Say what you want about Comcast's customer policies, it's clear that they're almost as foresighted as Google when it comes to deploying next generation networking technologies, not only deploying DNSSEC, but also beginning an opt-in IPv6 transition project.
In short: Credit where credit is due. At least *someone* is looking to the future and working toward it.
Meh, then someone will fork Firefox, make the necessary changes, and we'll all move on. XFree86 got obsoleted for not responding to user needs. The same thing can happen to Mozilla. *shrug*
(A) Because they have said that they wont support H.264
Right. They won't ship H.264 with Firefox for licensing reasons. Good ones, too. But deliberately limiting the generic gstreamer backend so it will only support Theora would be deeply idiotic (and easily worked around if someone felt the urge to fix it).
(B) Because they release a press release every week, sometimes more often, crying about H.264
As they should. The state of open video codecs is a sorry one, and alas won't be changing any time soon. But if you have a generic video pipeline available to you, you'd be foolish to artificially limit it for no good reason, particularly since people might want to use some codec other than H.264 or Theora for their video element.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the GP was talking about his experience as a US emergency facility, thus demonstrating that treatment in both countries is about the same in that environment.
Not really. This is akin to the definition the NP complexity class in computing science. You see, a problem is in the NP complexity class if any given solution can be *verified* using a polynomial time algorithm. However, *finding* the solution may be arbitrarily hard.
As an example, it's dead easy to determine if a number is the product of two specific primes (just multiply them together). However, it's extremely difficult to actually find those two prime numbers in the first place.
Similarly, while it may be easy to calculate the overall entropy of some sequence of data, it may be hard to actually generate that data in the first place.
I believe that while absolutely not perfect that Canada's health care system rocks compared to the US.
I'm willing to bet that, in the US, that all depends on perspective. If you're fairly well off or well employed, the US healthcare system must look fantastic. Cutting edge procedures. Top-notch diagnostics. Shorter waiting periods for non-critical procedures. But if you're on the bubble (ie, in the middle class), or under- or unemployed, I'm willing to bet you feel quite a bit different.
Additionally, I suspect political ideology plays a *huge* part. Many Americans have a remarkable distrust of government compared to your average Canadian. Down south, the general belief is that the government can do nothing right, and that anything it gets its paws on will be utterly destroyed in the following trainwreck that would ensue. Meanwhile, Canadians in general seem to feel that the government *can* run some programs effectively, that it should do so where appropriate, and that healthcare is one of those areas.
Lastly, I think, in general, Americans are far more individualistic. Compared to the US, I think more Canadians (not all, just more) feel that social justice is important, and that social programs are a path toward social justice, while Americans feel that government can't be trusted to run these programs and, even for those that believe in the idea of social justice, that charity is the better approach.
Of course, as a Canadian, I obviously believe we're right and they're wrong.;) Though, to be fair, the American system of government seems to be royally screwed up... given how incredibly powerful corporations and special interests are in the political system, it might not be so crazy to believe that the US government can't do anything right.
Yup, fair enough. My characterization that "most" people are unhappy with the cost of their coverage is incorrect, at least based on that Gallup poll in September of 2009. A substantial fraction feel that cost is an issue in the American healthcare system, but definitely not a majority.
That said, I suspect that if those with employer-provided insurance were exposed to the cost of their coverage, they might feel differently, as it amounts to a massive shadow tax (people who complain about taxes in, say, Canada, rarely take into account the premiums paid for insurance, despite those costs inevitably driving their take-home salary down).
Speaking for myself, mainly the idea that if I developed a catastrophic illness, my insurer might decide to drop coverage, and then I might be forced to go bankrupt in order to, you know, keep living. I find a system like that incredibly cruel and heartless and I find it staggering that anyone could even attempt to defend it.
But, to each his own. I live in a place that echos my ideals, and so I'm happy and glad I don't live in the US. Many in the US feel the same about their system... though I'm incapable of understanding why.
The disingenuous Canadians know that rationing exists in the Canadian health system.
Uh, duh, of course rationing exists. Unless you have a doctor, surgeon, and nurse for every single person in your country, not to mention supplies, equipment, etc, rationing *must* happen. The question is, how do you ration? In the US, rationing is done based on income level: if you have the money, you might get treatment immediately. Maybe. 'course, that depends on where you live, the hospital facilities available, etc... after all, queues aren't exactly unheard of in the US. But in general, you might not wait as long for non-critical treatment.
