"Suffice it to say that h264 is a very sophisticated technology that is the product of many contributions by many people and companies over a long period of time."
h.264 is transform coding with motion compensation, really old technology. Most of the patents are on little tweaks. The whole thing is really a rip-off, designed to pay off the major players and keep competitors off.
"but video codecs are a pretty clear example of a piece of software that are very expensive to develop and probably do need some kind of patent protection."
h.264 is valuable because it's a de-facto standard and because people have invested a lot of effort into tuning its implementations.
Outside the US there are no software patents, therefore h.264 can't have any patent over it, therefore MPEG-LA can't threaten anybody for anything.
What makes you think these are software patents? A lot of the devices involve hardware patents.
The issue with h.264 has always been the US,
Many of the patents are held by European and Japanese corporations and research labs.
(in most of the world copyright lasts for 50 years, for instance, but try finding a book online before its US life+90 copyright expiration date).
Wrong. The Berne conventions (as in Berne, Europe) created much of the current insanity, eliminating the requirements for registration and copyright notices, recognizing so-called "moral rights", and creating a lot of other restrictions. Berne required life + 50 years as the minmum term from all signatories. Europeans started copyright insanity and threw their imperialist weights around to impose it on the US and other nations. The US and the UK tried to resist for decades, but eventually just gave in. Today, many publishers and media organizations behind the current push are European. The patent situation is similar: the insanity started in Europe in the 19th century, was imposed on the rest of the world, and Europeans play the political eand economic game really well, benefitting greatly while blaming the US. And software patents are far from dead in Europe. either.
This is at least as much a European problem as it is an American one. But European politicians are masters at shifting the blame.
That much is true. Another avenue might be buying a machine from Dell, or buying the Fluendo codec pack, which is surprisingly affordable.
You're just not getting it, are you? Nobody is trying to kill h.264. You can watch all your flat-nosed blue aliens in h.264 all you want.
It's about ensuring that everybody has a means of recording, viewing, and distributing video that is not subject to the control of an association of big corporations, an association that effectively determines what devices, systems, protocols, etc. can and cannot be used with their video format.
We need a codec that everybody can use without having a legal relationship (directly or indirectly) with anybody, just like everybody can write on paper and publish HTML.
Clearly, because I agree with Apple on one issue, I must be an Apple fanboi
I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. I accept that your intellectual problem is evidently worse.
Another avenue would be either civil disobedience, or moving to countries which don't have patent laws.
That's not civil disobedience. Civil disobendience means taking a public stance and a public risk in order to cause positive change. You're just being lazy.
And the HTML5/h.264 debate isn't about whether patents are good or bad. If you want to use a patented video codec, that's fine. I use h.264 all the time myself. The debate is about creating a free, unencumbered standard that people can fall back to.
In typical Steve Jobs fashion, he has misdirected the debate by turning into the question of which codec is better and uses less power and dragging in Flash and all sorts of other stuff. But his agenda is to ensure that h.264 becomes the single de-facto standard so that people don't have a choice but to use Apple's codec of choice, from a select club that Apple managed to get a membership ticket for.
Ogg isn't a codec. Ogg is a container. Theora is a codec.
Well, I'm glad you're paying attention, Mr. Nitpick. Now what about paying attention to what actually matters?
Nope, he's telling GNU people to go fuck themselves. There's a difference.
It's not a GPL vs the rest of the world issue. Mozilla is not a GPL project, yet they have been pushing hard for an open, unencumbered codec. This is just as much an issue for any other open source software and commercial software vendors.
and they're both plugged into a Dell, running Linux.
Well, then you better hope that other people are smarter about licenses and open systems because than you if people had your kind of attitude, Linux wouldn't exist.
Who, exactly, am I supposed to be a fanboy of?
I'm sorry, I thought you were confused, but obviously, you're merely incompetent.
Apple owns exactly one patent on h.264. The hardware might be a factor,
Well, so they are not particularly innovative, but it only takes one to be part of the club. And it's not just the hardware, it's also the fact that they have no expertise implementing other codecs; they'd be on a level playing field.
VP8 might be a solution.
Solution to what? Apple isn't going to give in. The argument that h.264 is better is a red herring; it has nothing to do with their opposition to open codecs.
VP8 may be a "solution" in the sense that Google has enough of the mobile market that they can simply switch over YouTube and tell Apple to get lost.
