1) Money: Transcoding, storing, and delivering video is vastly more expensive than static images and most GIFs. A limit of 30 seconds lets them control that some, and it's a restriction they could always lift later (while going the other way - starting with unlimited and then later forcing a 30 second limit - would cause lots of whining from users).
2) Memes: Imgur's whole angle is centered on sharing funny / amazing / shocking / whatever images and short clips via GIFs. It's their brand, that's what people know them for. Letting people upload lectures and TV shows and long home movies doesn't fit with that.
The current state of the art is adaptive bitrate streaming (video delivered in chunked files, typically over HTTP, e.g. DASH or HLS). In terms of efficiency it's still nowhere near as good as multicast of course, but it's nowhere near as bad as the older Flash or Real streaming with a direction connection to the server.
It has numerous disadvantages, but on the plus side it leverages the near ubiquitous reach of HTTP along with its pretty mature supporting infrastructure (worldwide CDNs).
Being "squeezed on purpose"? Of course! There are intentional efforts underway to get the entire federal budget under control - every single agency can produce a list like you posted of where they are looking to cut back, shift priorities, etc. because the current pace of spending is untenable. Every. Single. Agency. Just because something could be explained by an ulterior motive doesn't prove that it is, especially when a far simpler and more plausible explanation is right in front of us.
This particular program is feeling a budget pinch and is exploring ways to deal with it. They've identified the cost of sharing the data as a problem and one idea on the table is to charge for it. You (or some other AC) assert that the costs are chump change, which should mean that you'd have no problems with them charging a nominal fee that is just enough to cover those costs, right? If it solves the problem and is such a tiny burden on the people causing the problem, is there any reason you couldn't be on board with that?
As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm all in favor of stuff like using torrents and whatever other ideas people come up with to bridge the gap between the agency's budget and the agency's costs.
My contention is that recouping costs of sharing the data via a surcharge is not the same as having taxpayers pay for the data twice and that asking the people that cause the growing costs help pay for those costs doesn't seem like an unreasonable idea to at least consider.
So.. your argument is that the people in the LANDSAT program are lying about being concerned with the ever-rising costs of sharing the data? Or that when referring to the cost of sharing there is more to it than the things I pointed out?
Well, speaking for myself, given it's useful data that should be in the public domain, I'm in favor of continuing to pay for it.
Me too! I'm also in favor of exposing the data as torrents as a way to reduce their direct costs, as well as various other ideas.
But I loved the way you worded that option as "using even more of your tax dollars" as if my taxes will suddenly be hiked to pay for it.
Not at all, it's just that another option is that they are also asking for more budget - i.e. even more of your tax dollars. That doesn't necessarily translate into an immediate tax hike of course, but using even more of your tax dollars is in fact one of the solutions they're looking at.
That said, I'm also in favor of paying more taxes to get better services, like basic healthcare for everyone. So even if it did mean a tax hike, that wouldn't mean I'm opposed to it.
Agreed!
And while some taxes are broad hikes collected for myriad purposes, others are narrowly focused, use-base taxes (which can some of the best kind). In a sense, the latter is what they are considering. Namely, they've identified a concern with the growing cost of sharing the data, so one solution is a highly focused use-based "tax" to offset some or all of that cost.
I don't really care if they go that route or not, but to me it doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to at least consider.
They are saying that the cost of one part of their budget is exceeding what they projected to spend on it and are looking at ways to cover that shortfall, especially since every indication is that that cost will continue to go up a alot. They are exploring ways to cover that shortfall.
Or... instead of turning to a wild conspiracy theory about attacks on environmental science, the situation could actually be what it says it is on the surface: a budget shortfall.
To recap: - From TFA: " the government says the cost of sharing the data has grown as more people access it" - this discussion is about the cost of sharing the data, not their total budget, not the costs of launching the satellites, etc. - From the link I posted: "Next 12 months planning for 21% growth in amount of total data managed; 60% growth in distribution" - they've allocated budget towards paying for the data sharing, but they are seeing that that allocation is insufficient and will continue to be insufficient - So the question being raised is: how do we cover the difference? The link I posted mentions that they are exploring both ways to reduce costs as well as ways to find more money to pay for those costs. - TFA mentions one way to pay for those costs, and that is to have the people who are causing the costs of data sharing to help pay for those costs.
