What is this nonsense? Why would Youtube deliberately use an inferior video codec for EVERYBODY not using an iPhone?
This is what the apple website says:
To achieve higher video quality and longer battery life on mobile devices, YouTube has begun encoding their videos in the advanced H.264 format, and iPhone will be the first mobile device to use the H.264-encoded videos. Over 10,000 videos will be available on June 29, and YouTube will be adding more each week until their full catalog of videos is available in the H.264 format this fall.
What it sounds like to me is that the videos encoded to H.264 would be smaller in size (the quality would be the same or lesser than the originals you and me watch on PC) and thus use WiFi less and increase battery life. Additionally, the hardware assisted h.264 decode also saves power (at the cost of extra h/w). Furthermore, ONLY a small portion of youtube videos will be available initially.
Getting a warrant for your ancestry DNA file or for a swab of your mouth is the same thing.
The idea is actually very appealing to me. The only problem is the high price of the service and the difficulty of it. Very few around the world will sign up , so few that I predict it will be useless for a long, long time.
I was taking the cell charges into account. $1200 for a 2-year contract. I assumed that there would only be one $99 iPhone plan available with random access voicemail, data plan and other such features.
I'm paying $30/month for my cellphone right now. Prepaid. Assuming unlimited data and clever ajax apps that manage not to run sluggishly on edge, I might consider spending up to maybe $80/month. Not for an MP3 player or a cellphone but for an appealing organizer and internet browser.
Unlikely though.
You're forced to pay around $100/ month. That's $50 more than the average cell plan. Over the two mandatory years, that's $1200.
This means that for many, the handset itself ends up costing them $1800. $600 down and 24 monthly payments of $50.
I can justify paying maybe $1000 AND lock myself in a 2 year plan at $50/month for the coolness of the iPhone. I won't pay $1800. That's madness unless you actually need the expensive plan.
But I figure a lot of people are going to delude themselves and regret it later...
If you don't want DRM then stop pirating, you can't have it both ways.
My neighbour stopped pirating because he didn't want DRM. Unfortunately, when he drank the rooster blood, the moon wasn't full and no matter how many times he shouts "DRM BEGONE FOR I AM PURE!", the DRM refuses to vanish in the usual red puff of smoke.
You might not care if your IMs or downloads arrive a couple dozen milliseconds later but when you're playing Guitar Hero, Street Fighter, R-Type or any other fast-paced game where reaction time is important, you'll be cursing IP to high heavens.
It takes time to strip data layers and get to the tender nugget of information inside. You have to wait for missing or delayed packets and wait some more for the stream to be split, encoded, reconstituted and decoded before it can be displayed.
In this case, it's much better to minimize latency, increase bandwidth and not care if the occasional pixel displays the wrong thing. At 2 Million pixels per second rate , It's statistically invisible and completely within human tolerance.
Perfect data integrity is unnecessary when dealing with an organic brain. Now, I've been assuming you'd use TCP to correct any errors. If you just use basic datagrams to store the tiny portions of the image and are willing to accept the occasional corrupted data, you will not have any significant latency issues. The problem is that because of the overhead required for packetization, each datagram will have to carry information on dozens or hundreds of pixels at a minimum to provide the necessary bandwidth, and all that information will be destroyed with each delayed or lost packet.
And btw, Component cables are just as good as DVI. Yep, analog and all.
Who the hell modded this informative? This poster has obviously not RTFA and is just trolling. The post is factually incorrect.
And by the way, Do you know how long it takes to copy gigabytes of redundant movie data to an iPod?
I believe most of broadband users have download speeds of 1.5Mbps or more. That's more than enough to comfortably stream a 480p movie using an mpeg4 codec (h264 if the box is able, XviD equivalent if not). There is absolutely no reason the movie couldn't start playing within 10 seconds and keep going without interruptions. A combination of highspeed servers and peers will work. Ah, and the movies wouldn't take more than 1000 MB.
Don't get me wrong. A $300 box and $6 movie rentals is a ripoff. Using people's upload without compensating them is a ripoff. The quality of the movies will have to be inferior to DVD for the bitrates to remain acceptable. And ontop of that, DRM!