Because Apple is quaking in their boots over Linux...
Yes.
Besides, if so, it's a pitifully weak attack on Linux. After all, nVidia already has an API to use hardware h.264 decoding on Linux. If you have the right video card, Firefox could theoretically play h.264 on Linux, not only legally
Many machines don't have nVidia cards. The nVidia drivers themselves are closed source and proprietary. And people need to do other things with video besides playing it. But I doubt you understand any of that, coming from an Apple mindset. Perhaps that's why Mac desktop machines have been eeking out such a marginal existence in the market.
but faster than Flash does.
Faster? Video always plays at the same frame rate, and modern machines are fast enough for real-time decoding.
Thirdly, supporting Theora and only Theora is self defeating for Firefox. Sites and users will simply ignore the browser, or hack around the limitation by using Flash. Either way Firefox loses.
Mozilla doesn't want to eliminate h.264 or Flash or plugins. They are already supported by plugins. There's nothing to be opened up or done.
The discussion surrounding HTML5 has been about the definition of a patent-unencumbered video codec that's supported by every browser, in addition to all the proprietary solutions that are already there.
Pay some attention before you participate in discussions.
It gives them the option to either break the law (because they don't agree with patent law), or find a vendor to take care of it.
In different words, Steve Jobs is telling open source developers to go fuck themselves.
I mean, they couldn't be pushing h.264 because they feel it's better than Theora, with a proven track record.
That doesn't make sense. Ogg was merely proposed as a universal baseline codec, something one can count on in any browser, not as the exclusive video standard.
If Ogg were as bad as you say and h.264 were as universal as you say, then Apple would have had nothing to fear from it, since everybody would be choosing h.264 anyway.
The only logical explanation for Apple's resistance is that they realize that (even) Ogg is more than good enough for most video needs and that if it were guaranteed to be present in HTML5, everybody would just be using it. Apple could kiss their investment (including hardware) and patents in h.264 goodbye. Because they don't want that, they keep pushing their proprietary standard. Great for their bottom line, bad for users.
Please, explain how that works.
It works because Apple is evil and you are too much of a fanboy to see it.
Please - you need to differ from what the EU want and the people of EU want.
Europeans let themselves be paid off by their governments through massive social services, and that's why nobody protests. It's the same dangerous attitudes that brought fascism to Europe a century ago.
The people is never asked about anything
If you don't like what's happening at the EU level, vote for different national leaders, leaders that don't sell out your rights to "an elite".
Microsoft is. Apple is likely the largest proponent of open standards and open source, outside of primarily open source companies and organizations, on the planet.
Apple takes advantage of open source, but they really look down their nose at it and try to undermine it.
Unistrokes is even faster and simpler than either G1 or G2. Unfortunately, we're stuck with lousy on-screen keyboards courtesy of Apple and all the Apple imitators.
Palm was very successful in the 1990's and had good products. What killed them was their arrogance. Instead of developing a Linux-based phone and PDA around 1999 (like many people told them they should), they went off and did their own proprietary stuff and failed miserably.
Part of their arrogance was that they considered themselves "brilliant". Like Apple, much of what went into Palms was invented elsewhere, Palm was just the first to make a really successful product out of it. Like Apple, Palms were also a pain to program, although you wouldn't have known it from their hordes of loyal developers. But you're right: it's marketing that killed Palm and that is saving Apple.
Meta-ethical relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right", and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all, rather only to societal convention and personal preference.
"Good" and "bad" are at least partially innate, so that position is obviously wrong.
I don't think there's a universal moral standard everyone ought to follow.
It's no more a matter of choice than whether physics is universal. Morality derives from our biology and the laws of the universe. Universality explains differences in moral judgments not as choices but as mistakes. By analogy, there appear to be universal physical laws even if most people don't understand them at all, and even though even physicists don't fully understand them yet. The problem with Catholic morality is that it is like medieval physics: it seems intuitive, but it is logically inconsistent and contradicts the real world.
But if a theist is violation a rule of his God, he's doing something he finds morally wrong.
Yes, God's will, not the Vatican's; many protestants have historically the Pope to be the antichrist or devil, meaning they expected him to tempt them with big promises to do the wrong thing. You know, like, "you'll go to paradise and experience eternal bliss if you do as I tell you".
(Also, being a theist doesn't necessarily mean following God; some theists consider God evil, indifferent, or incompetent.)