In Canada and other nations, rationing is called "triage", and it's done based on who needs treatment first. ie, you'll get your knee surgery performed after that guy's heart transplant is completed and the operating room is freed up.
Now, which you prefer seems to be a matter of ideology. *I* happen to believe that healthcare should be delivered based on a system of triage. You apparently believe it should be delivered based on who can pay more.
Yes things are unnecessarily difficult for true freelancers... and that's something that should be addressed in a REAL health reform bill.
Ironically, a government-run health insurer whose focus is low costs and sustainable operation, rather than shareholder profits, would've done just that. Pity it got cut from the bill because that's too evil and socialist...
And the very poll you cite indicates that most Americans are dissatisfied with the cost of healthcare.
Or not. I misread the bar graph. My mistake. 40% of Americans are dissatisfied, which is hardly "most". Though it's certainly the primary reason for dissatisfaction with the system.
Interesting poll, though. I do wonder what would happen if you took slices across the income spectrum... I'd expect you'd see the rate of satisfaction *highly* stratified based on income level. And given rates of unemployment have been skyrocketing in the US since that poll was taken, I wouldn't be surprised if the rate of dissatisfaction has increased over time (it's easy to say you're happy with healthcare costs if your employer is hiding them from you)... but that's just a guess.
Don't let little things like facts get in your way (most Americans satisfied with quality of their own medical care and health care costs)...
Good try attempting to muddy the waters.
*No one* has claimed that *quality* of US healthcare is low. I never said that. I'm not sure anyone has said that. The issue is, and always has been, cost. And the very poll you cite indicates that most Americans are dissatisfied with the cost of healthcare. And those costs are the result of flaws in the system. Therefore, most Americans are dissatisfied with US healthcare system and feel its flaws need to be addressed.
True! Do we rip apart a system completely that most americans are happy with?
I don't know. I never asked that question, and frankly, I'm don't care. My point is simply this: dissatisfaction with the US system of healthcare, specifically on the issue of cost, is essentially universal across the political spectrum. This is *not* a partisan issue.
The question of *solutions* is. But I don't believe there is anyone, on the left or the right, that would dispute the statement that *something* needs to be done to curb the rising cost of healthcare in the US.
The reality is that the majority of people are happy with the quality of health care available in the US.
Ahhh, but now you're mincing words. I'm sure the *quality* of healthcare in the US is very good. I don't think anyone has disputed that.
What some people are unhappy with is the cost
*Some* people? Try *most* people. Cost is a *huge fucking problem* in the US healthcare system. It's not just a huge problem, it's *the* problem. And it leaves millions upon millions either uncovered or undercovered. Additionally, availability is a huge problem, as cost makes coverage unavailable for some, and for others, even if they have coverage, they may not be able to avail themselves of it, as it may be canceled, coverage for procedures may be denied, etc.
And these issues are systemic. Which is why most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, are *not* happy with the US healthcare system, and will freely admit that it's deeply flawed and needs to be fixed somehow. The only question is how (and that's a really big, complicated question).
Total healthcare spending in Canada last year was $160 billion or so. So $10 billion was paid by the people, and the other $150 billion was magically wished into existence by healthcare fairies
Of course not. It was paid for the same way that America's massive defense expenditures were paid for, or Medicare was paid for, or Veteran's benefits were paid for: taxes. We just choose to allocate taxes toward funding universal healthcare. You guys picked missile defense , cutting-edge interceptors, and nation building. To each his/her own. *shrug*
I think it's hilarious that there are all of these complaints about what basically amounts to triage, which is a practice that nearly every developed medical system engages in. Even those used by Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance.
Of course people complain about triage. I mean, who wants a system where I can't just spend more money to be pushed to the front of the queue so I can get my non-critical surgery performed ahead of the guy who needs a heart transplant? What the fuck??? I don't want my freedom to fuck other people over limited! Granted, I'm not rich enough to take advantage of that freedom, but I might be some day!