The people in the LANDSAT program and the author of TFA both say that the issue is that the costs of sharing the data are going up, and they are exploring their options. I'd love to hear why you reject that as false and have instead reached the conclusion that this is actually an attack on environmental science.
LOL, in the comment you replied to I posted a link that literally answers all of your questions (except for the one about me being a gov't shill).
You're completely misunderstanding the point of the $80 million figure in the TFA. It was cited in the context of $2 billion in economic activity - i.e. showing that the value derived from the data is far in excess of the project funding. Nowhere in the article, my comments, or the link I posted does it suggest that serving those files is all of - or even a significant portion of - their budget. If you want to get into the nitty gritty and actually figure out the cost of making that data available, it would only reinforce the point that the value derived is far in excess of the cost.
I suggest you go read through that article, my comments, and the link I posted. But to help, lemme break it down for you:
- the LANSAT program does a lot of things, *one* of which is provide that data to the public - the LANSAT program has a budget to pay for all of those things. All of its existing budget is allocated to pay for stuff. - the costs of making that data available to the public are rising very quickly - the costs are rising far faster than they projected. That means a budget deficit. - in order to close the deficit, something has to change. - people have floated ideas of reducing the costs. Other ideas include using more tax dollars. One additional idea is having the people causing those higher costs help pay for those higher costs.
Got it? The higher costs that are causing a budget shortfall are *directly* tied to activity by entities that are deriving tremendous economic value from that data. I don't really care what solution ends up being used, I'm simply pointing out that of all the ideas to consider, having the people who benefit from the data help cover the cost of getting the data to them is far from crazy.
We're starting to conflate separate things here. There were costs associated with getting that data, and those costs were paid for with tax revenue. The fact that maintaining and distributing that data also involves costs does not equate to people having to "pay for it twice".
If we want to talk about the annual budget of the LANDSAT program, fine, but in doing so you have to realize that that program does far more than just distribute some image files (see e.g. https://landsat.usgs.gov/sites...).
So, again, just because the program continues to receive funding does not mean anybody is paying for something twice.
You're a tool. How can a rational person believe that hosting and bandwidth are at all relevant costs in a government operation?
By reading the article. You should try it.
The solution is simple: You keep paying the negligible hosting and bandwidth costs that won't even move the needle as far as government budgets go, because it's how you don't squander the billions of taxpayer money that went into acquiring the data
Millions - you're off by two orders of magnitude. Billions is what we use to measure the economic activity that resulted from the millions spent, which is a pretty good ratio, and the basis for why it's not unreasonable to at least consider having those benefiting so much help foot the bill.
Who said there were no other options? I sure didn't. Yes, I've heard of torrents. I also wouldn't be surprised if the government could find cheaper hosting options.
My post was in response to many who are saying they are having to pay for things twice, which is false. The present way the data is being circulated generates ongoing and growing costs. That's not to say some other methods could be used.
But the present course has real costs associated with it, and somebody has to pay those costs, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to at least explore the idea that the people causing those costs shoulder the burden, especially given the fact that they are deriving a huge amount of value from that data.
I'm not at all arguing that the government has been completely efficient in its use of resources, but that's a separate issue because even if you were to do the impossible and optimize the staffing costs to 0, the bandwidth costs would still be there and so the question would remain: where does the money for that come from?
Short of wildly overfunding a program to the point that it lives off interest (which would really upset you), no amount of fixed or upfront budget will pay for an ongoing cost, especially one that is growing over time.
Somebody has to pay for it, so again, why completely reject at least exploring the idea that the people causing the cost pay for it?
There are basically two costs: the cost to acquire the data and the cost to give the data to you and everyone else. Yes, tax dollars were used for the first one. That money is spent and gone, and the data has been acquired.