The only enticing part of this is the instant gratification. There are better and cheaper illegal alternatives out there. DRM-free, any resolution you want, biggest media selection in the world. And honestly, I don't see how anyone could feel guilty using those alternatives, given the way certain content producing companies treat their customers. Just because they're not doing anything illegal (Duh, they can actually buy laws. Remember the 20 year extension of copyright? How about the DMCA? How about going to jail for taping a movie in a theater?) does not mean they are any more ethical than the pirates they try to demonize.
Who the hell modded this informative? This poster has obviously not RTFA and is just trolling. The post is factually incorrect.
And by the way, Do you know how long it takes to copy gigabytes of redundant movie data to an iPod?
I believe most of broadband users have download speeds of 1.5Mbps or more. That's more than enough to comfortably stream a 480p movie using an mpeg4 codec (h264 if the box is able, XviD equivalent if not). There is absolutely no reason the movie couldn't start playing within 10 seconds and keep going without interruptions. A combination of highspeed servers and peers will work. Ah, and the movies wouldn't take more than 1000 MB.
Don't get me wrong. A $300 box and $6 movie rentals is a ripoff. Using people's upload without compensating them is a ripoff. The quality of the movies will have to be inferior to DVD for the bitrates to remain acceptable. And ontop of that, DRM!
The only enticing part of this is the instant gratification. There are better and cheaper illegal alternatives out there. DRM-free, any resolution you want, biggest media selection in the world. And honestly, I don't see how anyone could feel guilty using those alternatives, given the way certain content producing companies treat their customers. Just because they're not doing anything illegal (Duh, they can actually buy laws. Remember the 20 year extension of copyright? How about the DMCA? How about going to jail for taping a movie in a theater?) does not mean they are any more ethical than the pirates they try to demonize.
Fuck them.
Yeah, and to make it even more fair, they could let people who've never used either O.S. review them so that OSX doesn't suffer from lack of familiarity. Unfortunately, most people reading that article already have a computer and 90%+ of them run windows. It makes sense that the review would look at things, at least partially, from the perspective of a windows user.
No, seriously. I can see why you titled this "Two 360 titles" instead of giving the names of the actual games. Nobody would have recognized them of course because they are obscure and by no means AAA titles. This, in turn, means that this "news story" has no value whatsoever and I suspect the only reason it got approved is because it falls in the "bad news for m$" category.
My thoughts exactly. Bad news all the time is just too much for anyone who gives a damn. You either stop paying attention to them, become cold or become depressed.
Your words have much truth in them. I wish it were not so but it is. The hypocrisy you describe is why people who see all the BS surrounding them are disillusioned with politics.
Telling people not to cheat because it's lame is tantamount to telling thieves not to steal because "it's wrong".
They know it harms other people and they do NOT care. No amount of words is going to change that and there is no point bothering. Cheating is a fundamental part of human nature. Maybe it's a good thing. A small amount of cheaters forces the rest of us to create protections, increase security, be more vigilant and "arm up". It makes us as a society more resilient and better prepared just as germs made us develop an immune system.
Diversity is vital to the survival of a species as anyone who's taken a biology course knows. Some of that diversity means cheaters, psychopaths, rapists and lawyers. They are a necessary evil and their contributions are vital to the very survival of the human race. They day everybody stops cheating, we should all be scared, very scared.
In conclusion, we really should be thanking cheaters for their invaluable services.
And right after we thank them, we should hang them. Afterall, if they got caught, they're weak and deserve to die.
Slashdot Mirror
What is this nonsense? Why would Youtube deliberately use an inferior video codec for EVERYBODY not using an iPhone?
This is what the apple website says:
To achieve higher video quality and longer battery life on mobile devices, YouTube has begun encoding their videos in the advanced H.264 format, and iPhone will be the first mobile device to use the H.264-encoded videos. Over 10,000 videos will be available on June 29, and YouTube will be adding more each week until their full catalog of videos is available in the H.264 format this fall.
What it sounds like to me is that the videos encoded to H.264 would be smaller in size (the quality would be the same or lesser than the originals you and me watch on PC) and thus use WiFi less and increase battery life. Additionally, the hardware assisted h.264 decode also saves power (at the cost of extra h/w). Furthermore, ONLY a small portion of youtube videos will be available initially.
