Well, to me in this case with the lazer is to get the photons to travel in same direction. A parabola gives a a burn point or what ever it might be called in english. You know anyway what i mean. But with any tech lacer or not. to cause from that point have the light to travel in a straight line, in a "beam". As traditional lasers or not. I guess the less complicated the more powerful.
But only getting 10 kW from 1MW isn't that efficient. And for sure would have heating trouble. What is needed is rater to get a beam that has a 99% efficiency. parabole Well not enough knowledge about how laser is produced, I only know it's characteristics. Still if able to get that light to travel in a beam it would still be powerful enough. Would it be possible to create a prisma that converts the light from a parable source to a beam? This would probably be quite a complex prisma. Considering that the light would scatter in it but also that the input light would have different input directions.
well yeah at my own computer i've made the settings so that it wont redirect me. But using an other computer wont give me that behaivour..com should be.com and nothing else.
I doubt FFmpeg is base on h.264, I'm quite sure that it's based on x.264 which is not really the same and under VLC it performs not as good as when VLC uses Apples fraimworks instead on OSX.
Just my toughts to, I'm pretty sure mythbusters could succed on many oterh things they busted with some engineering.
I would e.g. love to try to stop a moving vechle again with duct tape. They really taped that ductape fence so it would break. I'm pretty sure I would be able to tape it differently so that i would take that inpact. Either braking the concrete again or stopping the car. But I'm sure if correctly taped neider the duct tape or the concrete would break.
Well even better get that light lazerised you get one heck of a powerful lazer. Not sure though how that would be done. But I guess could very efficient if successful. Maybe with a prisma first to spearate different wavelengths and then generate lasers with a cluster of different wavelengths and energylevels and then finally allign all of them on one single spot.
Anyone knowlegable enough in lazer technology to give some insights. Man you could shoot down satelites with that if you got it to work. Or you could burn down space waste.
This is a problem for linux yes, linux desktopuser has a shrinking marketshare under 1%. I know it's tough to be in a minority prefering your own system, and I would be glad if h.264 woudl become avail on linux too. But with more than 99% of the systems allready having h.264 support in one or the otherway, and h.264 is the only open standard out there that meets the requirements. Well there is nothing else. Instead of working against h.264. Lobbying for making h.264 possible on linux would be a much better aproach. MPEG LA has comitted them selves allready to great extent to ensure that the license modell should not bee too much of an obstakle.
Litte more lobbying for this would make h.264 an alternative for linux systems too. Now that would basically mean that h.264 would be supported by 99.95% of the systems out there in a way or other.
What do i do if it's deliverd trough a flash media player. Any codec is fine for me as it's not trough flash. Though I prefer h.264 by far as it gives the best user experience and compatibility of all the new moder.
The most compatible player and codec in the world is Quicktime and sorenson encoded. That works on nearly every operating system except some *nix and Unix flavours. While Linux has less than 1% market share of desktopusers. I cant find that so relevant. But you get Quictime with sorenson to work down to Windows 95, maybe even windows 3.1.
Belive me our company has investigated what platform to use for our videos, and our customers who are Diesel Powerplants owners or Ship Owner (cruisers, tankers etc) they are not so updated on their systems. But WM fails, and all other fails but Quictime and sorenson encoding. Only problem with quictime is to get that software approved for install, but that is the only problem we have with it. Otherwise the Apple parol holds true, it just works.
Why, MPEG4 is an open standard for anyone to use. It's good, while it's not free, it's still the best out there.
Google WebM is never gona be good enough if it's not standardized. And While it still may not be free from patent problems, why even try.
Unless Google gives it away to an Standardization organization like ISO/IEC, it's not gona be my chose of format. MPEG4 is under MPEG which is under ISO/IEC allready. Naturally Google can choose any other standardization organisation. But if it choses to keep it propriate though open and free. I cannot se it even compete a little with h.264. Also h.264 is way better. And it runs way better in VLC on MacOSX when it uses Apple decoders, than when it uses it's open source x.264 libraries. No I understand that the not free part troubles some people. But I'm able to make h.264 material for free, so I don't see the issue other than ideologically.