But hosting the files, maintaining backups, and paying for the bandwidth to deliver the data is an ongoing cost and, as the TFA pointed out, one that grows as more people access the data. How do you deal with that cost? Solutions could include: destroying the data, using even more of your tax dollars, or having the people who cause that ongoing cost to pay for it.
There's nothing nefarious about contemplating the latter option.
If it's impossible to define something in any way shape or form, then how can you say that it definitely exists?
Wait, what? You said it couldn't be defined, so I pointed out that it has a well-established definition, and shared that definition with you. And then you followed up by saying it couldn't be defined. WTH? Sheesh, even the philosophers and scientists who argue against the existence of free will agree with that definition.
The problem with the dictionary is that it just substitues other words for free will.
Hehe, I hate to break this to you, but that's how dictionaries work.
I am not the one asserting that something exists. You are the one asserting a positive claim. I am simply saying that unless you can define and provide evidence for free will then we can assume that no such thing exists.
Actually, that's terribly illogical. The existence of something is based on our awareness of it and our ability to define it? That'd be incredibly self-centered of us.
But despite the illogical argument, I'll play along: I've already provided a good definition - and one that is widely accepted. As far as evidence for free will, take any given person on any given day: they make a ton of choices that appear to be completely based on their own decisions. I came downstairs and took two stairs at a time, cuz I felt like it. I had Cocoa Puffs for breakfast, and nobody forced me to. I just paused typing and moved my pair of headphones, just on a whim. There is no evidence that any of these actions was based on any sort of external compulsion, nor is there any evidence that they are the result of some pre-determined these-inputs-lead-to-those-outputs programming or anything like it. Every day billions of people make myriad decisions of their - wait for it - own free will.
So, if you reject that notion, that's fine, but it's on *you* to provide some sort of argument and counter-evidence (neither of which you've done so far) because the position you're arguing against is almost universally accepted - a tiny minority disagrees, but it's on them to make some sort of compelling case against the status quo. The fact that you have not done this at all is telling.
If you're serious about your belief, then start providing some sort of evidence to support it, or at least try to argue the point itself.
You simply asserted that free will doesn't exist, and didn't provide any argument in support of that view. So just for kicks, I did the same, with the opposite perspective - just like you, I offered zero evidence in support of my position.
After that I went on to say why I think the idea itself is both (a) appealing to some people and (b) lame.
The dictionary definition is pretty good: "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion". It the context of these types of discussions, it's fairly well understood that the debate is around whether or not people really get to choose what they think/say/do or if it's all the result of something more akin to a computer program where the outputs directly follow from the inputs, and there is no notion of complete freedom to do whatever.
But what's the point you're trying to make, that if a definition of something is flawed and incomplete, that thing must not exist?
And if it can't be defined properly, what on earth was your basis for suggesting it doesn't exist?
No, it's not, because my comment was not trying to prove that free will exists (i.e. I wasn't presenting evidence in favor of the existence of free will).
The original post asserted, without any sort of argument, that it doesn't exist. So I asserted the opposite in like manner. And then added a bit of commentary about why I think the idea is appealing to some people.:)
Free will does exist; to say otherwise is just a way for people to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their choices. And as an aside, completely owning up to your decisions and your ability to choose is invigorating and a key element in enjoying life.
(and yes, I've read the philosophy as well as the scientific studies that try to show there isn't free will)
I was just responding to the complaint that the feature was merging bookmarks from different PCs/browsers which, as I understand it, is the whole point.
For you it sounds like it's not doing what you'd like - that's too bad, maybe there's some other tool out there that can do what you want. For me, Chrome's bookmark sync does exactly what I want and, to date, always works. I've never, for example, had to deal with duplicate bookmarks. Guess I'm just lucky!
Slashdot Mirror
Two guesses:
1) Money: Transcoding, storing, and delivering video is vastly more expensive than static images and most GIFs. A limit of 30 seconds lets them control that some, and it's a restriction they could always lift later (while going the other way - starting with unlimited and then later forcing a 30 second limit - would cause lots of whining from users).