But I'd be glad to be corrected.
Excellent post. I think you've just concisely given the best case for socialized insurance I've read in this thread so far.
Getting a warrant for your ancestry DNA file or for a swab of your mouth is the same thing.
The idea is actually very appealing to me. The only problem is the high price of the service and the difficulty of it. Very few around the world will sign up , so few that I predict it will be useless for a long, long time.
That is fucking brilliant man! You are the savior of politics! It would also weed out candidates with weak hearts who can't handle the stress.
I was taking the cell charges into account. $1200 for a 2-year contract. I assumed that there would only be one $99 iPhone plan available with random access voicemail, data plan and other such features. I'm paying $30/month for my cellphone right now. Prepaid. Assuming unlimited data and clever ajax apps that manage not to run sluggishly on edge, I might consider spending up to maybe $80/month. Not for an MP3 player or a cellphone but for an appealing organizer and internet browser. Unlikely though.
You're forced to pay around $100/ month. That's $50 more than the average cell plan. Over the two mandatory years, that's $1200.
This means that for many, the handset itself ends up costing them $1800. $600 down and 24 monthly payments of $50.
I can justify paying maybe $1000 AND lock myself in a 2 year plan at $50/month for the coolness of the iPhone. I won't pay $1800. That's madness unless you actually need the expensive plan.
But I figure a lot of people are going to delude themselves and regret it later...
Ok, now address the rest of his points or concede they are valid, What's with the selective answering? It is not polite or reasonable.
If you don't want DRM then stop pirating, you can't have it both ways.
My neighbour stopped pirating because he didn't want DRM. Unfortunately, when he drank the rooster blood, the moon wasn't full and no matter how many times he shouts "DRM BEGONE FOR I AM PURE!", the DRM refuses to vanish in the usual red puff of smoke.
Any ideas on what he should do next?
Thanks!
As someone who struggles to have faith, I find some of your assertions interesting. I would like to chat with you sometime.
gozu at h-o-t-m-a-i-l dot com is my messenger account.
Hehehe. You are one funny man or woman, consistently. Bienvenu(e) to my friend's list.
Yes by god! The man speaks the truth. Fix that stupid bug already.
Saying that muslims deny the holocaust is like saying that americans believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy.
It just ain't so.
An excellent post and an excellent signature. I wish I had mod points.
Simply put: latency.
You might not care if your IMs or downloads arrive a couple dozen milliseconds later but when you're playing Guitar Hero, Street Fighter, R-Type or any other fast-paced game where reaction time is important, you'll be cursing IP to high heavens.
It takes time to strip data layers and get to the tender nugget of information inside. You have to wait for missing or delayed packets and wait some more for the stream to be split, encoded, reconstituted and decoded before it can be displayed.
In this case, it's much better to minimize latency, increase bandwidth and not care if the occasional pixel displays the wrong thing. At 2 Million pixels per second rate , It's statistically invisible and completely within human tolerance.
Perfect data integrity is unnecessary when dealing with an organic brain. Now, I've been assuming you'd use TCP to correct any errors. If you just use basic datagrams to store the tiny portions of the image and are willing to accept the occasional corrupted data, you will not have any significant latency issues. The problem is that because of the overhead required for packetization, each datagram will have to carry information on dozens or hundreds of pixels at a minimum to provide the necessary bandwidth, and all that information will be destroyed with each delayed or lost packet.
And btw, Component cables are just as good as DVI. Yep, analog and all.
hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!
Oh, how I would love a Final Fantasy Tactics 2 on the 360...with online play..and coop. Ah, the possibilities...think of the possibilities.
That was a most excellent post. People like you are the reason I haven't given up on slashdot. Thank you.
Who the hell modded this informative? This poster has obviously not RTFA and is just trolling. The post is factually incorrect.
And by the way, Do you know how long it takes to copy gigabytes of redundant movie data to an iPod?