We get it, lefties. You don't like the US's health care system. Get over it. This guy is not going to move out of the USA simply because of health insurance.
Weird, I was pretty sure that dislike of the US health care system was pretty universal regardless of party affiliation or position on the political spectrum. Granted, how to *fix* the system is a polarizing issue, but whether or not the US system sucks balls doesn't seem to be up for debate these days.
Though, as an aside, some people actually do leave the US because of healthcare. Many more would like to, but can't afford to move any more than they can afford their healthcare premiums (some of my friends fall into the latter category).
Seriously - If I was willing to move out of the U.S. and good health care was on my list of needs, where should I go?
If you're an American, Canada seems like the most obvious choice, not the least of which because of it's geographical convenience, cultural similarities, etc. Of course, the system here isn't perfect... while the horror stories often cited are largely bullshit, it's certainly true that for non-catastrophic procedures (say, knee surgery), there are waiting lists, and they can be fairly long depending on the province. OTOH, for anything life-and-death (heart surgery, cancer treatment, etc), coverage is immediate and, of course, free.
As for broadband, Canada is definitely one of the more advanced nations out there. We're no Japan, but we're better than large swathes of the United States. And I'm not aware of any monitoring or censorship efforts (okay, that's not entirely true... the whole "hate speech" thing and the "human rights tribunal" thing has gotten out of hand occasionally, but most of the time it's a non-issue). Certainly I don't believe we're any worse than any other options out there (Europe, Japan, etc).
'course, I have no idea how hard it is to actually get permanent resident status, as there may be employment requirements, etc.
If you're seriously considering it, though, just keep in mind that, just like American states, the province you pick makes a difference. For example, Alberta has a fairly well-funded healthcare system, while those in, say, the maritime provinces are struggling. And culturally, there can be some substantial variability (eg, Alberta is quite conservative, British Columbia the precise opposite, etc).
I am curious which provinces still charge a monthly premium. They've been dropped in Alberta, and I thought our system was the exception (in having said fees), rather than the rule...
Because deliberately limiting the decoding backend to a single codec when it can support multiple is incredibly idiotic, particularly since HTML5 doesn't specify a codec, and so *anything* could theoretically be used?
Frankly, I want to know why you think Mozilla will make the same boneheaded decision that Opera (supposedly) made?
Probably a naive question, but--If we have so much hardware support for decoding, then why are Linux / BSD playback such a problem?
Well, my understanding of technologies like VDPAU is that they accelerate specific parts of the decoding pipeline that are otherwise expensive to do on a general purpose CPU. As such, you still have to implement large parts of the decoder... you just get to use hardware to accelerate the hard parts (IIRC, in the past, this included things like the motion compensation and IDCT operations).
What Mozilla and Opera are doing is trying to make it an end-user problem when it actually isn't. The end users have the codecs. Use them. Giving users the choice is far superior to steadfastly refusing to give them a choice.
Which is why, thank god, Mozilla is planning to implement gstreamer backend support, thus putting this entire non-issue to bed.
I know geeks love to try and be as overly literal as possible but it doesn't help your case here. H.264 is NOT a proprietary format, because that's not how the word is used. In terms of formats proprietary means a format owned by a single company.
Bullshit. In terms of formats, proprietary means I can't implement the spec freely, either because the spec isn't available, or because I have to pay money to implement it. Put another way, if the spec isn't free to acquire and implement, it's proprietary, as the technology is under the control of a third party who controls the lock and decides who gets the key.
1. Making a video codec patent free is really difficult, since submarine patents are always a threat.
Highly unlikely. US patent law states that a patent must be disclosed a year (I believe it's a year, anyway) after filing. If you wish to postpone publication, then you give up the right to file the patent overseas, and I *highly* doubt most corporations are willing to pay that price.
Before the laws were changed, yes, submarine patents were a problem. But these days it's simply not an issue, and it's about time people stopped worrying about this little bugbear.
If someone doesn't change the admin password on a piece of hardware, regardless of operating system, that's a configuration error. If, however, the worm targeted an exploit in the kernel stack, that would be something else entirely.
So, in the case of your example, yes, that's correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Say what you want about Comcast's customer policies, it's clear that they're almost as foresighted as Google when it comes to deploying next generation networking technologies, not only deploying DNSSEC, but also beginning an opt-in IPv6 transition project.