2) Memes: Imgur's whole angle is centered on sharing funny / amazing / shocking / whatever images and short clips via GIFs. It's their brand, that's what people know them for. Letting people upload lectures and TV shows and long home movies doesn't fit with that.
Nah, that was state of the art 10+ years ago.
The current state of the art is adaptive bitrate streaming (video delivered in chunked files, typically over HTTP, e.g. DASH or HLS). In terms of efficiency it's still nowhere near as good as multicast of course, but it's nowhere near as bad as the older Flash or Real streaming with a direction connection to the server.
It has numerous disadvantages, but on the plus side it leverages the near ubiquitous reach of HTTP along with its pretty mature supporting infrastructure (worldwide CDNs).
Totally understand, but IMO you skipped the wrong one - for me, Rogue One is far and away the best of the new SW films.
...called called...
Being "squeezed on purpose"? Of course! There are intentional efforts underway to get the entire federal budget under control - every single agency can produce a list like you posted of where they are looking to cut back, shift priorities, etc. because the current pace of spending is untenable. Every. Single. Agency. Just because something could be explained by an ulterior motive doesn't prove that it is, especially when a far simpler and more plausible explanation is right in front of us.
This particular program is feeling a budget pinch and is exploring ways to deal with it. They've identified the cost of sharing the data as a problem and one idea on the table is to charge for it. You (or some other AC) assert that the costs are chump change, which should mean that you'd have no problems with them charging a nominal fee that is just enough to cover those costs, right? If it solves the problem and is such a tiny burden on the people causing the problem, is there any reason you couldn't be on board with that?
As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm all in favor of stuff like using torrents and whatever other ideas people come up with to bridge the gap between the agency's budget and the agency's costs.
My contention is that recouping costs of sharing the data via a surcharge is not the same as having taxpayers pay for the data twice and that asking the people that cause the growing costs help pay for those costs doesn't seem like an unreasonable idea to at least consider.
So.. your argument is that the people in the LANDSAT program are lying about being concerned with the ever-rising costs of sharing the data? Or that when referring to the cost of sharing there is more to it than the things I pointed out?
Well, speaking for myself, given it's useful data that should be in the public domain, I'm in favor of continuing to pay for it.
Me too! I'm also in favor of exposing the data as torrents as a way to reduce their direct costs, as well as various other ideas.
But I loved the way you worded that option as "using even more of your tax dollars" as if my taxes will suddenly be hiked to pay for it.
Not at all, it's just that another option is that they are also asking for more budget - i.e. even more of your tax dollars. That doesn't necessarily translate into an immediate tax hike of course, but using even more of your tax dollars is in fact one of the solutions they're looking at.
That said, I'm also in favor of paying more taxes to get better services, like basic healthcare for everyone. So even if it did mean a tax hike, that wouldn't mean I'm opposed to it.
Agreed!
And while some taxes are broad hikes collected for myriad purposes, others are narrowly focused, use-base taxes (which can some of the best kind). In a sense, the latter is what they are considering. Namely, they've identified a concern with the growing cost of sharing the data, so one solution is a highly focused use-based "tax" to offset some or all of that cost.
I don't really care if they go that route or not, but to me it doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to at least consider.
You're completely missing the point.
They are saying that the cost of one part of their budget is exceeding what they projected to spend on it and are looking at ways to cover that shortfall, especially since every indication is that that cost will continue to go up a alot. They are exploring ways to cover that shortfall.
That's it. It's really that simple.
Or... instead of turning to a wild conspiracy theory about attacks on environmental science, the situation could actually be what it says it is on the surface: a budget shortfall.
To recap:
- From TFA: " the government says the cost of sharing the data has grown as more people access it" - this discussion is about the cost of sharing the data, not their total budget, not the costs of launching the satellites, etc.
- From the link I posted: "Next 12 months planning for 21% growth in amount of total data managed; 60% growth in distribution" - they've allocated budget towards paying for the data sharing, but they are seeing that that allocation is insufficient and will continue to be insufficient
- So the question being raised is: how do we cover the difference? The link I posted mentions that they are exploring both ways to reduce costs as well as ways to find more money to pay for those costs.