Nope h.264 is not perfekt but it's the best out there. Thanks to that it's MPEG which is ISO/IEC.
ratts are smart enough as it is, fooling their traps allready. Know of a rat that always got his peiece of bait from the trap. He learnd how to trig the trap first and then take the bait. So smarter rats, no not on our wish list.
Jepp wikipedia should build a search engine too, so instead of my iSearch idea from Apple we would have a wikesearch, that automatically links content found to information inside wikipedia. Highlight a work and u get wiki article to your right.
Jepp, the reason google got popular ar exactly those reasons you pin point down. When Altavista etc where the default search engines. Then came google, this neat clean and problem free search engine.
Now google wants to redirect me when i enter google.com. And then I'm suddenly on google.fi. Which is in finnish language. Hey I live in finland i speak finnish. But on the net I want be english, that is anywhey where I will get results, not on a search enginge that is biased for finland. Second, finland has 2 native languages, and I happen to be one of the few who don't have finnish as my native language. So google does double fail when redereicting me.
I sometimes end upp going to google.co.uk just not to be rederected according to my location but for me to have somewhat international basis for my searches.
Gee, google has become complex time for someone to reinvent the old simple google.com, Apple why don't you do an iSearch.com anyone with the wits to do it properly.
Bing is slightly better at this point but, not much, and google search results are slightly better. I tried switch for bing, but switched back.
A study, can't find link, in a hospital in sweden shows that to get employees to become most effective is to work in a 3 work day week. As other studies has proved that workers most effective days are the second and third work day.
The fourth days is almost as bad as the first day and the fift is terrible. So what they did was that they optimised amount of second and third days for the workers. The result was that more was done with less work hours. And the best of all the "customers" patiens fell that the quality had gone up.
For the workers they had three days of after their three days of duty. Which then meant that what days in the week they worked did circulate eventually this meant that the weekends where no different than the other days at the hospital.
But best of all was that everyone was happier, the patiences, workers and employer.
Continiously working long days, is counter productive. A short bost with longer days may increase productivity for the company. But the company will pay for it in the long run.
But also having fewer workdays in a row would maybe allow longer workdays.
The study i mentioned was done by hospital in sweden for a whole year. Saleries where the same as with normal work week.
Well been searching more info on this, I did find a quite interesting paper on Big bang critics.
It's not an unbiased source, however the paper in it self is very well made in scientific manner. Refering to scientists research and citing their work.
I'm not trying to say that this paper is correct, or that Big Bang theory is correct. I'm just simply saying when looking at what we know and the data we have, neither the scientists know or any oter of us have knowledge of how the universe emerged or begun.
Wheter it was trough a big bang or not. However this paper shows on studies made and refers to them that are very distrubing for the Big Bang theory.
So what, what is says is the truth, but some fanboys don't like to hear it.
Quicktime does a superb job on MPEG. And it's free for all to use. Corporations like Avid uses quictime. But your fanboyism has probably missed the fact that Quicktime is an API or library as you probably call it, not a media player. It does include a media player though.
At the company I work for, which is a fully windows based company. Our how to videos, on maintenace of huge diesel engines used by ships and powerplants, uses Quicktime Sorenson encoding.
Why, becaus it's the most compatible format out there independent on what OS platfrom it's run on. From Windows95 to Win7. Even microsofts own WM gives much more compatibility issues for us. Quicktime has been showing it self superior to any other. And we have investigated what to use instead, as it's not trouble free to use Quicktime. Biggest problem is to get it installed in various organisations. But that is the only problem with it. VM don't have that problem, it's usually installed but instead provides a web of different compatibility issues between versions and os versions. It's unusabel for our purposes.
So while you think the quicktime player sux, i partly agree, Quicktime is the only that really works in real world situations.
Well MPEG sertanily has it's drawbacks on not being free. But it's the only standard out there for delivering media content.
Googles decission on canning MPEG4 support especially MPEG4 part 10 that is h.264. Is just a sick and utter bad move. Expect me to can chorme.
Unless WebM will become governed by a standardisation comitee as ISO/IEC organisation MPEG is it's just a drawback from the former where they supported open standards.
Yes, h.264 is an open standard, anyone can obtain it's specifications at ISO.org. While MPEG4 has licensing fees, it's fully open and the specifications are govend by an independant standardisation organisation. Anything less than that will not cut it. And I hope, but doubt, that the general public will be smart enough to opt for those products that support open standards.
