I want to know why there isn't liability for the patent attorneys that clearly are incompetent (There are more than 6 of these cat entertainment devices patented) or the patent office for incompetence. Finally engineers that knowingly apply for non inventive/prior art/trivial patents and confuse the issue with jargon (like the attorneys) should also be liable.
Come on. H264 fan boys use such a low bitrate for shootouts that you are often comparing crap with shit. I don't care how good that shit looks compared to crap. Its still crap and shit.
By the time you get up to bitrate/resolutions combination that matter (ie *are* HD, rather than just HD pixel count), the difference in all codecs are much smaller.
As you move up in bitrate all the codecs start looking pretty even. In fact as far as I can tell, most "comprasons" are done at bitrates with quality compraing crap with shit. I just don't care if its better looking crap. Its still crap. By the time its looking pretty good for my tastes, xvid and h264 are not really that much better than mpeg2 or theora, if at all.
As for patent free Theora is better than MPEG-1 and with *zero* substantiated claims, looks pretty clear from patent hurdles.
No amount. It would be "one licensee for all". As in why would anyone else ever buy a MPEG-LA license and sign the contract (with additional terms and conditions) if such a GPL license existed? So MPEG-LA will never authorize unlimited 3rd party distribution. Ever.
As i have noted before, you are missing the point. The point isn't the *total doseage* its the fact that its only in a thin layer of skin. Hence total doesage is missleading compared to tissue doesage.
So if the xrays only penetrate 1 mm and we guess that thats about 100th of a persons body mass. The effective "cancer causing" dose is much higher than a "whole body does" by a factor of 100 or so (ignoring tissue sensitivity).
The point however is what tissue received the dosage. In the backscatter cases its a thin layer of skin. While in the normal Xray or at high altitude (not xrays by the way) its the whole body.
The problem is that they quote the scanner dose as if the whole body is absorbing the xray energy. Thus the does level measured in this misleading way for a increased chance of cancer is much much lower.
For example if the whole dose is absorbed by just a 1 millimeter of skin, thats probably less than 100th total body mass. So the "true" does for exposed tissues is about 100 times higher than the quoted value.
I often pay about the same as an airfare for the train. Its *much* slower than 30%. But i get to the city centers, not the airport where i still often have the better part of a 1 hour train ride left anyway.
The reason. Its more efficient. And I can turn up with less than five minutes before the train leaves even *without* a ticket. I don't get water taken off me I don't have to have all electronic items turned off for landing and take off etc.
How is this different from fixing your own breaks, steering or even tires? Even A blowout can be dangerous. And doing all of that is quite legal in every country i have lived.
You are missing my point. So many here use the excuse to not listen to someone *regardless* if its not towing the AGW party line. I know plenty of National Academy of Science folks that don't tow the line, and if it was them claiming the sky is not failing. Many, if not most, would use the excuse they are not climatologists.
Big waves washing over cites like some high budget hollow flick is "mostly right". Perhaps you should read the peer reviewed stuff, where the scientists are required to back sweeping statements like "unprecedented" change. You get a different picture entirely, and they in fact don't use such language since the data doesn't really support it.
Previously it was asserted that "big oil" was the money behind the skeptics/deniers whatever. But hay the billions in carbon credits? Na Al Gore should be totally trusted.
But they are not climatologist. I was told if they are not a climatologist i should not listen to them about climate science. Now your telling me i should listen to them only when they support a particular view point?
If you are in the USofA then its illegal to do so. Including playing back a DVD. On top of that this deal is *only* for preinstalled copies on PCs etc. This deal does not include redistribution or even downloaded copies. Aka almost all of it.
Any extra patents that turn out to cover h.264 are your problem, not MPEG-LA. Its in the license agreement you sign with them when you get that license.
Last time i was doing some astronomy we did store all the raw data in case we, or someone else wanted to go over it. Flat fields and all. And this was a long time ago when 1T hdd where some distant sci-fi dream.
As for raw data, well yes i am not talking about that. But I am talking about enough data to replicate the results. The report even talks about "subjectivity" yet these results are presented as near certainties in the media and even by the scientist them selfs outside peer review.
A good example is the biology stuff i work on now. The raw DNA data is publicly available in various databases. However to build phylogenies you use a alignment. But some don't tell how to produce the alignment. This alignment can have profound effects on the results, and hence without that information you can't replicate results.
Quite a bit of turning tree ring data etc into "climate average temperature" is in the same category and often not published. I don't trust the biologists when they won't publish there alignments, and thats only about how a cricket with funny head is related to the crickets with a normal head. Why should i have a lower bar for something that has real political and practical consequences?
yea--because flying to another star system with a bunch of military equipment is *soo* much easer than adding a few GPS satellites. We almost have GPS on mars right now!
Juries of your peers... means not above average! Really, I was not picked because i was at university doing a PhD, and hence over qualified to be representative juror. Since only 2% on the population have a masters degree or above.
But i agree still that the solution is *not* to make fictional entertainment more accurate. Any more than to legislate news media to have less "spin".
Slashdot Mirror
I want to know why there isn't liability for the patent attorneys that clearly are incompetent (There are more than 6 of these cat entertainment devices patented) or the patent office for incompetence. Finally engineers that knowingly apply for non inventive/prior art/trivial patents and confuse the issue with jargon (like the attorneys) should also be liable.
Come on. H264 fan boys use such a low bitrate for shootouts that you are often comparing crap with shit. I don't care how good that shit looks compared to crap. Its still crap and shit.
By the time you get up to bitrate/resolutions combination that matter (ie *are* HD, rather than just HD pixel count), the difference in all codecs are much smaller.
