If they are directly proportional to each other, then you are correct (and which is why we have G there in the first place). But if they're NOT directly proportional, then no value for G could mask the effect.
No. I'm telling you that there are TWO codecs popularly used with Flash: H.264 and VP6. The FLV container *only* uses VP6, so often people say FLV (which is the container) when they really mean VP6 (which is the codec). For example, with mencoder and libavcodec, using "vcodec=flv" activates the VP6 encoder. There is an open-source tool, flvtool2, which you can use to insert "hints" into an FLV file, which allows you to stream it.
Only the newest versions of Flash support H.264 (9.2+, according to Wikipedia), so the vast majority of Flash videos use VP6/FLV. Youtube has been making all new videos available in either codec/container for a few months. This is pretty much all on the Wikipedia page for Flash video, but it could probably be stated much more clearly. It does talk about how limitations of the FLV container prevented Adobe from using it with H.264, so they came up with a few other containers, and that Flash also supports the ISO-standard MP4 container.
His sig says *average*. I lived in one of the World Cup host cities, and until mid-2006, I couldn't get broadband *at all*. My employer (on a main road, in an industrial section) couldn't either; they had to buy a bunch of ISDN lines that cost an arm and a leg. Outside of the big metro areas, often the best you can get is 1.5Mb/s DSL, and that's at an exhorbitant rate.
Germany has lots of bandwidth-rich areas. But please don't assume that your experience is representative of the whole country.
First off, the tax is like $1.30, not the 19% VAT or whatever it is in DEland. Second, you paint a rosy picture of Germany. There are lots of places there where all you can get is dial-up. Sure, there are places in the US that aren't serviced by broadband, but they're all in very sparesly populated areas. I wasn't able to get DSL or cable living in the middle of a city of 200,000 people in 2004, which is ridiculous. When cable finally became available, it was about 35 euro per month, which was more than I'm paying now in the US. My neighbor down the street wanted to get cable too, but they would have charged him hundreds of euro to run the connection to his house.
That said, cable companies in the US are a rip-off. I'm just not sure Germany's better-serviced on the whole (your particular anecdote notwithstanding).
I can confirm this. I technically go through Earthlink, but they just re-sell RoadRunner service here, and I pay the same rate ($42/mo + tax) as normal RR customers in my area. I've heard that some people with this service end up getting some cable channels for free, but I've never bothered checking.
I had an APO address for three years at Ramstein AB (ie, the place that *all* APO mail headed to Europe and SWA goes first). The OP's representation of the amount of time it takes to receive mail from the US is misleading at best. It takes 7-10 days to receive letters from the US. I have received packages in that little time, but the average was perhaps 4 weeks, and 8 weeks was not unusual. A few times it took up to 10 weeks. The package is being sent to a *war zone*, have a little patience.
You're both right. We're in this mess because people *borrowed* too aggressively. That of course requires someone else to lend (ie, invest) too aggressively, and the purpose of all the borrowing was to spend the borrowed money.
If an innovation can be easily duplicated by hobby coders, or a bunch of outsourced code monkeys, it was not much of an innovation. The hardest part of innovation is coming up with a good idea. Implementing the idea is often the easy part.
And here's hoping that intelligent, capable, and dedicated individuals can contribute to CS -- no matter where they were born. Amen.
As far as I can decipher it, the OP's argument breaks down as follows:
Excessive government control ==> Insignificant competition ==> Violent business practices
It's more like:
Excessive government control ==> It's a crime simply to engage in a certain type of business transaction ==> People who engage in those business transactions have little incentive not to break other laws ==> Violent business practices
This link is clearly demonstrated in the realms of human trafficking, arms dealership, drug trafficking, alcohol in the '20s, gambling, and usury. That last two are examples where an outright ban isn't necessary to encourage violent business practices; there are some instances where gambling is legal, for example, yet the mob still finds it profitable to involve themselves in casinos.
To say that excessive regulation results in less competition focuses on one relatively small, rarely used aspect of government regulation.
So what? The only one waving their hand about how common or rare this situation is, is you.
So you said: "You think the value of stocks at the peak of the bubble in 1929 was [inflation-adjusted]?" Come on, that doesn't even make sense. So you didn't know what I meant by "real value". Big deal. But show some integrity and own up to it.