WebM is maybe open and maybe free, but it's not an open standard. It's highly propriatery. This move was a shitty dirty move by google that is all but "not evil". This is an evil move.
If google will give away WebM to a standardisation comitea to govern the specifications. I wouldn't had any objections. But I doubt that would be a successful strategy for google. As there is allready a much more competent standard out there regulated by ISO/IEC Moving Picture Expert Group. Which has specified MPEG1, MPEG2 and MPEG4.
By the way all your mp3 are according to the MPEG1 part 3 specification. Hech that is what mp3 is an abrivation of. m(PEG)p(ART)3.
In similar way AAC is Mpeg4 part 3. And h.264 is Mpeg4 part 10.
I do understan the frustration of the licensing costs. But the fact that it's a standard just makes it so much more important.
As far as I know there is no other standardised format out there that even nearly provides what all the MPEG variations does.
WebM fails in this regard, and I'm very trouble with that OSS douchebags don't seem to have this insight.
Far from all shares have voting rights, even if you had all of them you still have 0% voting power. Different names in different countries but I believe in US they go under b type of shares, where type a would give votes.
As when Microsoft bought apple shares for 150M not one of them gave MS any control over Apple. But apple did in exchange promise not to press charges over their patents and e.g. the trial upon Quictime theft by MS was settled without trial.
So buying wrong stock will give you 0 rights. And almost every stock for sale is that type. So zero power to the so called owners.
Microsoft won a lot by buying those shares, but gained 0 control over Apple except on the deals they made at that time. One thing that apple stopped was the yellow box that was part of Raphsody which was the first transision of OpenStep to OSX. Yellow box added som windows compatibility layer for developers.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, to me in this case with the lazer is to get the photons to travel in same direction. A parabola gives a a burn point or what ever it might be called in english. You know anyway what i mean. But with any tech lacer or not. to cause from that point have the light to travel in a straight line, in a "beam". As traditional lasers or not. I guess the less complicated the more powerful.
But only getting 10 kW from 1MW isn't that efficient. And for sure would have heating trouble. What is needed is rater to get a beam that has a 99% efficiency.
parabole
Well not enough knowledge about how laser is produced, I only know it's characteristics. Still if able to get that light to travel in a beam it would still be powerful enough. Would it be possible to create a prisma that converts the light from a parable source to a beam? This would probably be quite a complex prisma. Considering that the light would scatter in it but also that the input light would have different input directions.
Anyone good enough in 3D geometry calculations?
well yeah at my own computer i've made the settings so that it wont redirect me. But using an other computer wont give me that behaivour. .com should be .com and nothing else.
I doubt FFmpeg is base on h.264, I'm quite sure that it's based on x.264 which is not really the same and under VLC it performs not as good as when VLC uses Apples fraimworks instead on OSX.
correct me if I'm wrong.
Just my toughts to, I'm pretty sure mythbusters could succed on many oterh things they busted with some engineering.
I would e.g. love to try to stop a moving vechle again with duct tape. They really taped that ductape fence so it would break. I'm pretty sure I would be able to tape it differently so that i would take that inpact. Either braking the concrete again or stopping the car. But I'm sure if correctly taped neider the duct tape or the concrete would break.
Well even better get that light lazerised you get one heck of a powerful lazer. Not sure though how that would be done. But I guess could very efficient if successful. Maybe with a prisma first to spearate different wavelengths and then generate lasers with a cluster of different wavelengths and energylevels and then finally allign all of them on one single spot.
Anyone knowlegable enough in lazer technology to give some insights. Man you could shoot down satelites with that if you got it to work. Or you could burn down space waste.
This is a problem for linux yes, linux desktopuser has a shrinking marketshare under 1%.
I know it's tough to be in a minority prefering your own system, and I would be glad if h.264 woudl become avail on linux too. But with more than 99% of the systems allready having h.264 support in one or the otherway, and h.264 is the only open standard out there that meets the requirements. Well there is nothing else. Instead of working against h.264. Lobbying for making h.264 possible on linux would be a much better aproach. MPEG LA has comitted them selves allready to great extent to ensure that the license modell should not bee too much of an obstakle.
Litte more lobbying for this would make h.264 an alternative for linux systems too. Now that would basically mean that h.264 would be supported by 99.95% of the systems out there in a way or other.
