As a non-American I'm not sure if you are joking or not...
The answer is forever... the macho stuff is only when the tough 99% can sit at home and cheer on the 1% in uniform that throw their bodies and billions in weapons at a foreign enemy... bring that closer to home and it's a different story, hence why 9/11 had a huge impact but bugger all outrage over losing 3x as many soldiers in the direct response (and god knows how many to PTSD and other issues since)
and don't kid yourself, it's the same in most affluent western countries
Sorry, as a non-American, what does that euphemism even mean? I only heard it a couple of time coming out of US media and it makes no sense.
Are there "lawful" enemy combatants and under who's law these ones unlawful? And aren't they enemy combatants because a "coalition of forces" invaded their countries?
Not trolling, but is that just a euphemism to put an air of respectability around 'they are the bad guys so anything goes' ?
Sounds like pretty much none of them are competent then... If you are not managing your email into a follow-up (ie to-do) vs ignore (ie done or no action) grouping you would probably need to question how organised you are.
I'd be surprised if any half-competent business user didn't use it that way whether it is via flagged to-do items, storing them in a followup folder, archiving/deleting everything except open items or whatever...
- If it is something you need to action and respond to, it stays in the to-do list until you action it. - If it is a response with information from someone else, it stays in the to-do list until you have used the information. - Otherwise, it gets filed (for reference information or ass-covering paper trails) or deleted.
On the other hand, personal users which are a big part of the Gmail user base would be quite different...
I know MY work email is a to-do list, while my personal is like a never ending message log (a la phone SMS or IM apps)...
Australia is even more geographically diverse, equally as geographically large and yet manages to have never had a gun death at any high schools... although we have had a grand total of 3 university deaths.
In contrast, the US has close to 300 school deaths in the last 25 years... At least 7x the per capita rate of Australia and this is being generous given all 3 Australian deaths were in the last 25 years and only comprised 2 incidents.
200 years ago the average age at first marriage was 28 and 26 for men/women respectively - and that is EXACTLTY where it is for the US population at the moment. The lowest average age was typically around 20-21yo in 1950/60s (depending on country).
Norm of 16yo is just wrong unless you want to head back to medieval times and prior - even then I doubt it.
Happy to be proven wrong, but I'd imagine fairly soon.
H.265 is a superset of H.264, so much of the same hardware could probably be used. As for complexity, it seems H.265 is around 25-50% more complex for DECODING so certainly not unreasonable for current mobile devices.
The current Samsung Galaxy S4 advertised both HEVC support and Full HD (1080p) playback - not sure if they are both together however.
The specific encoder you use makes a HELL of a lot more difference than the codec/format. Other H.264 encoders don't come close to x264. If x265 doesn't get the same kind of open source development boost, x264 will continue to improve, and probably outperform the newer format, as proprietary codec developers just haven't shown themselves willing or able to do a good job of perceptual encoding, yet that's where the bulk of our non-pirated content comes from...
Wow... just wow!
I'll assume by "proprietary codec developers" you actually mean developers who have closed source implementation of the encoder. In which case, the statement may not be completely unreasonable ie closed-source encoders have not kept pass with this open-source implementation due to less comphrensive (and less costly) implementation of the encoding tools.
The rest is complete rubbish though...
So what if the bulk of non-pirated comes from closed source encoders... what does that have to do x264 or x265 or H.265 development? Is this just a shot at closed-source software given you seem to be VERY pro-open source?
The specific encoder you use makes a HELL of a lot more difference than the codec/format. Other H.264 encoders don't come close to x264. If... blah blah blah.. x264 will continue to improve, and probably outperform the newer format"
Do you understand that H.265 is essentially a superset of H.264? You know, as in H.264 + extensions? How is x264 going to out-perform x265 given it is a subset of the later?
Do you understand that x264 uses a superset of the encoder algorithms implemented by other encoders? So what you attribute is primarily due to codec and then codec parameters and then software optimisations.
