I agree that it seemed like the police, etc just took the obvious bait and/or overreacted idiotically - as you said it wasn't useful and served no purpose but to inflame. Though I disagree that the blogger said it was "justified" - he basically said the reaction was "understandable" given the current overblown paranoia in schools these days. It's possible to understand the reasoning behind an overreaction, but disagree with it. Just look at the many reasonable people duped by Bush, etc. over the Iraq War...
But overreaction doesn't mean there still isn't a chance it was an intentional fake. Richard Dawkins had a fairly objective comment (that was nonetheless shouted down by many who didn't want to hear alternative "theories", ironically) when hearing that it was just a Radio Shack clock: "If this is true, what was his motive? Whether or not he wanted the police to arrest him, they shouldn’t have done so." And that's the key - can the kid explain why he claimed the clock was his "invention"? Was he just taking credit for something he didn't do, or did he know that it looked suspicious? (some comments he has made indicate he may have).
That's the problem. There is no actual EVIDENCE either way, just sound bytes from those involved.
I sincerely hope there was no duplicity involved and the kid and his father were being completely honest - but I am going to withhold judgement for now either way.
I definitely don't agree with everything the blog post said (for example. it's a fact that the mayor of Irving, Texas, is a known Islamophobe, which would almost definitely trickle down to public officials and police) but if you actually read exactly what the blogger stated as fact and as possibility he wasn't nearly as biased as you claim he was.
Anyway, all that said - it's clear to me at least (feel free to disagree, but I have tutored 14 year olds who actually build really COOL things) that this student is no Westinghouse Award candidate, and that he and his dad are in fact milking this whole thing. Maybe he deserves a break if he was really profiled that blatantly. But removing the case from a Rat Shack clock does not a MIT student (which he specifically called out as a goal in his statement) make...
ahmed was trying to do something constructive, in the STEM area.
Unfortunately, it sounds like the whole thing may have been a hoax in a misguided attempt to draw attention to Islamophobia - or at the very least a cry for attention.
Apparently the kid didn't build anything, he just took apart a 1980's Radio Shack digital clock and put it inside a very strangely "suspicious" looking metal briefcase with padded interior.
So at the least, the kid lied about "building a clock" and at the worst he DID intentionally make it look like a (very fake) bomb (very possibly with the prodding of his activist father, who was also strangely quick to be interviewed and post details on all possible public media).
I hope (unlike the initial reaction) the media (liberal and conservative) takes a breath this time and tries to gather a few facts about what really happened. It has be pretty ticked off, though, as I initially came down strongly on the kid's side against the "totally unreasonable school" (which has apparently been saying all along they knew it was not a real bomb, but considered it an intentional fake), and now it sounds like many people may have been duped. I'm still hoping it was more toward the side of "kid lying about his talent" and not "father throwing kid under the bus for attention to his cause"...
You had context from the start. The first sentence in the article SAID it was a Salesforce conference.
Ironically if you put "most at risk opportunities" without any other context into Google the top result is "jobs most at risk from robots". (clearly this is not one, yet).
The next results (not including the article itself) are HIV-related, or states at risk of disasters. Business or investment opportunities don't even show up unless you specifically add those words.
Except he was talking about international definition of football, not American football. From a macro shot, 90% of the time the former has the fast paced action of a line at the DMV (or queue at the DVLA). The latter (and baseball, actually) has tons of motion (and even worse for encoding, scene changes), because 90% of the time the cameras are showing anything *but* the action on the field...
Well, I say this playing both baseball and soccer/football for over 2 decades - depends on the camera angle. Both sports at a macro level pretty much feature the majority of the players standing around or slowly jogging most of the time. And in the close ups, it doesn't matter since there is always movement.
That said, the bandwidth doesn't really increase given more motion in streaming broadcasts these days - the quality just decreases. Not that 5Mbps isn't PLENTY for any live sport. If it can handle the ridiculous and gratuitous special effects and frantic scene changes of a Michael Bay movie, it can handle an outdoor field sport.
The endless abuse, stupidity, waste, and misery is why Trump is leading the polls.
Ironically, those are all perfect descriptions of Trump's personality, attitude, and business acumen to date.
Why on EARTH does anything think he'd be a good leader? The only thing he has ever been good at is fucking over everyone else (including his OWN employees, shareholders, and investors, with multiple bankruptcies) to get ahead personally. Well, declaring bankruptcy to fuck over the "shareholders" and employees of the US isn't going to work...