What do i do if it's deliverd trough a flash media player. Any codec is fine for me as it's not trough flash. Though I prefer h.264 by far as it gives the best user experience and compatibility of all the new moder.
The most compatible player and codec in the world is Quicktime and sorenson encoded. That works on nearly every operating system except some *nix and Unix flavours. While Linux has less than 1% market share of desktopusers. I cant find that so relevant. But you get Quictime with sorenson to work down to Windows 95, maybe even windows 3.1.
Belive me our company has investigated what platform to use for our videos, and our customers who are Diesel Powerplants owners or Ship Owner (cruisers, tankers etc) they are not so updated on their systems. But WM fails, and all other fails but Quictime and sorenson encoding. Only problem with quictime is to get that software approved for install, but that is the only problem we have with it. Otherwise the Apple parol holds true, it just works.
Why, MPEG4 is an open standard for anyone to use. It's good, while it's not free, it's still the best out there.
Google WebM is never gona be good enough if it's not standardized. And While it still may not be free from patent problems, why even try.
Unless Google gives it away to an Standardization organization like ISO/IEC, it's not gona be my chose of format. MPEG4 is under MPEG which is under ISO/IEC allready. Naturally Google can choose any other standardization organisation. But if it choses to keep it propriate though open and free. I cannot se it even compete a little with h.264.
Also h.264 is way better. And it runs way better in VLC on MacOSX when it uses Apple decoders, than when it uses it's open source x.264 libraries. No I understand that the not free part troubles some people. But I'm able to make h.264 material for free, so I don't see the issue other than ideologically.
Nope h.264 is not perfekt but it's the best out there. Thanks to that it's MPEG which is ISO/IEC.
Yeah, and the Windows is loaded on a iMac :p
ratts are smart enough as it is, fooling their traps allready. Know of a rat that always got his peiece of bait from the trap. He learnd how to trig the trap first and then take the bait. So smarter rats, no not on our wish list.
Jepp wikipedia should build a search engine too, so instead of my iSearch idea from Apple we would have a wikesearch, that automatically links content found to information inside wikipedia. Highlight a work and u get wiki article to your right.
Perfect! to much to ask for?
Jepp, the reason google got popular ar exactly those reasons you pin point down. When Altavista etc where the default search engines. Then came google, this neat clean and problem free search engine.
Now google wants to redirect me when i enter google.com. And then I'm suddenly on google.fi. Which is in finnish language. Hey I live in finland i speak finnish. But on the net I want be english, that is anywhey where I will get results, not on a search enginge that is biased for finland. Second, finland has 2 native languages, and I happen to be one of the few who don't have finnish as my native language. So google does double fail when redereicting me.
I sometimes end upp going to google.co.uk just not to be rederected according to my location but for me to have somewhat international basis for my searches.
Gee, google has become complex time for someone to reinvent the old simple google.com, Apple why don't you do an iSearch.com anyone with the wits to do it properly.
Bing is slightly better at this point but, not much, and google search results are slightly better. I tried switch for bing, but switched back.
A study, can't find link, in a hospital in sweden shows that to get employees to become most effective is to work in a 3 work day week. As other studies has proved that workers most effective days are the second and third work day.
The fourth days is almost as bad as the first day and the fift is terrible. So what they did was that they optimised amount of second and third days for the workers. The result was that more was done with less work hours. And the best of all the "customers" patiens fell that the quality had gone up.
For the workers they had three days of after their three days of duty. Which then meant that what days in the week they worked did circulate eventually this meant that the weekends where no different than the other days at the hospital.
But best of all was that everyone was happier, the patiences, workers and employer.
Continiously working long days, is counter productive. A short bost with longer days may increase productivity for the company. But the company will pay for it in the long run.
But also having fewer workdays in a row would maybe allow longer workdays.
The study i mentioned was done by hospital in sweden for a whole year. Saleries where the same as with normal work week.
Who was the coward that modded this down, lol
Slashdot moderation fails big time, not even a statement on reason is given. Well what can you expect.
not saying it was based on specific BSDs
Though osx still base it on BSD. True that it's a hybride.
Well been searching more info on this, I did find a quite interesting paper on Big bang critics.