You could have said "I hate standards.. I love open source... I hope H.265 fails"... much quicker and doesn't need any pretence of understanding video codecs.
means that that consumer should pay a lot more in subscription fees than they bring in in ad revenue, especially considering that with a significant amount of the users opting out the value of the rest of the userbase drops.
That is really the guts of it...
Ad revenue is actually tiny at around $0.15/mth/user up from closer to $0.05/mth/user last year... any subscription would be SUBSTANTIALLY higher than that and it questionable how far they can push ad revenue given people are complaining at the current levels.
I agree the userbase is the product so you can't afford to push them away with too much advertising - the question is how to monetize the userbase.
And that's the problem... Around $0.15/user/month in ad revenue is a lot lower than $1
And your logic problem: - it's not 10% * $10/mth subscription vs 100% * $1/mth ads - it is (10% * $10/mth subs + 90% * $1/mth ads) vs (100% * $1/mth ads)
Replacing 10% of your user-base at higher profits ($10 vs $0.15) while retaining the ad-revenue for the rest kind of makes it a no-brainer.
As for Office - it still has something like 90-95% market share... it may be struggling in certain niches (in fact, I'm sure it is!) but overall it's doing quite well... the bigger problem is that productivity software is quite a mature market now, so prices and profitability drop but that is the same as most high volume software of any sort - OS, games, office suites, etc
Answer: Because it is not a failed model but is the traditional life-cycle of ANY business product.
The cycle is: - develop a product - create demand for the product - monetize the demand - continue until the life-cycle is over
Part of monetizing the product is to segment the market based on willingness/ability to pay. Premium vs ad-supported is a very easy and successful way to do that with media-type products.
Where this model fails is where there is not a viable business to start with and an attempt to monetize then completely fails - that was most of the original dot-com bubble of the late '90s
What businesses are you thinking you that built up large userbases before screwing it up?
We can see where you started with the mantra "facebook (A) is not the product for users (B), but users (B) are the product for advertisers (C)"... 3 separate entities and a reasonable concept...
You've concluded that "ads (A) don't finance users (B), users (B) are the target of ads (A)"... only 2 entities and logically inconsistent given the ads are there EXACTLY to finance a free subscription model
What has been proposed may actually make sense given it makes facebook the product for a group of customers: - advertisers value the platform at $2/user per annum - the subscription model suggested values the platform at $120/user per annum - i'd guess that anyone who wanted ad-free would worth less $120 (ie 60x the average) to advertisers
Nothing wrong with fragmenting your market and cashing in the high-value component. Exactly what most of the media does - pay services for high value customers and throw low value advertising at the others. Think why cinemas still exist when TV viewers are the product for advertisers and that can be a free service????
To save you actually reading: - yes, they tested them - those authorities that knew how to test (i.e. blind tests) knew they didn't work - those that didn't know how to test properly fell for the Ideomotor Effect
Disassembly of the devices showed they had NO active components - hence the lack of a power source (supposedly run on static electricity !!)
But more importantly, one can infer that there was a lot of corruption in the sales processes to a number of third-world and war-torn countries... hardly an incentive for them to find they don't work and not buy them when you'd miss out on your kickbacks.
Slashdot Mirror
Or perhaps you have completely missed the point and dont understand how debating works?
Wow ... that ranting combined with atrocious formatting just screams mental illness ...
Which is a shame because there seems to be a valid point hidden in there.
As a non-American I'm not sure if you are joking or not ...
The answer is forever ... the macho stuff is only when the tough 99% can sit at home and cheer on the 1% in uniform that throw their bodies and billions in weapons at a foreign enemy ... bring that closer to home and it's a different story, hence why 9/11 had a huge impact but bugger all outrage over losing 3x as many soldiers in the direct response (and god knows how many to PTSD and other issues since)
and don't kid yourself, it's the same in most affluent western countries
unlawful enemy combatants
Sorry, as a non-American, what does that euphemism even mean? I only heard it a couple of time coming out of US media and it makes no sense.
Are there "lawful" enemy combatants and under who's law these ones unlawful?
And aren't they enemy combatants because a "coalition of forces" invaded their countries?