In short: Credit where credit is due. At least *someone* is looking to the future and working toward it.
Meh, then someone will fork Firefox, make the necessary changes, and we'll all move on. XFree86 got obsoleted for not responding to user needs. The same thing can happen to Mozilla. *shrug*
Is this a recent decision? Up until about last week, Mozilla representatives were saying they were not supporting any OS-supplied CODECs, period.
Here's the bug, described as:
This has been around for a while, but isn't completed yet and appears to be targeted for Fenec.
(A) Because they have said that they wont support H.264
Right. They won't ship H.264 with Firefox for licensing reasons. Good ones, too. But deliberately limiting the generic gstreamer backend so it will only support Theora would be deeply idiotic (and easily worked around if someone felt the urge to fix it).
(B) Because they release a press release every week, sometimes more often, crying about H.264
As they should. The state of open video codecs is a sorry one, and alas won't be changing any time soon. But if you have a generic video pipeline available to you, you'd be foolish to artificially limit it for no good reason, particularly since people might want to use some codec other than H.264 or Theora for their video element.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the GP was talking about his experience as a US emergency facility, thus demonstrating that treatment in both countries is about the same in that environment.
'course, I could be wrong.
Not really. This is akin to the definition the NP complexity class in computing science. You see, a problem is in the NP complexity class if any given solution can be *verified* using a polynomial time algorithm. However, *finding* the solution may be arbitrarily hard.
As an example, it's dead easy to determine if a number is the product of two specific primes (just multiply them together). However, it's extremely difficult to actually find those two prime numbers in the first place.
Similarly, while it may be easy to calculate the overall entropy of some sequence of data, it may be hard to actually generate that data in the first place.
I believe that while absolutely not perfect that Canada's health care system rocks compared to the US.
I'm willing to bet that, in the US, that all depends on perspective. If you're fairly well off or well employed, the US healthcare system must look fantastic. Cutting edge procedures. Top-notch diagnostics. Shorter waiting periods for non-critical procedures. But if you're on the bubble (ie, in the middle class), or under- or unemployed, I'm willing to bet you feel quite a bit different.
Additionally, I suspect political ideology plays a *huge* part. Many Americans have a remarkable distrust of government compared to your average Canadian. Down south, the general belief is that the government can do nothing right, and that anything it gets its paws on will be utterly destroyed in the following trainwreck that would ensue. Meanwhile, Canadians in general seem to feel that the government *can* run some programs effectively, that it should do so where appropriate, and that healthcare is one of those areas.
Lastly, I think, in general, Americans are far more individualistic. Compared to the US, I think more Canadians (not all, just more) feel that social justice is important, and that social programs are a path toward social justice, while Americans feel that government can't be trusted to run these programs and, even for those that believe in the idea of social justice, that charity is the better approach.
Of course, as a Canadian, I obviously believe we're right and they're wrong. ;) Though, to be fair, the American system of government seems to be royally screwed up... given how incredibly powerful corporations and special interests are in the political system, it might not be so crazy to believe that the US government can't do anything right.
Yup, fair enough. My characterization that "most" people are unhappy with the cost of their coverage is incorrect, at least based on that Gallup poll in September of 2009. A substantial fraction feel that cost is an issue in the American healthcare system, but definitely not a majority.
That said, I suspect that if those with employer-provided insurance were exposed to the cost of their coverage, they might feel differently, as it amounts to a massive shadow tax (people who complain about taxes in, say, Canada, rarely take into account the premiums paid for insurance, despite those costs inevitably driving their take-home salary down).
Speaking for myself, mainly the idea that if I developed a catastrophic illness, my insurer might decide to drop coverage, and then I might be forced to go bankrupt in order to, you know, keep living. I find a system like that incredibly cruel and heartless and I find it staggering that anyone could even attempt to defend it.
But, to each his own. I live in a place that echos my ideals, and so I'm happy and glad I don't live in the US. Many in the US feel the same about their system... though I'm incapable of understanding why.
The disingenuous Canadians know that rationing exists in the Canadian health system.