And those white kids have been led out of school in handcuffs after the arresting police officer said, to quote, "yeah, that's who I thought it was." Given the kid didn't even know the officer, what does that even mean? Brown kid with Muslim name. Interpreting it any other way is just putting your hands over your ears to stay ignorant.
Not to mention the mayor of the same town the school is in came under a lot of fire for anti-Islamic statements in the past (coincidence that the police act like their boss?)
No, I am a video streaming architect. You are an AC who clearly has no clue (or balls).
If you stream a "16Mbps" video with a modern adaptive bitrate design (which ALL major streaming services use - HLS, Smooth Streaming, MPEG-DASH, etc), and someone else tries to load a website via the same Internet connection, each one of those TCP connections opened by a web browser to download HTML, images, etc, will compete with that TCP connection downloading video. The video won't block the other sockets, but it also won't be able to keep up with 16Mbps. But that's ok, because adaptive streaming will.... adapt - and switch seamlessly to a lower bitrate. You could decide to enable QOS on your router or manually mess with things to change the behavior, but on a shared connection with a decent streaming service, I wouldn't bother - let things work as they will and everyone will share the connection pretty equally by nature of the SHARED NETWORK.
I'm sure most of the terms I mentioned here went way over your head, but hey, that's what Google is for. A bit of work and you might be able to learn something today, if that's possible.
That was true many years ago when video was a tiny fraction of Internet volume streaming trivial things, but is not true for VOD on-demand streaming of hundreds of thousands of contents to millions of customers using content delivery networks.
HTTP deals very efficiently with "hypertext", sure. But hypertext is by definition MULTIMEDIA, which includes... wait for it... video. It's good at multiple data types BECAUSE it is so protocol agnostic. It's a dead simple (well, until HTTP 2.0...) protocol for fetching ANY data with very low overhead and a simple universal locator.
You are talking a university lab environment, and I am talking the REAL Internet, with all of its proxies, firewalls, stupid ISPs, dropped connections, packet loss, and circuitous routes.
99%+ of streamed content is not live, so RTP/RTSP and multicast is an absolutely HORRIBLE solution. If you can buffer a bit on the client, HTTP is the simplest, most compatible way to do.
Then again, I helped build a major VOD service that streams over 5PB a day, so what do I know...
Except that's not how TCP/IP (or adaptive streaming) on a shared network works. Come back when you learn a bit more about it, and don't feel the need to be an AC.
If you are just talking the TCP/IP overhead, it's about 3%. Maybe another 5% for the container if it's an MPEG TS, or very little if it's MP4. So I'd say 3-8% for most implementations over HTTP if it's not doing anything stupid.
Protocol overhead is roughly 3x that of the data packet due to the OSI onion type design
That's absurd. HTTP overhead for a large download is about 3%, not 3x! So for that 12mbps stream you need about 12.4mbps bandwidth.
Your data packet is wrapped up in 6 different IP envelopes, which is why it gets so bloated.
That doesn't even make any sense. You clearly saw an OSI diagram once but have never actually learned a thing about TCP/IP.
Besides, 1080p can be done reasonably @ 4Mbps, and at near BD quality @ 9Mbps. 12Mbps is PLENTY for either of those if you are not sharing the connection with a lot of other operations (and even if you are, any decent streaming service is adaptive so you will at worst just see a bit lower quality video while the connection is competing with other uses).
4K can be streamed it in under 16Mbps no problem. I have seen great looking 4K @ 11Mbps, and that's with 448Kbps 7.1 audio and HDR. And with some of the latest/upcoming HEVC encoders, it looks like ~8Mbps 4K is very doable.
Problem is 4K isn't nearly as important as 10 bit color and HDR - I'd take 1080p 10bit Rec.2020 w/ HDR over basic 4K any day. Anyway, the point is if you have at least 15Mbps you will be able to do high end 4K streaming, no problem. And you can eke by with less.
Wha? Your comment makes no sense. What does individual bandwidth to someone's home have to do with aggregate streaming of any particular content? (Hint: nothing)
"the current system that fine-tunes to produce big profits out of film making killed basically all older profitable shows like operas or symphonic concerts without giving a damn about it
Bull. What evidence do you have that "the system" of moviemaking and distribution killed opera or the symphony, or that they were any more profitable than they are today? You just made that up, and it's totally incorrect.
I went to the opera a few months ago, it cost almost $200 per person and it was sold out. The theater only held a few thousand people, but that's standard for opera. The history of opera, ballet, etc has always been supported by wealthy people in small venues, and survives to a large extent on rich donors, which is no different today than it was in 18th century Europe.