- TFA mentions one way to pay for those costs, and that is to have the people who are causing the costs of data sharing to help pay for those costs.
The people in the LANDSAT program and the author of TFA both say that the issue is that the costs of sharing the data are going up, and they are exploring their options. I'd love to hear why you reject that as false and have instead reached the conclusion that this is actually an attack on environmental science.
LOL, in the comment you replied to I posted a link that literally answers all of your questions (except for the one about me being a gov't shill).
You're completely misunderstanding the point of the $80 million figure in the TFA. It was cited in the context of $2 billion in economic activity - i.e. showing that the value derived from the data is far in excess of the project funding. Nowhere in the article, my comments, or the link I posted does it suggest that serving those files is all of - or even a significant portion of - their budget. If you want to get into the nitty gritty and actually figure out the cost of making that data available, it would only reinforce the point that the value derived is far in excess of the cost.
I suggest you go read through that article, my comments, and the link I posted. But to help, lemme break it down for you:
- the LANSAT program does a lot of things, *one* of which is provide that data to the public
- the LANSAT program has a budget to pay for all of those things. All of its existing budget is allocated to pay for stuff.
- the costs of making that data available to the public are rising very quickly - the costs are rising far faster than they projected. That means a budget deficit.
- in order to close the deficit, something has to change.
- people have floated ideas of reducing the costs. Other ideas include using more tax dollars. One additional idea is having the people causing those higher costs help pay for those higher costs.
Got it? The higher costs that are causing a budget shortfall are *directly* tied to activity by entities that are deriving tremendous economic value from that data. I don't really care what solution ends up being used, I'm simply pointing out that of all the ideas to consider, having the people who benefit from the data help cover the cost of getting the data to them is far from crazy.
We're starting to conflate separate things here. There were costs associated with getting that data, and those costs were paid for with tax revenue. The fact that maintaining and distributing that data also involves costs does not equate to people having to "pay for it twice".
If we want to talk about the annual budget of the LANDSAT program, fine, but in doing so you have to realize that that program does far more than just distribute some image files (see e.g. https://landsat.usgs.gov/sites...).
So, again, just because the program continues to receive funding does not mean anybody is paying for something twice.
You're a tool. How can a rational person believe that hosting and bandwidth are at all relevant costs in a government operation?
By reading the article. You should try it.
The solution is simple: You keep paying the negligible hosting and bandwidth costs that won't even move the needle as far as government budgets go, because it's how you don't squander the billions of taxpayer money that went into acquiring the data
Millions - you're off by two orders of magnitude. Billions is what we use to measure the economic activity that resulted from the millions spent, which is a pretty good ratio, and the basis for why it's not unreasonable to at least consider having those benefiting so much help foot the bill.
Who said there were no other options? I sure didn't. Yes, I've heard of torrents. I also wouldn't be surprised if the government could find cheaper hosting options.
My post was in response to many who are saying they are having to pay for things twice, which is false. The present way the data is being circulated generates ongoing and growing costs. That's not to say some other methods could be used.
But the present course has real costs associated with it, and somebody has to pay those costs, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to at least explore the idea that the people causing those costs shoulder the burden, especially given the fact that they are deriving a huge amount of value from that data.
Please have another go at reading what I wrote. Your tax dollars paid for part of the cost.
I'm not at all arguing that the government has been completely efficient in its use of resources, but that's a separate issue because even if you were to do the impossible and optimize the staffing costs to 0, the bandwidth costs would still be there and so the question would remain: where does the money for that come from?
Short of wildly overfunding a program to the point that it lives off interest (which would really upset you), no amount of fixed or upfront budget will pay for an ongoing cost, especially one that is growing over time.
Somebody has to pay for it, so again, why completely reject at least exploring the idea that the people causing the cost pay for it?
