, but that's why I said a blog or a forum and the general libertarian belief that anything that they disagree with is unconstitutional is not automatically unconstitutional. Specific elements of the government determine constitutionality, not some guy on slashdot. Maybe I was wrong saying it is a judge or a court, but it clearly isn't in the hands of the common man to determine what is constitutional or not. Otherwise we wouldn't need attorneys now, would we?
Adam was claiming that their policy is unconstitutional, and gave his reasons. A judge isn't needed for something to be constitutional or unconstitutional, either it is or it isn't! Either you think his reasons are valid and you agree that the policy is unconstitutional, or you think his reasons are invalid. It doesn't make any sense to say, 'well maybe that should be unconstitutional, but a judge hasn't said it yet!' A court ruling that something is unconstitutional is not the same as a court making something unconstitutional. If a court rules that a policy is unconstitutional, the court isn't making that policy unconstitutional from that point forward. It is ruling that the policy always was unconstitutional. It's not like Adam said "I'm making this unconstitutional, because I said so," rather he said he believed it to be unconstitutional.