As you move up in bitrate all the codecs start looking pretty even. In fact as far as I can tell, most "comprasons" are done at bitrates with quality compraing crap with shit. I just don't care if its better looking crap. Its still crap. By the time its looking pretty good for my tastes, xvid and h264 are not really that much better than mpeg2 or theora, if at all.
As for patent free Theora is better than MPEG-1 and with *zero* substantiated claims, looks pretty clear from patent hurdles.
No amount. It would be "one licensee for all". As in why would anyone else ever buy a MPEG-LA license and sign the contract (with additional terms and conditions) if such a GPL license existed? So MPEG-LA will never authorize unlimited 3rd party distribution. Ever.
Its just not true period-nothing technical about it. MPEG-LA give *no* indemnity or guarantees whatsoever on patents outside their pool.
What they say is that if there is some other patents that cover h.264, they would be happy to include it in the pool if the patent holder permits.
You have been fined one credit for violations of the verbal moralities Statute.
As i have noted before, you are missing the point. The point isn't the *total doseage* its the fact that its only in a thin layer of skin. Hence total doesage is missleading compared to tissue doesage.
So if the xrays only penetrate 1 mm and we guess that thats about 100th of a persons body mass. The effective "cancer causing" dose is much higher than a "whole body does" by a factor of 100 or so (ignoring tissue sensitivity).
The point however is what tissue received the dosage. In the backscatter cases its a thin layer of skin. While in the normal Xray or at high altitude (not xrays by the way) its the whole body.
The problem is that they quote the scanner dose as if the whole body is absorbing the xray energy. Thus the does level measured in this misleading way for a increased chance of cancer is much much lower.
For example if the whole dose is absorbed by just a 1 millimeter of skin, thats probably less than 100th total body mass. So the "true" does for exposed tissues is about 100 times higher than the quoted value.
I often pay about the same as an airfare for the train. Its *much* slower than 30%. But i get to the city centers, not the airport where i still often have the better part of a 1 hour train ride left anyway.
The reason. Its more efficient. And I can turn up with less than five minutes before the train leaves even *without* a ticket. I don't get water taken off me I don't have to have all electronic items turned off for landing and take off etc.
Going from March 0.9 to march 1.1 give a massive increase in drag. So once you go supersonic its even worse than the basic equations gives.
yeah I have questions, if they are so aggreeively doing this where are all the press articles about it?
NDA. Not everything a company does is in the public record.
How is this different from fixing your own breaks, steering or even tires? Even A blowout can be dangerous. And doing all of that is quite legal in every country i have lived.
Well, there is ZERO chance that an economical large pipeline can be developed.
But oil and gas pipelines across entire continents... No problem.
You are missing my point. So many here use the excuse to not listen to someone *regardless* if its not towing the AGW party line. I know plenty of National Academy of Science folks that don't tow the line, and if it was them claiming the sky is not failing. Many, if not most, would use the excuse they are not climatologists.
Big waves washing over cites like some high budget hollow flick is "mostly right". Perhaps you should read the peer reviewed stuff, where the scientists are required to back sweeping statements like "unprecedented" change. You get a different picture entirely, and they in fact don't use such language since the data doesn't really support it.
Previously it was asserted that "big oil" was the money behind the skeptics/deniers whatever. But hay the billions in carbon credits? Na Al Gore should be totally trusted.
..and are qualified to distinguish real science from the sort of plausible-sounding bullshit that
Unless folks here disagree with the statement. Then they are not climatologist and should be ignored.
But Al Gore, now he is special. How much does he make from carbon credit trading again?
But they are not climatologist. I was told if they are not a climatologist i should not listen to them about climate science. Now your telling me i should listen to them only when they support a particular view point?
If you are in the USofA then its illegal to do so. Including playing back a DVD. On top of that this deal is *only* for preinstalled copies on PCs etc. This deal does not include redistribution or even downloaded copies. Aka almost all of it.
But Mozilla can't keep Amazon.com from stocking 3,500 flavors of the H.264 HD camcorder, priced from $125-$5,000.
But you can't use them for anything commercial without an extra license from MPEG-LA.
MPEG-LA odes not indemnify licensees at all.
Any extra patents that turn out to cover h.264 are your problem, not MPEG-LA. Its in the license agreement you sign with them when you get that license.
Last time i was doing some astronomy we did store all the raw data in case we, or someone else wanted to go over it. Flat fields and all. And this was a long time ago when 1T hdd where some distant sci-fi dream.
As for raw data, well yes i am not talking about that. But I am talking about enough data to replicate the results. The report even talks about "subjectivity" yet these results are presented as near certainties in the media and even by the scientist them selfs outside peer review.
A good example is the biology stuff i work on now. The raw DNA data is publicly available in various databases. However to build phylogenies you use a alignment. But some don't tell how to produce the alignment. This alignment can have profound effects on the results, and hence without that information you can't replicate results.
Quite a bit of turning tree ring data etc into "climate average temperature" is in the same category and often not published. I don't trust the biologists when they won't publish there alignments, and thats only about how a cricket with funny head is related to the crickets with a normal head. Why should i have a lower bar for something that has real political and practical consequences?
yea--because flying to another star system with a bunch of military equipment is *soo* much easer than adding a few GPS satellites. We almost have GPS on mars right now!
...any more than cops can beat hesitant suspects because "police have a difficult job."
I though this was practically codified by now. ;)
Juries of your peers... means not above average! Really, I was not picked because i was at university doing a PhD, and hence over qualified to be representative juror. Since only 2% on the population have a masters degree or above.
But i agree still that the solution is *not* to make fictional entertainment more accurate. Any more than to legislate news media to have less "spin".
Or that the machines harnessing humans as an energy source ..."combined with a form of fusion had all the energy they need".
Incompetence in data management is no excuse. If you can work out how to Analise your data, work out how to publish your data.
In god we trust. The rest of you *show* me the data!