Modding down is meant as a last resort to weed out posts that harm reasoned discourse. It is not supposed to be used merely to express disagreement
Yeah, but that's exactly what's happening. Of course, in many cases, it's just that people are so narrow minded and uninformed that they simply cannot believe that a statement that rund contrary to their beliefs is actually reasonable and accurate.
This isn't the US doing it, it's many governments. They find it convenient to use secret international treaty negotiations to achieve things that people wouldn't vote for voluntarily. They just come back from their negotiations and say "the Americans/Germans/French/Chinese/... forced us to". European governments portray the US as some kind of evil imperialist power that they can't resist, American politicians portray Europeans as pinko commie liberals that rob the US blind, and politicians in China, India, and Africa portray Europe and the US as murderous ex-colonialists. It's the politics of hate and fear by which politicians manage to retain power.
A lot of the copyright insanity originates in Europe. The US at least has fair use, first sale, and reproductions don't create a new copyright; in Europe, you get none of that. Europe has more than 500 million people and an economy that's bigger than that of the US. If it didn't want ACTA, ACTA wouldn't happen.
OS X is a thin BSD compatibility layer on top a heavily hacked Mach microkernel. It's about as much "UNIX" as Microsoft Windows is UNIX, "UNIX 03" brand name shenanigans notwithstanding.
The PC is fine. What's coming to an end is Apple's desktop era, because Apple really isn't in anything for the long run. They take quick opportunities to make a lot of money with the currently hot thing, go with it for a few years, and then drop it to move on to the next thing.
I'm a moral relativist. That doesn't mean I don't believe in principles, I just don't think "I'm right, and you are wrong". My principles are as valid as anyone else's.
That doesn't automatically make you a moral relativist. The death penalty is valid, but I consider it neither moral nor effective. Likewise, Catholicism is valid, but I consider it neither moral nor effective.
For example, I believe a Catholic has a right to refuse to assist in suicide, refuse to perform abortions, or refuse to provide contraceptives to people. Furthermore, he believes his actions to be justified and beneficial. Taken together, that makes his actions "valid". But the fact that he has a right to do so doesn't make it moral: his actions still cause other people to suffer unnecessarily and to deprive them of their free will, and that makes his actions morally wrong.
Do the atheists you know believe in a transcendental "world", even if they don't believe in God?
There are about 2 billion atheists in the world, many of them deeply religious and with a deep faith in the transcendent.
If they don't, where do they believe the moral standard they follow comes from?
Logic, reason, and innate insights ("revelation"). In fact, Christianity actually also acknolwedges those as sources of morality. The failure of Catholicism is that hierarchy and authority trump logic, reason, and revelation in its practice.
Only non-theists can be truly unselfish, as they are able to perform good deeds and deny themselves any kind of reward.
I've made the same argument, and even Catholic intellectuals recognized this centuries ago.
Actually, theists can be truly unselfish: if they violate the rules of their church and risk punishment in the afterlife. If theism is true, the true purpose of an organization like the Vatican may be that it gives human beings an opportunity to defy it.
I'm sorry you're falling through the cracks right now. USCIS is breaking the law by not issuing you identification (they are required to). Make copies of your paperwork and keep them in your vehicle and that will likely be sufficient for Arizona police.
The problems you are having with USCIS are exactly the reason why Arizona is passing this law: federal immigration and immigration enforcement is a mess. It's slow, expensive, and bureaucratic. It makes illegal behavior more effective and cheaper than legal behavior.
Nevertheless, keep in mind that you are a guest and that immigration is a privilege, not a right. You always do have the option of not immigrating if it becomes too much of a hassle. That would probably be a loss for the US, but that's for American voters to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
"Suffice it to say that h264 is a very sophisticated technology that is the product of many contributions by many people and companies over a long period of time."
h.264 is transform coding with motion compensation, really old technology. Most of the patents are on little tweaks. The whole thing is really a rip-off, designed to pay off the major players and keep competitors off.
"but video codecs are a pretty clear example of a piece of software that are very expensive to develop and probably do need some kind of patent protection."
h.264 is valuable because it's a de-facto standard and because people have invested a lot of effort into tuning its implementations.
Outside the US there are no software patents, therefore h.264 can't have any patent over it, therefore MPEG-LA can't threaten anybody for anything.
What makes you think these are software patents? A lot of the devices involve hardware patents.
The issue with h.264 has always been the US,
Many of the patents are held by European and Japanese corporations and research labs.