Not trolling, but is that just a euphemism to put an air of respectability around 'they are the bad guys so anything goes' ?
Sounds like pretty much none of them are competent then ... If you are not managing your email into a follow-up (ie to-do) vs ignore (ie done or no action) grouping you would probably need to question how organised you are.
Yet, the Oxford English Dictionary would quite clearly disagree with your statement and endorse it as a verb: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/...
Not to mention it is in common use and hence is correct usage by definition ...
I'd be surprised if any half-competent business user didn't use it that way whether it is via flagged to-do items, storing them in a followup folder, archiving/deleting everything except open items or whatever ...
- If it is something you need to action and respond to, it stays in the to-do list until you action it.
- If it is a response with information from someone else, it stays in the to-do list until you have used the information.
- Otherwise, it gets filed (for reference information or ass-covering paper trails) or deleted.
On the other hand, personal users which are a big part of the Gmail user base would be quite different ...
I know MY work email is a to-do list, while my personal is like a never ending message log (a la phone SMS or IM apps) ...
Tactical Studies Rules aka TSR ... not TRS, FYI
SAIDI is clearly in MINUTES per year, not hours per year !
That is a really poor argument.
Australia is even more geographically diverse, equally as geographically large and yet manages to have never had a gun death at any high schools ... although we have had a grand total of 3 university deaths.
In contrast, the US has close to 300 school deaths in the last 25 years ... At least 7x the per capita rate of Australia and this is being generous given all 3 Australian deaths were in the last 25 years and only comprised 2 incidents.
This is just patently incorrect ...
200 years ago the average age at first marriage was 28 and 26 for men/women respectively - and that is EXACTLTY where it is for the US population at the moment. The lowest average age was typically around 20-21yo in 1950/60s (depending on country).
Norm of 16yo is just wrong unless you want to head back to medieval times and prior - even then I doubt it.
whala? really? you said whala?
Voila perhaps ?????
About 25-50% higher according to most estimates. There aren't any optimised decoders to really compare real-world performance though.
Happy to be proven wrong, but I'd imagine fairly soon.
H.265 is a superset of H.264, so much of the same hardware could probably be used. As for complexity, it seems H.265 is around 25-50% more complex for DECODING so certainly not unreasonable for current mobile devices.
The current Samsung Galaxy S4 advertised both HEVC support and Full HD (1080p) playback - not sure if they are both together however.
Agreed but 4x pixels does not equate to 4x bitrate for a given codec - typically more like 2x.
so maybe something like
4K H.265 = 75% * 200%* 1080p H.264 = 150% H.264
So not as bad as you'd think and a lot of current format stuff is still MPEG-2 as well so even more scope for improvement !!!
The specific encoder you use makes a HELL of a lot more difference than the codec/format. Other H.264 encoders don't come close to x264. If x265 doesn't get the same kind of open source development boost, x264 will continue to improve, and probably outperform the newer format, as proprietary codec developers just haven't shown themselves willing or able to do a good job of perceptual encoding, yet that's where the bulk of our non-pirated content comes from...
Wow ... just wow!
I'll assume by "proprietary codec developers" you actually mean developers who have closed source implementation of the encoder. In which case, the statement may not be completely unreasonable ie closed-source encoders have not kept pass with this open-source implementation due to less comphrensive (and less costly) implementation of the encoding tools.
The rest is complete rubbish though ...
So what if the bulk of non-pirated comes from closed source encoders ... what does that have to do x264 or x265 or H.265 development? Is this just a shot at closed-source software given you seem to be VERY pro-open source?
The specific encoder you use makes a HELL of a lot more difference than the codec/format. Other H.264 encoders don't come close to x264. If ... blah blah blah .. x264 will continue to improve, and probably outperform the newer format"
Do you understand that H.265 is essentially a superset of H.264? You know, as in H.264 + extensions? How is x264 going to out-perform x265 given it is a subset of the later?
Do you understand that x264 uses a superset of the encoder algorithms implemented by other encoders? So what you attribute is primarily due to codec and then codec parameters and then software optimisations.