Uh, duh, of course rationing exists. Unless you have a doctor, surgeon, and nurse for every single person in your country, not to mention supplies, equipment, etc, rationing *must* happen. The question is, how do you ration? In the US, rationing is done based on income level: if you have the money, you might get treatment immediately. Maybe. 'course, that depends on where you live, the hospital facilities available, etc... after all, queues aren't exactly unheard of in the US. But in general, you might not wait as long for non-critical treatment.
In Canada and other nations, rationing is called "triage", and it's done based on who needs treatment first. ie, you'll get your knee surgery performed after that guy's heart transplant is completed and the operating room is freed up.
Now, which you prefer seems to be a matter of ideology. *I* happen to believe that healthcare should be delivered based on a system of triage. You apparently believe it should be delivered based on who can pay more.
Yes things are unnecessarily difficult for true freelancers... and that's something that should be addressed in a REAL health reform bill.
Ironically, a government-run health insurer whose focus is low costs and sustainable operation, rather than shareholder profits, would've done just that. Pity it got cut from the bill because that's too evil and socialist...
And the very poll you cite indicates that most Americans are dissatisfied with the cost of healthcare.
Or not. I misread the bar graph. My mistake. 40% of Americans are dissatisfied, which is hardly "most". Though it's certainly the primary reason for dissatisfaction with the system.
Interesting poll, though. I do wonder what would happen if you took slices across the income spectrum... I'd expect you'd see the rate of satisfaction *highly* stratified based on income level. And given rates of unemployment have been skyrocketing in the US since that poll was taken, I wouldn't be surprised if the rate of dissatisfaction has increased over time (it's easy to say you're happy with healthcare costs if your employer is hiding them from you)... but that's just a guess.
Don't let little things like facts get in your way (most Americans satisfied with quality of their own medical care and health care costs)...
Good try attempting to muddy the waters.
*No one* has claimed that *quality* of US healthcare is low. I never said that. I'm not sure anyone has said that. The issue is, and always has been, cost. And the very poll you cite indicates that most Americans are dissatisfied with the cost of healthcare. And those costs are the result of flaws in the system. Therefore, most Americans are dissatisfied with US healthcare system and feel its flaws need to be addressed.
True! Do we rip apart a system completely that most americans are happy with?
I don't know. I never asked that question, and frankly, I'm don't care. My point is simply this: dissatisfaction with the US system of healthcare, specifically on the issue of cost, is essentially universal across the political spectrum. This is *not* a partisan issue.
The question of *solutions* is. But I don't believe there is anyone, on the left or the right, that would dispute the statement that *something* needs to be done to curb the rising cost of healthcare in the US.
The reality is that the majority of people are happy with the quality of health care available in the US.
Ahhh, but now you're mincing words. I'm sure the *quality* of healthcare in the US is very good. I don't think anyone has disputed that.
What some people are unhappy with is the cost
*Some* people? Try *most* people. Cost is a *huge fucking problem* in the US healthcare system. It's not just a huge problem, it's *the* problem. And it leaves millions upon millions either uncovered or undercovered. Additionally, availability is a huge problem, as cost makes coverage unavailable for some, and for others, even if they have coverage, they may not be able to avail themselves of it, as it may be canceled, coverage for procedures may be denied, etc.
And these issues are systemic. Which is why most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, are *not* happy with the US healthcare system, and will freely admit that it's deeply flawed and needs to be fixed somehow. The only question is how (and that's a really big, complicated question).
Total healthcare spending in Canada last year was $160 billion or so. So $10 billion was paid by the people, and the other $150 billion was magically wished into existence by healthcare fairies
Of course not. It was paid for the same way that America's massive defense expenditures were paid for, or Medicare was paid for, or Veteran's benefits were paid for: taxes. We just choose to allocate taxes toward funding universal healthcare. You guys picked missile defense , cutting-edge interceptors, and nation building. To each his/her own. *shrug*
I think it's hilarious that there are all of these complaints about what basically amounts to triage, which is a practice that nearly every developed medical system engages in. Even those used by Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance.
Of course people complain about triage. I mean, who wants a system where I can't just spend more money to be pushed to the front of the queue so I can get my non-critical surgery performed ahead of the guy who needs a heart transplant? What the fuck??? I don't want my freedom to fuck other people over limited! Granted, I'm not rich enough to take advantage of that freedom, but I might be some day!