(in most of the world copyright lasts for 50 years, for instance, but try finding a book online before its US life+90 copyright expiration date).
Wrong. The Berne conventions (as in Berne, Europe) created much of the current insanity, eliminating the requirements for registration and copyright notices, recognizing so-called "moral rights", and creating a lot of other restrictions. Berne required life + 50 years as the minmum term from all signatories. Europeans started copyright insanity and threw their imperialist weights around to impose it on the US and other nations. The US and the UK tried to resist for decades, but eventually just gave in. Today, many publishers and media organizations behind the current push are European. The patent situation is similar: the insanity started in Europe in the 19th century, was imposed on the rest of the world, and Europeans play the political eand economic game really well, benefitting greatly while blaming the US. And software patents are far from dead in Europe. either.
This is at least as much a European problem as it is an American one. But European politicians are masters at shifting the blame.
That much is true. Another avenue might be buying a machine from Dell, or buying the Fluendo codec pack, which is surprisingly affordable.
You're just not getting it, are you? Nobody is trying to kill h.264. You can watch all your flat-nosed blue aliens in h.264 all you want.
It's about ensuring that everybody has a means of recording, viewing, and distributing video that is not subject to the control of an association of big corporations, an association that effectively determines what devices, systems, protocols, etc. can and cannot be used with their video format.
We need a codec that everybody can use without having a legal relationship (directly or indirectly) with anybody, just like everybody can write on paper and publish HTML.
Clearly, because I agree with Apple on one issue, I must be an Apple fanboi
I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. I accept that your intellectual problem is evidently worse.
Another avenue would be either civil disobedience, or moving to countries which don't have patent laws.
That's not civil disobedience. Civil disobendience means taking a public stance and a public risk in order to cause positive change. You're just being lazy.
And the HTML5/h.264 debate isn't about whether patents are good or bad. If you want to use a patented video codec, that's fine. I use h.264 all the time myself. The debate is about creating a free, unencumbered standard that people can fall back to.
In typical Steve Jobs fashion, he has misdirected the debate by turning into the question of which codec is better and uses less power and dragging in Flash and all sorts of other stuff. But his agenda is to ensure that h.264 becomes the single de-facto standard so that people don't have a choice but to use Apple's codec of choice, from a select club that Apple managed to get a membership ticket for.
Ogg isn't a codec. Ogg is a container. Theora is a codec.
Well, I'm glad you're paying attention, Mr. Nitpick. Now what about paying attention to what actually matters?
Nope, he's telling GNU people to go fuck themselves. There's a difference.
It's not a GPL vs the rest of the world issue. Mozilla is not a GPL project, yet they have been pushing hard for an open, unencumbered codec. This is just as much an issue for any other open source software and commercial software vendors.
and they're both plugged into a Dell, running Linux.
Well, then you better hope that other people are smarter about licenses and open systems because than you if people had your kind of attitude, Linux wouldn't exist.
Who, exactly, am I supposed to be a fanboy of?
I'm sorry, I thought you were confused, but obviously, you're merely incompetent.
Apple owns exactly one patent on h.264. The hardware might be a factor,
Well, so they are not particularly innovative, but it only takes one to be part of the club. And it's not just the hardware, it's also the fact that they have no expertise implementing other codecs; they'd be on a level playing field.
VP8 might be a solution.
Solution to what? Apple isn't going to give in. The argument that h.264 is better is a red herring; it has nothing to do with their opposition to open codecs.
VP8 may be a "solution" in the sense that Google has enough of the mobile market that they can simply switch over YouTube and tell Apple to get lost.
Because Apple is quaking in their boots over Linux...
Yes.
Besides, if so, it's a pitifully weak attack on Linux. After all, nVidia already has an API to use hardware h.264 decoding on Linux. If you have the right video card, Firefox could theoretically play h.264 on Linux, not only legally
Many machines don't have nVidia cards. The nVidia drivers themselves are closed source and proprietary. And people need to do other things with video besides playing it. But I doubt you understand any of that, coming from an Apple mindset. Perhaps that's why Mac desktop machines have been eeking out such a marginal existence in the market.
but faster than Flash does.
Faster? Video always plays at the same frame rate, and modern machines are fast enough for real-time decoding.
Thirdly, supporting Theora and only Theora is self defeating for Firefox. Sites and users will simply ignore the browser, or hack around the limitation by using Flash. Either way Firefox loses.