You could have said "I hate standards .. I love open source ... I hope H.265 fails" ... much quicker and doesn't need any pretence of understanding video codecs.
Nope - think we agree on the numbers
$1 billion / 600 million users / 12 months = $0.139/user/month ... $0.15 is close enough
US books sales were running about 80% hardcopy / 20% electronic in 2012 vs 85% / 15% in 2011 ...
Current numbers of up towards 25% e-book share seem completely reasonable
However, the growth rates have plummeted and seems that e-books may top out at less than 30% market over the next few years
The biggest surprise is that the "new-ness" of ebooks may be wearing off
means that that consumer should pay a lot more in subscription fees than they bring in in ad revenue, especially considering that with a significant amount of the users opting out the value of the rest of the userbase drops.
That is really the guts of it ...
Ad revenue is actually tiny at around $0.15/mth/user up from closer to $0.05/mth/user last year ... any subscription would be SUBSTANTIALLY higher than that and it questionable how far they can push ad revenue given people are complaining at the current levels.
I agree the userbase is the product so you can't afford to push them away with too much advertising - the question is how to monetize the userbase.
And that's the problem ... Around $0.15/user/month in ad revenue is a lot lower than $1
And your logic problem:
- it's not 10% * $10/mth subscription vs 100% * $1/mth ads
- it is (10% * $10/mth subs + 90% * $1/mth ads) vs (100% * $1/mth ads)
Replacing 10% of your user-base at higher profits ($10 vs $0.15) while retaining the ad-revenue for the rest kind of makes it a no-brainer.
As for Office - it still has something like 90-95% market share ... it may be struggling in certain niches (in fact, I'm sure it is!) but overall it's doing quite well ... the bigger problem is that productivity software is quite a mature market now, so prices and profitability drop but that is the same as most high volume software of any sort - OS, games, office suites, etc
Answer: Because it is not a failed model but is the traditional life-cycle of ANY business product.
The cycle is:
- develop a product
- create demand for the product
- monetize the demand
- continue until the life-cycle is over
Part of monetizing the product is to segment the market based on willingness/ability to pay. Premium vs ad-supported is a very easy and successful way to do that with media-type products.
Where this model fails is where there is not a viable business to start with and an attempt to monetize then completely fails - that was most of the original dot-com bubble of the late '90s
What businesses are you thinking you that built up large userbases before screwing it up?
Yikes - you butchered that analogy.
We can see where you started with the mantra "facebook (A) is not the product for users (B), but users (B) are the product for advertisers (C)" ... 3 separate entities and a reasonable concept ...
You've concluded that "ads (A) don't finance users (B), users (B) are the target of ads (A)" ... only 2 entities and logically inconsistent given the ads are there EXACTLY to finance a free subscription model
What has been proposed may actually make sense given it makes facebook the product for a group of customers:
- advertisers value the platform at $2/user per annum
- the subscription model suggested values the platform at $120/user per annum
- i'd guess that anyone who wanted ad-free would worth less $120 (ie 60x the average) to advertisers
Nothing wrong with fragmenting your market and cashing in the high-value component. Exactly what most of the media does - pay services for high value customers and throw low value advertising at the others. Think why cinemas still exist when TV viewers are the product for advertisers and that can be a free service????
To save you actually reading:
- yes, they tested them
- those authorities that knew how to test (i.e. blind tests) knew they didn't work
- those that didn't know how to test properly fell for the Ideomotor Effect
Disassembly of the devices showed they had NO active components - hence the lack of a power source (supposedly run on static electricity !!)
But more importantly, one can infer that there was a lot of corruption in the sales processes to a number of third-world and war-torn countries ... hardly an incentive for them to find they don't work and not buy them when you'd miss out on your kickbacks.
Or in the UK in a city that debuted it after 27th December 1977 ... not really that difficult to work out !
FYI - the UK release was London only until January 1978
26 Jan 1788 or 1 Jan 1901 ... take your pick, but not 26 Jan 1901 !