And the Superbowl is a moronic example. It's a single event per year that is the culmination of hundreds of games over 5 months. And it's an event that last for 4 hours, with about 15 minutes of actual content. And no, the costs are not the same. I could list 100 ways, but the simpler is the players, etc are paid for all of those games, not one event. Your example is like, "hey, we sent someone to the moon, so why can't all daily airplane flights go to the moon?" It's not scalable nor remotely similar.
But, nevertheless, it's obvious that there *are* ways to pay creators for their worthy creations since that's been the state of affairs for most of history. What if, for example, creators get paid for what they *do*, as it is the case for most workers, instead of paying for the use of that creation?
Fine. Explain in reasonable detail how a $100M movie can be made and recoup the cost (ideally plus some profit) without preventing it from being freely copied upon first viewing.
If you can come up with an actual viable solution to that, you not only have my complete respect, but your will become the most powerful person in Hollywood.
Blockbusters may make their budget back in a few weeks, but that's the exception. However, even the average movies make their budget back after a year or two, once the international, VOD & DVD/BD sales are included. After 5 years, 95% of the movies have made 95% of the profit they ever will.
That said, honestly I'm not as big an opponent of Copyright law. If someone else made a creative work and wants to charge for it, whatever. You can do without watching it. Especially since derivative works, unless almost exact copies, are not affected.
I'm much more an opponent of ridiculous patent terms. 17-20 years is an ETERNITY in technology. And this is not even the fact that people have patented horribly vague UIs or software "architectures" (not even algorithms). Think about it, if someone invented something in 1995 they likely had no clue to its applicability today.
Ok, AC, explain in detail another method that doesn't involve confinement or monetary fines. Would love to hear it, as would pretty much the entire civilized world.
Slashdot Mirror
And the correct response to that is to go find a better job...
I agree that it seemed like the police, etc just took the obvious bait and/or overreacted idiotically - as you said it wasn't useful and served no purpose but to inflame. Though I disagree that the blogger said it was "justified" - he basically said the reaction was "understandable" given the current overblown paranoia in schools these days. It's possible to understand the reasoning behind an overreaction, but disagree with it. Just look at the many reasonable people duped by Bush, etc. over the Iraq War...
But overreaction doesn't mean there still isn't a chance it was an intentional fake. Richard Dawkins had a fairly objective comment (that was nonetheless shouted down by many who didn't want to hear alternative "theories", ironically) when hearing that it was just a Radio Shack clock: "If this is true, what was his motive? Whether or not he wanted the police to arrest him, they shouldn’t have done so." And that's the key - can the kid explain why he claimed the clock was his "invention"? Was he just taking credit for something he didn't do, or did he know that it looked suspicious? (some comments he has made indicate he may have).
http://www.theguardian.com/sci...
Given this lack of evidence
That's the problem. There is no actual EVIDENCE either way, just sound bytes from those involved.
I sincerely hope there was no duplicity involved and the kid and his father were being completely honest - but I am going to withhold judgement for now either way.
I definitely don't agree with everything the blog post said (for example. it's a fact that the mayor of Irving, Texas, is a known Islamophobe, which would almost definitely trickle down to public officials and police) but if you actually read exactly what the blogger stated as fact and as possibility he wasn't nearly as biased as you claim he was.
Anyway, all that said - it's clear to me at least (feel free to disagree, but I have tutored 14 year olds who actually build really COOL things) that this student is no Westinghouse Award candidate, and that he and his dad are in fact milking this whole thing. Maybe he deserves a break if he was really profiled that blatantly. But removing the case from a Rat Shack clock does not a MIT student (which he specifically called out as a goal in his statement) make...
ahmed was trying to do something constructive, in the STEM area.
Unfortunately, it sounds like the whole thing may have been a hoax in a misguided attempt to draw attention to Islamophobia - or at the very least a cry for attention.
Apparently the kid didn't build anything, he just took apart a 1980's Radio Shack digital clock and put it inside a very strangely "suspicious" looking metal briefcase with padded interior.
http://blogs.artvoice.com/tech...
So at the least, the kid lied about "building a clock" and at the worst he DID intentionally make it look like a (very fake) bomb (very possibly with the prodding of his activist father, who was also strangely quick to be interviewed and post details on all possible public media).