Mozilla doesn't want to eliminate h.264 or Flash or plugins. They are already supported by plugins. There's nothing to be opened up or done.
The discussion surrounding HTML5 has been about the definition of a patent-unencumbered video codec that's supported by every browser, in addition to all the proprietary solutions that are already there.
Pay some attention before you participate in discussions.
It gives them the option to either break the law (because they don't agree with patent law), or find a vendor to take care of it.
In different words, Steve Jobs is telling open source developers to go fuck themselves.
I mean, they couldn't be pushing h.264 because they feel it's better than Theora, with a proven track record.
That doesn't make sense. Ogg was merely proposed as a universal baseline codec, something one can count on in any browser, not as the exclusive video standard.
If Ogg were as bad as you say and h.264 were as universal as you say, then Apple would have had nothing to fear from it, since everybody would be choosing h.264 anyway.
The only logical explanation for Apple's resistance is that they realize that (even) Ogg is more than good enough for most video needs and that if it were guaranteed to be present in HTML5, everybody would just be using it. Apple could kiss their investment (including hardware) and patents in h.264 goodbye. Because they don't want that, they keep pushing their proprietary standard. Great for their bottom line, bad for users.
Please, explain how that works.
It works because Apple is evil and you are too much of a fanboy to see it.
Please - you need to differ from what the EU want and the people of EU want.
Europeans let themselves be paid off by their governments through massive social services, and that's why nobody protests. It's the same dangerous attitudes that brought fascism to Europe a century ago.
The people is never asked about anything
If you don't like what's happening at the EU level, vote for different national leaders, leaders that don't sell out your rights to "an elite".
Typical: Apple developed none of the basic coding technology in h.264 but they are getting litigious over patents.
How does handing it off help? The problem with h.264 is that it's proprietary and patent encumbered; that's not fixed by handing it off to anything.
Apple's push for h.264 is simply an attack on Linux, nothing more. There is no technical or legal justification for it.
So incorporate it into XUL, or write another layer.
And how does that help users whose OS doesn't have h.264?
The problem with h.264 is that the patent holders become gatekeepers for content. And there's no reason to use it.
Apple is pushing h.264 because it hurts Linux and they are afraid of Linux.
Underdogs can't be FUD purveyors?
Apple is no underdog; they are a luxury brand.
Somebody needs to tell Mozilla that, given their FUD about H.264.
No FUD there: h.264 is proprietary and it's unnecessary since there are good and free alternatives.
Microsoft is. Apple is likely the largest proponent of open standards and open source, outside of primarily open source companies and organizations, on the planet.
Apple takes advantage of open source, but they really look down their nose at it and try to undermine it.
Unistrokes is even faster and simpler than either G1 or G2. Unfortunately, we're stuck with lousy on-screen keyboards courtesy of Apple and all the Apple imitators.
Palm was very successful in the 1990's and had good products. What killed them was their arrogance. Instead of developing a Linux-based phone and PDA around 1999 (like many people told them they should), they went off and did their own proprietary stuff and failed miserably.
Part of their arrogance was that they considered themselves "brilliant". Like Apple, much of what went into Palms was invented elsewhere, Palm was just the first to make a really successful product out of it. Like Apple, Palms were also a pain to program, although you wouldn't have known it from their hordes of loyal developers. But you're right: it's marketing that killed Palm and that is saving Apple.
Meta-ethical relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right", and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all, rather only to societal convention and personal preference.
"Good" and "bad" are at least partially innate, so that position is obviously wrong.
I don't think there's a universal moral standard everyone ought to follow.
It's no more a matter of choice than whether physics is universal. Morality derives from our biology and the laws of the universe. Universality explains differences in moral judgments not as choices but as mistakes. By analogy, there appear to be universal physical laws even if most people don't understand them at all, and even though even physicists don't fully understand them yet. The problem with Catholic morality is that it is like medieval physics: it seems intuitive, but it is logically inconsistent and contradicts the real world.
But if a theist is violation a rule of his God, he's doing something he finds morally wrong.
Yes, God's will, not the Vatican's; many protestants have historically the Pope to be the antichrist or devil, meaning they expected him to tempt them with big promises to do the wrong thing. You know, like, "you'll go to paradise and experience eternal bliss if you do as I tell you".