It's not an unbiased source, however the paper in it self is very well made in scientific manner. Refering to scientists research and citing their work.
I'm not trying to say that this paper is correct, or that Big Bang theory is correct. I'm just simply saying when looking at what we know and the data we have, neither the scientists know or any oter of us have knowledge of how the universe emerged or begun.
Wheter it was trough a big bang or not. However this paper shows on studies made and refers to them that are very distrubing for the Big Bang theory.
It's definitly a very intresting read, and well much more specific than the wikipedia article on big bang.
http://www.apologeticspress.com/articles/140002
Add to that MacOSX
well no cookie, and wikipedia article on bigbang is way to wague.
But lots of problems there to sort out for the big bang theory.
And the biggest provider of BSD based system is Apple.... suck on that for a while
Well that is the reason behind Google has married Adobe, and this is their evil act.
Flash will prevail with this move not die.
So what, what is says is the truth, but some fanboys don't like to hear it.
Quicktime does a superb job on MPEG. And it's free for all to use. Corporations like Avid uses quictime. But your fanboyism has probably missed the fact that Quicktime is an API or library as you probably call it, not a media player. It does include a media player though.
At the company I work for, which is a fully windows based company. Our how to videos, on maintenace of huge diesel engines used by ships and powerplants, uses Quicktime Sorenson encoding.
Why, becaus it's the most compatible format out there independent on what OS platfrom it's run on. From Windows95 to Win7. Even microsofts own WM gives much more compatibility issues for us. Quicktime has been showing it self superior to any other. And we have investigated what to use instead, as it's not trouble free to use Quicktime. Biggest problem is to get it installed in various organisations. But that is the only problem with it. VM don't have that problem, it's usually installed but instead provides a web of different compatibility issues between versions and os versions. It's unusabel for our purposes.
So while you think the quicktime player sux, i partly agree, Quicktime is the only that really works in real world situations.
Well MPEG sertanily has it's drawbacks on not being free. But it's the only standard out there for delivering media content.
Googles decission on canning MPEG4 support especially MPEG4 part 10 that is h.264. Is just a sick and utter bad move. Expect me to can chorme.
Unless WebM will become governed by a standardisation comitee as ISO/IEC organisation MPEG is it's just a drawback from the former where they supported open standards.
Yes, h.264 is an open standard, anyone can obtain it's specifications at ISO.org. While MPEG4 has licensing fees, it's fully open and the specifications are govend by an independant standardisation organisation. Anything less than that will not cut it. And I hope, but doubt, that the general public will be smart enough to opt for those products that support open standards.
WebM is maybe open and maybe free, but it's not an open standard. It's highly propriatery. This move was a shitty dirty move by google that is all but "not evil". This is an evil move.
If google will give away WebM to a standardisation comitea to govern the specifications. I wouldn't had any objections. But I doubt that would be a successful strategy for google. As there is allready a much more competent standard out there regulated by ISO/IEC Moving Picture Expert Group. Which has specified MPEG1, MPEG2 and MPEG4.
By the way all your mp3 are according to the MPEG1 part 3 specification. Hech that is what mp3 is an abrivation of. m(PEG)p(ART)3.
In similar way AAC is Mpeg4 part 3. And h.264 is Mpeg4 part 10.
I do understan the frustration of the licensing costs. But the fact that it's a standard just makes it so much more important.
As far as I know there is no other standardised format out there that even nearly provides what all the MPEG variations does.
WebM fails in this regard, and I'm very trouble with that OSS douchebags don't seem to have this insight.
Well I'll try, but as an non english googler the keywords are bit general.
Link?
Far from all shares have voting rights, even if you had all of them you still have 0% voting power. Different names in different countries but I believe in US they go under b type of shares, where type a would give votes.
As when Microsoft bought apple shares for 150M not one of them gave MS any control over Apple. But apple did in exchange promise not to press charges over their patents and e.g. the trial upon Quictime theft by MS was settled without trial.
So buying wrong stock will give you 0 rights. And almost every stock for sale is that type. So zero power to the so called owners.
Microsoft won a lot by buying those shares, but gained 0 control over Apple except on the deals they made at that time. One thing that apple stopped was the yellow box that was part of Raphsody which was the first transision of OpenStep to OSX. Yellow box added som windows compatibility layer for developers.