I hope (unlike the initial reaction) the media (liberal and conservative) takes a breath this time and tries to gather a few facts about what really happened. It has be pretty ticked off, though, as I initially came down strongly on the kid's side against the "totally unreasonable school" (which has apparently been saying all along they knew it was not a real bomb, but considered it an intentional fake), and now it sounds like many people may have been duped. I'm still hoping it was more toward the side of "kid lying about his talent" and not "father throwing kid under the bus for attention to his cause"...
No, you don't get it - your fingerprints and DNA aren't personal! They don't actually have your name spelled in them...
You had context from the start. The first sentence in the article SAID it was a Salesforce conference.
Ironically if you put "most at risk opportunities" without any other context into Google the top result is "jobs most at risk from robots". (clearly this is not one, yet).
The next results (not including the article itself) are HIV-related, or states at risk of disasters. Business or investment opportunities don't even show up unless you specifically add those words.
He asked a basically nonsense question. If i ask "why is a fish?" and cortana doesn't understand, is this news?
That's a perfectly understandable question, and if he had asked it, the proper answer is "Is that the best you can do? Go fuck yourself, Satya".
You only understood it because you already had context. Without context, it's a ridiculously vague question.
Sure, the next step would be to carry on a conversation to clarify details but it's not there yet. IT'S NOT AN AI!
Except he was talking about international definition of football, not American football. From a macro shot, 90% of the time the former has the fast paced action of a line at the DMV (or queue at the DVLA). The latter (and baseball, actually) has tons of motion (and even worse for encoding, scene changes), because 90% of the time the cameras are showing anything *but* the action on the field...
Well, I say this playing both baseball and soccer/football for over 2 decades - depends on the camera angle. Both sports at a macro level pretty much feature the majority of the players standing around or slowly jogging most of the time. And in the close ups, it doesn't matter since there is always movement.
That said, the bandwidth doesn't really increase given more motion in streaming broadcasts these days - the quality just decreases. Not that 5Mbps isn't PLENTY for any live sport. If it can handle the ridiculous and gratuitous special effects and frantic scene changes of a Michael Bay movie, it can handle an outdoor field sport.
The endless abuse, stupidity, waste, and misery is why Trump is leading the polls.
Ironically, those are all perfect descriptions of Trump's personality, attitude, and business acumen to date.
Why on EARTH does anything think he'd be a good leader? The only thing he has ever been good at is fucking over everyone else (including his OWN employees, shareholders, and investors, with multiple bankruptcies) to get ahead personally. Well, declaring bankruptcy to fuck over the "shareholders" and employees of the US isn't going to work...
And those white kids have been led out of school in handcuffs after the arresting police officer said, to quote, "yeah, that's who I thought it was." Given the kid didn't even know the officer, what does that even mean? Brown kid with Muslim name. Interpreting it any other way is just putting your hands over your ears to stay ignorant.
Not to mention the mayor of the same town the school is in came under a lot of fire for anti-Islamic statements in the past (coincidence that the police act like their boss?)
No, I am a video streaming architect. You are an AC who clearly has no clue (or balls).
If you stream a "16Mbps" video with a modern adaptive bitrate design (which ALL major streaming services use - HLS, Smooth Streaming, MPEG-DASH, etc), and someone else tries to load a website via the same Internet connection, each one of those TCP connections opened by a web browser to download HTML, images, etc, will compete with that TCP connection downloading video. The video won't block the other sockets, but it also won't be able to keep up with 16Mbps. But that's ok, because adaptive streaming will.... adapt - and switch seamlessly to a lower bitrate. You could decide to enable QOS on your router or manually mess with things to change the behavior, but on a shared connection with a decent streaming service, I wouldn't bother - let things work as they will and everyone will share the connection pretty equally by nature of the SHARED NETWORK.
I'm sure most of the terms I mentioned here went way over your head, but hey, that's what Google is for. A bit of work and you might be able to learn something today, if that's possible.
That was true many years ago when video was a tiny fraction of Internet volume streaming trivial things, but is not true for VOD on-demand streaming of hundreds of thousands of contents to millions of customers using content delivery networks.
HTTP deals very efficiently with "hypertext", sure. But hypertext is by definition MULTIMEDIA, which includes... wait for it... video. It's good at multiple data types BECAUSE it is so protocol agnostic. It's a dead simple (well, until HTTP 2.0...) protocol for fetching ANY data with very low overhead and a simple universal locator.
You are talking a university lab environment, and I am talking the REAL Internet, with all of its proxies, firewalls, stupid ISPs, dropped connections, packet loss, and circuitous routes.