I believe most of broadband users have download speeds of 1.5Mbps or more. That's more than enough to comfortably stream a 480p movie using an mpeg4 codec (h264 if the box is able, XviD equivalent if not). There is absolutely no reason the movie couldn't start playing within 10 seconds and keep going without interruptions. A combination of highspeed servers and peers will work. Ah, and the movies wouldn't take more than 1000 MB.
Don't get me wrong. A $300 box and $6 movie rentals is a ripoff. Using people's upload without compensating them is a ripoff. The quality of the movies will have to be inferior to DVD for the bitrates to remain acceptable. And ontop of that, DRM!
The only enticing part of this is the instant gratification. There are better and cheaper illegal alternatives out there. DRM-free, any resolution you want, biggest media selection in the world. And honestly, I don't see how anyone could feel guilty using those alternatives, given the way certain content producing companies treat their customers. Just because they're not doing anything illegal (Duh, they can actually buy laws. Remember the 20 year extension of copyright? How about the DMCA? How about going to jail for taping a movie in a theater?) does not mean they are any more ethical than the pirates they try to demonize.
Fuck them.
Who the hell modded this informative? This poster has obviously not RTFA and is just trolling. The post is factually incorrect. And by the way, Do you know how long it takes to copy gigabytes of redundant movie data to an iPod? I believe most of broadband users have download speeds of 1.5Mbps or more. That's more than enough to comfortably stream a 480p movie using an mpeg4 codec (h264 if the box is able, XviD equivalent if not). There is absolutely no reason the movie couldn't start playing within 10 seconds and keep going without interruptions. A combination of highspeed servers and peers will work. Ah, and the movies wouldn't take more than 1000 MB. Don't get me wrong. A $300 box and $6 movie rentals is a ripoff. Using people's upload without compensating them is a ripoff. The quality of the movies will have to be inferior to DVD for the bitrates to remain acceptable. And ontop of that, DRM! The only enticing part of this is the instant gratification. There are better and cheaper illegal alternatives out there. DRM-free, any resolution you want, biggest media selection in the world. And honestly, I don't see how anyone could feel guilty using those alternatives, given the way certain content producing companies treat their customers. Just because they're not doing anything illegal (Duh, they can actually buy laws. Remember the 20 year extension of copyright? How about the DMCA? How about going to jail for taping a movie in a theater?) does not mean they are any more ethical than the pirates they try to demonize. Fuck them.
Yeah, and to make it even more fair, they could let people who've never used either O.S. review them so that OSX doesn't suffer from lack of familiarity. Unfortunately, most people reading that article already have a computer and 90%+ of them run windows. It makes sense that the review would look at things, at least partially, from the perspective of a windows user.
No, seriously. I can see why you titled this "Two 360 titles" instead of giving the names of the actual games. Nobody would have recognized them of course because they are obscure and by no means AAA titles. This, in turn, means that this "news story" has no value whatsoever and I suspect the only reason it got approved is because it falls in the "bad news for m$" category.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
good post. I couldn't have put it better.
My thoughts exactly. Bad news all the time is just too much for anyone who gives a damn. You either stop paying attention to them, become cold or become depressed.
Well fuck me sideways. You're right. You're absolutely spot on. This explains everything. One only has to watch Fox News to see it.
Thank you for a truly brilliant post.
ps: You need to update your URL. Link is broken.
Your words have much truth in them. I wish it were not so but it is. The hypocrisy you describe is why people who see all the BS surrounding them are disillusioned with politics.
Telling people not to cheat because it's lame is tantamount to telling thieves not to steal because "it's wrong".
They know it harms other people and they do NOT care. No amount of words is going to change that and there is no point bothering. Cheating is a fundamental part of human nature. Maybe it's a good thing. A small amount of cheaters forces the rest of us to create protections, increase security, be more vigilant and "arm up". It makes us as a society more resilient and better prepared just as germs made us develop an immune system.
Diversity is vital to the survival of a species as anyone who's taken a biology course knows. Some of that diversity means cheaters, psychopaths, rapists and lawyers. They are a necessary evil and their contributions are vital to the very survival of the human race. They day everybody stops cheating, we should all be scared, very scared.
In conclusion, we really should be thanking cheaters for their invaluable services.
And right after we thank them, we should hang them. Afterall, if they got caught, they're weak and deserve to die.