(Also, being a theist doesn't necessarily mean following God; some theists consider God evil, indifferent, or incompetent.)
And what magical democracy has figured out how to do this better? Italy? Germany? France? Greece? Portugal? The UK? I don't think so.
When you come up with a system that actually works better in practice and doesn't self-destruct like clockwork, let us know.
Modding down is meant as a last resort to weed out posts that harm reasoned discourse. It is not supposed to be used merely to express disagreement
Yeah, but that's exactly what's happening. Of course, in many cases, it's just that people are so narrow minded and uninformed that they simply cannot believe that a statement that rund contrary to their beliefs is actually reasonable and accurate.
This isn't the US doing it, it's many governments. They find it convenient to use secret international treaty negotiations to achieve things that people wouldn't vote for voluntarily. They just come back from their negotiations and say "the Americans/Germans/French/Chinese/... forced us to". European governments portray the US as some kind of evil imperialist power that they can't resist, American politicians portray Europeans as pinko commie liberals that rob the US blind, and politicians in China, India, and Africa portray Europe and the US as murderous ex-colonialists. It's the politics of hate and fear by which politicians manage to retain power.
A lot of the copyright insanity originates in Europe. The US at least has fair use, first sale, and reproductions don't create a new copyright; in Europe, you get none of that. Europe has more than 500 million people and an economy that's bigger than that of the US. If it didn't want ACTA, ACTA wouldn't happen.
You can dislike Windows all you like, but Windows 7 is actually pretty good.
Yeah, it's kind of like OS X, which isn't saying all that much.
OS X is a thin BSD compatibility layer on top a heavily hacked Mach microkernel. It's about as much "UNIX" as Microsoft Windows is UNIX, "UNIX 03" brand name shenanigans notwithstanding.
The PC is fine. What's coming to an end is Apple's desktop era, because Apple really isn't in anything for the long run. They take quick opportunities to make a lot of money with the currently hot thing, go with it for a few years, and then drop it to move on to the next thing.
I'm a moral relativist. That doesn't mean I don't believe in principles, I just don't think "I'm right, and you are wrong". My principles are as valid as anyone else's.
That doesn't automatically make you a moral relativist. The death penalty is valid, but I consider it neither moral nor effective. Likewise, Catholicism is valid, but I consider it neither moral nor effective.
For example, I believe a Catholic has a right to refuse to assist in suicide, refuse to perform abortions, or refuse to provide contraceptives to people. Furthermore, he believes his actions to be justified and beneficial. Taken together, that makes his actions "valid". But the fact that he has a right to do so doesn't make it moral: his actions still cause other people to suffer unnecessarily and to deprive them of their free will, and that makes his actions morally wrong.
Do the atheists you know believe in a transcendental "world", even if they don't believe in God?
There are about 2 billion atheists in the world, many of them deeply religious and with a deep faith in the transcendent.
If they don't, where do they believe the moral standard they follow comes from?
Logic, reason, and innate insights ("revelation"). In fact, Christianity actually also acknolwedges those as sources of morality. The failure of Catholicism is that hierarchy and authority trump logic, reason, and revelation in its practice.
Only non-theists can be truly unselfish, as they are able to perform good deeds and deny themselves any kind of reward.
I've made the same argument, and even Catholic intellectuals recognized this centuries ago.
Actually, theists can be truly unselfish: if they violate the rules of their church and risk punishment in the afterlife. If theism is true, the true purpose of an organization like the Vatican may be that it gives human beings an opportunity to defy it.
For states that are not on the border, immigration may not seem like it's a bad problem
It's pretty sad when even people who oppose illegal migration fall into this trap.
Immigration is not a problem; immigrants pay, are productive members of society, and get deported if they break any laws.
The problem is illegal migration. Illegal migration is not immigration. Stop confusing the two.
I'm sorry you're falling through the cracks right now. USCIS is breaking the law by not issuing you identification (they are required to). Make copies of your paperwork and keep them in your vehicle and that will likely be sufficient for Arizona police.
The problems you are having with USCIS are exactly the reason why Arizona is passing this law: federal immigration and immigration enforcement is a mess. It's slow, expensive, and bureaucratic. It makes illegal behavior more effective and cheaper than legal behavior.
Nevertheless, keep in mind that you are a guest and that immigration is a privilege, not a right. You always do have the option of not immigrating if it becomes too much of a hassle. That would probably be a loss for the US, but that's for American voters to worry about.