There are basically two costs: the cost to acquire the data and the cost to give the data to you and everyone else. Yes, tax dollars were used for the first one. That money is spent and gone, and the data has been acquired.
But hosting the files, maintaining backups, and paying for the bandwidth to deliver the data is an ongoing cost and, as the TFA pointed out, one that grows as more people access the data. How do you deal with that cost? Solutions could include: destroying the data, using even more of your tax dollars, or having the people who cause that ongoing cost to pay for it.
There's nothing nefarious about contemplating the latter option.
If it's impossible to define something in any way shape or form, then how can you say that it definitely exists?
Wait, what? You said it couldn't be defined, so I pointed out that it has a well-established definition, and shared that definition with you. And then you followed up by saying it couldn't be defined. WTH? Sheesh, even the philosophers and scientists who argue against the existence of free will agree with that definition.
The problem with the dictionary is that it just substitues other words for free will.
Hehe, I hate to break this to you, but that's how dictionaries work.
I am not the one asserting that something exists. You are the one asserting a positive claim. I am simply saying that unless you can define and provide evidence for free will then we can assume that no such thing exists.
Actually, that's terribly illogical. The existence of something is based on our awareness of it and our ability to define it? That'd be incredibly self-centered of us.
But despite the illogical argument, I'll play along: I've already provided a good definition - and one that is widely accepted. As far as evidence for free will, take any given person on any given day: they make a ton of choices that appear to be completely based on their own decisions. I came downstairs and took two stairs at a time, cuz I felt like it. I had Cocoa Puffs for breakfast, and nobody forced me to. I just paused typing and moved my pair of headphones, just on a whim. There is no evidence that any of these actions was based on any sort of external compulsion, nor is there any evidence that they are the result of some pre-determined these-inputs-lead-to-those-outputs programming or anything like it. Every day billions of people make myriad decisions of their - wait for it - own free will.
So, if you reject that notion, that's fine, but it's on *you* to provide some sort of argument and counter-evidence (neither of which you've done so far) because the position you're arguing against is almost universally accepted - a tiny minority disagrees, but it's on them to make some sort of compelling case against the status quo. The fact that you have not done this at all is telling.
If you're serious about your belief, then start providing some sort of evidence to support it, or at least try to argue the point itself.
I agree!
You simply asserted that free will doesn't exist, and didn't provide any argument in support of that view. So just for kicks, I did the same, with the opposite perspective - just like you, I offered zero evidence in support of my position.
After that I went on to say why I think the idea itself is both (a) appealing to some people and (b) lame.
Have a great day!
The dictionary definition is pretty good: "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion". It the context of these types of discussions, it's fairly well understood that the debate is around whether or not people really get to choose what they think/say/do or if it's all the result of something more akin to a computer program where the outputs directly follow from the inputs, and there is no notion of complete freedom to do whatever.
But what's the point you're trying to make, that if a definition of something is flawed and incomplete, that thing must not exist?
And if it can't be defined properly, what on earth was your basis for suggesting it doesn't exist?
No, it's not, because my comment was not trying to prove that free will exists (i.e. I wasn't presenting evidence in favor of the existence of free will).
The original post asserted, without any sort of argument, that it doesn't exist. So I asserted the opposite in like manner. And then added a bit of commentary about why I think the idea is appealing to some people. :)
Free will does exist; to say otherwise is just a way for people to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their choices. And as an aside, completely owning up to your decisions and your ability to choose is invigorating and a key element in enjoying life.
(and yes, I've read the philosophy as well as the scientific studies that try to show there isn't free will)
I was just responding to the complaint that the feature was merging bookmarks from different PCs/browsers which, as I understand it, is the whole point.
For you it sounds like it's not doing what you'd like - that's too bad, maybe there's some other tool out there that can do what you want. For me, Chrome's bookmark sync does exactly what I want and, to date, always works. I've never, for example, had to deal with duplicate bookmarks. Guess I'm just lucky!
It keeps merging sets of bookmarks from different PCs/Browsers
You must have a more complex use case than me, because it sounds like your complaint is that the feature is working.