The value of your stocks may have gone down, but if you haven't sold them you've lost nothing. "If you buy stuff on credit, you haven't spent anything until you pay the bill."
Those two statements are logically equivalent. Both have an underlying assumption that at some future time, everything will be hunkey dorey. In no way is this guaranteed. When the stock market crashed in 1929, it didn't recover its real value until 1962. Talk about a long-term investment! Do you have 33 years to wait before you break even?
Yes, energy. It takes a faster processor to handle more data, and it takes more electronics to run the display (more pixels = more transistors = more heat lost due to switching). Given a 720p system and a 1080p system made with comparable technology, the 720p system will be more energy efficient (in terms of Watts per square inch).
"Pish-posh," one might say, "that's only a difference of a few Watts. No big deal!" But Americans watch an average of over 4 hours of TV per day or about 1500 hours per year. That's 450 billion TV-hours per year. Given that amount of TV usage, every extra Watt of power our televisions consume is, over the course of a year, equivalent to the amount of energy in 2.65 billion gallons of oil. If 720p displays save only 5 Watts*, that's 13 billion barrels of oil over the course of a year.
Given that our annual oil consumption is over 20 billion barrels per day, you might say that's only a drop in the barrel. But we have to start somewhere. Energy won't conserve itself!
* Watch out! That number might have dingleberries stuck to it.
Slashdot Mirror
If they are directly proportional to each other, then you are correct (and which is why we have G there in the first place). But if they're NOT directly proportional, then no value for G could mask the effect.
Oh, so you must mean an older version of Sybase, then.
A Win2K domain controller *is* AD.
Links or STFU
No. I'm telling you that there are TWO codecs popularly used with Flash: H.264 and VP6. The FLV container *only* uses VP6, so often people say FLV (which is the container) when they really mean VP6 (which is the codec). For example, with mencoder and libavcodec, using "vcodec=flv" activates the VP6 encoder. There is an open-source tool, flvtool2, which you can use to insert "hints" into an FLV file, which allows you to stream it.
Only the newest versions of Flash support H.264 (9.2+, according to Wikipedia), so the vast majority of Flash videos use VP6/FLV. Youtube has been making all new videos available in either codec/container for a few months. This is pretty much all on the Wikipedia page for Flash video, but it could probably be stated much more clearly. It does talk about how limitations of the FLV container prevented Adobe from using it with H.264, so they came up with a few other containers, and that Flash also supports the ISO-standard MP4 container.
That's incorrect. You can jump straight to a point close to an arbitrary byte without downloading the whole file.
Flash usually uses MP4 as the container for H.264 video. The question is not about FLV vs MKV; it's about MP4 vs MKV.
His sig says *average*.
Whoops! No it doesn't. Maybe it should.
His sig says *average*. I lived in one of the World Cup host cities, and until mid-2006, I couldn't get broadband *at all*. My employer (on a main road, in an industrial section) couldn't either; they had to buy a bunch of ISDN lines that cost an arm and a leg. Outside of the big metro areas, often the best you can get is 1.5Mb/s DSL, and that's at an exhorbitant rate.
Germany has lots of bandwidth-rich areas. But please don't assume that your experience is representative of the whole country.
Well, so much for all MY code!
One way pagers did exist, and so did cameras, but they required this non-digital stuff called "film"
What kind of "film" did you use in your pagers?
You've made a huge mistake.
First off, the tax is like $1.30, not the 19% VAT or whatever it is in DEland. Second, you paint a rosy picture of Germany. There are lots of places there where all you can get is dial-up. Sure, there are places in the US that aren't serviced by broadband, but they're all in very sparesly populated areas. I wasn't able to get DSL or cable living in the middle of a city of 200,000 people in 2004, which is ridiculous. When cable finally became available, it was about 35 euro per month, which was more than I'm paying now in the US. My neighbor down the street wanted to get cable too, but they would have charged him hundreds of euro to run the connection to his house.
That said, cable companies in the US are a rip-off. I'm just not sure Germany's better-serviced on the whole (your particular anecdote notwithstanding).