We get it, lefties. You don't like the US's health care system. Get over it. This guy is not going to move out of the USA simply because of health insurance.
Weird, I was pretty sure that dislike of the US health care system was pretty universal regardless of party affiliation or position on the political spectrum. Granted, how to *fix* the system is a polarizing issue, but whether or not the US system sucks balls doesn't seem to be up for debate these days.
Though, as an aside, some people actually do leave the US because of healthcare. Many more would like to, but can't afford to move any more than they can afford their healthcare premiums (some of my friends fall into the latter category).
Seriously - If I was willing to move out of the U.S. and good health care was on my list of needs, where should I go?
If you're an American, Canada seems like the most obvious choice, not the least of which because of it's geographical convenience, cultural similarities, etc. Of course, the system here isn't perfect... while the horror stories often cited are largely bullshit, it's certainly true that for non-catastrophic procedures (say, knee surgery), there are waiting lists, and they can be fairly long depending on the province. OTOH, for anything life-and-death (heart surgery, cancer treatment, etc), coverage is immediate and, of course, free.
As for broadband, Canada is definitely one of the more advanced nations out there. We're no Japan, but we're better than large swathes of the United States. And I'm not aware of any monitoring or censorship efforts (okay, that's not entirely true... the whole "hate speech" thing and the "human rights tribunal" thing has gotten out of hand occasionally, but most of the time it's a non-issue). Certainly I don't believe we're any worse than any other options out there (Europe, Japan, etc).
'course, I have no idea how hard it is to actually get permanent resident status, as there may be employment requirements, etc.
If you're seriously considering it, though, just keep in mind that, just like American states, the province you pick makes a difference. For example, Alberta has a fairly well-funded healthcare system, while those in, say, the maritime provinces are struggling. And culturally, there can be some substantial variability (eg, Alberta is quite conservative, British Columbia the precise opposite, etc).
I am curious which provinces still charge a monthly premium. They've been dropped in Alberta, and I thought our system was the exception (in having said fees), rather than the rule...
Because deliberately limiting the decoding backend to a single codec when it can support multiple is incredibly idiotic, particularly since HTML5 doesn't specify a codec, and so *anything* could theoretically be used?
Frankly, I want to know why you think Mozilla will make the same boneheaded decision that Opera (supposedly) made?
Probably a naive question, but--If we have so much hardware support for decoding, then why are Linux / BSD playback such a problem?
Well, my understanding of technologies like VDPAU is that they accelerate specific parts of the decoding pipeline that are otherwise expensive to do on a general purpose CPU. As such, you still have to implement large parts of the decoder... you just get to use hardware to accelerate the hard parts (IIRC, in the past, this included things like the motion compensation and IDCT operations).
What Mozilla and Opera are doing is trying to make it an end-user problem when it actually isn't. The end users have the codecs. Use them. Giving users the choice is far superior to steadfastly refusing to give them a choice.
Which is why, thank god, Mozilla is planning to implement gstreamer backend support, thus putting this entire non-issue to bed.
I know geeks love to try and be as overly literal as possible but it doesn't help your case here. H.264 is NOT a proprietary format, because that's not how the word is used. In terms of formats proprietary means a format owned by a single company.
Bullshit. In terms of formats, proprietary means I can't implement the spec freely, either because the spec isn't available, or because I have to pay money to implement it. Put another way, if the spec isn't free to acquire and implement, it's proprietary, as the technology is under the control of a third party who controls the lock and decides who gets the key.
Just on this topic:
1. Making a video codec patent free is really difficult, since submarine patents are always a threat.
Highly unlikely. US patent law states that a patent must be disclosed a year (I believe it's a year, anyway) after filing. If you wish to postpone publication, then you give up the right to file the patent overseas, and I *highly* doubt most corporations are willing to pay that price.
Before the laws were changed, yes, submarine patents were a problem. But these days it's simply not an issue, and it's about time people stopped worrying about this little bugbear.
If someone doesn't change the admin password on a piece of hardware, regardless of operating system, that's a configuration error. If, however, the worm targeted an exploit in the kernel stack, that would be something else entirely.
So, in the case of your example, yes, that's correct.