99%+ of streamed content is not live, so RTP/RTSP and multicast is an absolutely HORRIBLE solution. If you can buffer a bit on the client, HTTP is the simplest, most compatible way to do.
Then again, I helped build a major VOD service that streams over 5PB a day, so what do I know...
Except that's not how TCP/IP (or adaptive streaming) on a shared network works. Come back when you learn a bit more about it, and don't feel the need to be an AC.
If you are just talking the TCP/IP overhead, it's about 3%. Maybe another 5% for the container if it's an MPEG TS, or very little if it's MP4. So I'd say 3-8% for most implementations over HTTP if it's not doing anything stupid.
Protocol overhead is roughly 3x that of the data packet due to the OSI onion type design
That's absurd. HTTP overhead for a large download is about 3%, not 3x! So for that 12mbps stream you need about 12.4mbps bandwidth.
Your data packet is wrapped up in 6 different IP envelopes, which is why it gets so bloated.
That doesn't even make any sense. You clearly saw an OSI diagram once but have never actually learned a thing about TCP/IP.
Besides, 1080p can be done reasonably @ 4Mbps, and at near BD quality @ 9Mbps. 12Mbps is PLENTY for either of those if you are not sharing the connection with a lot of other operations (and even if you are, any decent streaming service is adaptive so you will at worst just see a bit lower quality video while the connection is competing with other uses).
4K can be streamed it in under 16Mbps no problem. I have seen great looking 4K @ 11Mbps, and that's with 448Kbps 7.1 audio and HDR. And with some of the latest/upcoming HEVC encoders, it looks like ~8Mbps 4K is very doable.
Problem is 4K isn't nearly as important as 10 bit color and HDR - I'd take 1080p 10bit Rec.2020 w/ HDR over basic 4K any day. Anyway, the point is if you have at least 15Mbps you will be able to do high end 4K streaming, no problem. And you can eke by with less.
Wha? Your comment makes no sense. What does individual bandwidth to someone's home have to do with aggregate streaming of any particular content? (Hint: nothing)
"the current system that fine-tunes to produce big profits out of film making killed basically all older profitable shows like operas or symphonic concerts without giving a damn about it
Bull. What evidence do you have that "the system" of moviemaking and distribution killed opera or the symphony, or that they were any more profitable than they are today? You just made that up, and it's totally incorrect.
I went to the opera a few months ago, it cost almost $200 per person and it was sold out. The theater only held a few thousand people, but that's standard for opera. The history of opera, ballet, etc has always been supported by wealthy people in small venues, and survives to a large extent on rich donors, which is no different today than it was in 18th century Europe.
And the Superbowl is a moronic example. It's a single event per year that is the culmination of hundreds of games over 5 months. And it's an event that last for 4 hours, with about 15 minutes of actual content. And no, the costs are not the same. I could list 100 ways, but the simpler is the players, etc are paid for all of those games, not one event. Your example is like, "hey, we sent someone to the moon, so why can't all daily airplane flights go to the moon?" It's not scalable nor remotely similar.
there are other workable models, even without needing to invent anything new
Ok, provide one. We're waiting...
But, nevertheless, it's obvious that there *are* ways to pay creators for their worthy creations since that's been the state of affairs for most of history. What if, for example, creators get paid for what they *do*, as it is the case for most workers, instead of paying for the use of that creation?
Fine. Explain in reasonable detail how a $100M movie can be made and recoup the cost (ideally plus some profit) without preventing it from being freely copied upon first viewing.
If you can come up with an actual viable solution to that, you not only have my complete respect, but your will become the most powerful person in Hollywood.
Yep. And why? Because corporations are people!!
Blockbusters may make their budget back in a few weeks, but that's the exception. However, even the average movies make their budget back after a year or two, once the international, VOD & DVD/BD sales are included. After 5 years, 95% of the movies have made 95% of the profit they ever will.
That said, honestly I'm not as big an opponent of Copyright law. If someone else made a creative work and wants to charge for it, whatever. You can do without watching it. Especially since derivative works, unless almost exact copies, are not affected.
I'm much more an opponent of ridiculous patent terms. 17-20 years is an ETERNITY in technology. And this is not even the fact that people have patented horribly vague UIs or software "architectures" (not even algorithms). Think about it, if someone invented something in 1995 they likely had no clue to its applicability today.
Actually, sharing a cell with the Mexican mafia would probably just be a job interview for a white collar criminal.
Ok, AC, explain in detail another method that doesn't involve confinement or monetary fines. Would love to hear it, as would pretty much the entire civilized world.