I can confirm this. I technically go through Earthlink, but they just re-sell RoadRunner service here, and I pay the same rate ($42/mo + tax) as normal RR customers in my area. I've heard that some people with this service end up getting some cable channels for free, but I've never bothered checking.
I had an APO address for three years at Ramstein AB (ie, the place that *all* APO mail headed to Europe and SWA goes first). The OP's representation of the amount of time it takes to receive mail from the US is misleading at best. It takes 7-10 days to receive letters from the US. I have received packages in that little time, but the average was perhaps 4 weeks, and 8 weeks was not unusual. A few times it took up to 10 weeks. The package is being sent to a *war zone*, have a little patience.
You're both right. We're in this mess because people *borrowed* too aggressively. That of course requires someone else to lend (ie, invest) too aggressively, and the purpose of all the borrowing was to spend the borrowed money.
If an innovation can be easily duplicated by hobby coders, or a bunch of outsourced code monkeys, it was not much of an innovation.
The hardest part of innovation is coming up with a good idea. Implementing the idea is often the easy part.
And here's hoping that intelligent, capable, and dedicated individuals can contribute to CS -- no matter where they were born.
Amen.
So you are referring to ineffective excessive government control.
So your argument hinges on government regulations always being 100% effective? Wow.
So, to characterise excessive government control as less competition is extremely misleading.
You're burning a straw man.
I had assumed it was obvious, after people looked beyond the one or two cases of government regulation being anti-competition (in free markets)
See? They EXIST. That's the ENTIRE point. That's it. Nothing more. You just 100% agreed with me.
As far as I can decipher it, the OP's argument breaks down as follows:
Excessive government control ==>
Insignificant competition ==>
Violent business practices
It's more like:
Excessive government control ==>
It's a crime simply to engage in a certain type of business transaction ==>
People who engage in those business transactions have little incentive not to break other laws ==>
Violent business practices
This link is clearly demonstrated in the realms of human trafficking, arms dealership, drug trafficking, alcohol in the '20s, gambling, and usury. That last two are examples where an outright ban isn't necessary to encourage violent business practices; there are some instances where gambling is legal, for example, yet the mob still finds it profitable to involve themselves in casinos.
To say that excessive regulation results in less competition focuses on one relatively small, rarely used aspect of government regulation.
So what? The only one waving their hand about how common or rare this situation is, is you.
Firstly, government regulation does not equal less competition.
He didn't say it did. He said that a certain level of regulation (ie, outright prohibition) creates an environment which encourages mafia tactics.
So you said: "You think the value of stocks at the peak of the bubble in 1929 was [inflation-adjusted]?" Come on, that doesn't even make sense. So you didn't know what I meant by "real value". Big deal. But show some integrity and own up to it.
"Real value" is economics jargon. Maybe you should look it up.
The value of your stocks may have gone down, but if you haven't sold them you've lost nothing.
"If you buy stuff on credit, you haven't spent anything until you pay the bill."
Those two statements are logically equivalent. Both have an underlying assumption that at some future time, everything will be hunkey dorey. In no way is this guaranteed. When the stock market crashed in 1929, it didn't recover its real value until 1962. Talk about a long-term investment! Do you have 33 years to wait before you break even?
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this!"
Just beecuz leturz sumtymz hav speshul meeneengz duzent meen thae looz thayr regyoolar pronunsiashun eethur.
Yes, energy. It takes a faster processor to handle more data, and it takes more electronics to run the display (more pixels = more transistors = more heat lost due to switching). Given a 720p system and a 1080p system made with comparable technology, the 720p system will be more energy efficient (in terms of Watts per square inch).
"Pish-posh," one might say, "that's only a difference of a few Watts. No big deal!" But Americans watch an average of over 4 hours of TV per day or about 1500 hours per year. That's 450 billion TV-hours per year. Given that amount of TV usage, every extra Watt of power our televisions consume is, over the course of a year, equivalent to the amount of energy in 2.65 billion gallons of oil. If 720p displays save only 5 Watts*, that's 13 billion barrels of oil over the course of a year.
Given that our annual oil consumption is over 20 billion barrels per day, you might say that's only a drop in the barrel. But we have to start somewhere. Energy won't conserve itself!
* Watch out! That number might have dingleberries stuck to it.