You are incorrect. To understand this better one needs to actually have read the Family Viewing Act. It contains some rather surprising, and refreshing, exceptions to copyright laws and content delivery restrictions. What Vid Angel and others are doing seems to be highly protected under this law.
The strategy the content companies have taken is the "bring me a rock" strategy where every company before and after vid angel that tries to sell bowlderized films, the company says yes that's all legal if you do it correctly but you are doing it wrong. They then fail to spell out what to them would be doing it right. Just everybody is doing it wrong.
I really enjoyed vid angel's original model because it made is affordable to strip out content of films that I was uncomfortable showing kids in the house (not just my kids). Their later model was much less convenient so I didn't use it.
Ever notice that $5 or so "internet recovery fee" on your bill. It's not for the govt taxes. It's for AT&T's shareholders. But it's not part of the advertised price even though it is part of the price. It's supposed to be for upgrading the network but that isn't happening. They should be forced to give back 20 years of internet recovery fees.
it's a brilliant innnovation to have these cameras on the back so that the zombies walking around starting at their phones can see what is in front of them.
I wondered the same thing. First it's not even possible in the sense that it takes longer than a microsecond to collect the light for the image. But ignoring that, I suspect that the process is highly parallel and highly local in pixels so perhaps a GPU can do the job making the impossible processing throughtput requirements possible. Even so, The clock rate out of the camera chip itself would seem like a formidable barrier. I wonder if it's possible the camera chip itself has some logic in it. That would probably save a lot of energy too, doing in situ.
However I'm cynically guessing some software engineer here is quoting some algorithmic step's time ignoring the image formation time, the time it takes to even refresh the screen (after the unlock) or load the data into memory.
Having a lot of mind rotting time filling trash in easy reach leads to compulsive rather then deliberative TV watching. Pay as you go has the important psychological benefit of me thinking to myself do I really want to pay $4.99 to watch that movie? This brings to mind that I'm also paying with my lost time. Sometimes the answer is yes but sometimes it's no. And it's often "No" in cases where had I already paid to see (via the cable bill) I probably would have just tried to get my money's worth rather than go outside and listen to the birds and stare at trees.
It's like if soda's were free and plumbed to your house and all the junk food machines were free too. How often would you skip going to the corner store for some veggies and just take the free corn syrup.
Cord cutting leads to consuming better not just replacing one bundle with another. It isn't about saving money and the fact that it costs "more" ends up costing you less of your time wasted.
That's why I switched to Voip for my land line. Of course VOIP is more fragile that POTS but since I have a cell phone too I'm all ready robust on the coms department. By the way I use OOMA for my voip and am very satisfied with it for years. Pay once to get the box, then it's about $5 a month to pay for E911 and the local telecom fees. You can pay ooma more if you need extra services so it's full featured if you need that or bare bones if you don't.
This is my favorite Item on my DSL (Century Link) phone bill. What the heck is that. It's not a govt tax. $5 goes to Century link. So why isn't it part of the advertised price. If it's a gov't allowance they must earmark to pay for expansion then why hasn't my DSL service improved in 20 years?
I also wonder why companies that do sell what they sell at the advertised price (like T-mobile does) don't make a bigger deal of their honesty (at least honesty about the cost) because customer's hate these creeping fees
I assume they have tested this but to be a good antigen often you need to also have the proper decoration of the particle with lipids and sugars. I would doubt that plants could provide the right version of these for animal antigens. But it's possible this shows it's not neccessary or they have a way around it in the case of polio.
Even more intriguing is the potential for a flu vaccine. What makes that intriguing is that flu vaccine is often raised in eggs. And birds (hence eggs) are the natural resevoir of flu. So there's some risks associated with the use of the native host as the agent for growing the intentionally harmelss vaccine. And there might even be some selectivity on the animals part for things that are more bird adapted than others. With plants one presumably avoids that and the risk of a human catching a plant virus seem negligible.
Bit coin is not limited to that rate of transactions. It's rate limit is infinitely higher than Visa. What you are confusing is transactions and mining events. Mining events happen slowly as you indicate. But each event can process an unlimited number of pending transactions. Thus the latency of transactions is ten minutes but the bandwidth is unlimited-- it's like a station wagon full of microSd cards has higher bandwidth than the internet just high latency
First how does this split prevent double spending ? Each block chain initially has all the wealth records of everyone. So now if I pay bob 1 bitcoin by posting the transaction to BTcash my wallet over on bitcoinOriginal isn't debited. Why can't I now pay Anna the same coin but posting the transaction on btOriginal?
Second question is about your clever derivative idea. Someone has to hold they key to the Reserve backing the derivative. What happens if they decide to spend the reserve?
Their paper seems to ignore that this technique isomorphic to the well known phase unwrapping problem. The hard part has always been implementing it at the pixel level. This requires extra transistors, calibrations (because every pixel needs to be the same) and perfect uniformity in manufacturing, as well as a new source of noise. Finally the mathematical problem produces nasty noise unless you can also implement hystersis at the point of the amplitude wrap. If you don't it's going to suck, and if you do then you have even more transistors to implement for each pixel since it's now having to be stateful (know it's earlier state to implement the hysteresis)
Saying something is 74% accurate without stating false positive and false negative rates falls apart for rare diseases.
Here's an example: I have actually have a better method that can distingish between a control group and the real cases with 98.8% accuracy. I'm not kidding. All I do is I always say the person does not have the disease. Since 98.8% of people do not have it, I'm automatically correct 98.8% of the time.
My understanding is that the internet has always had a provision for marking Quality of Service (QOS) on packets. But I've never understood how that is supposed to work. And to what extent is this different from the whole anti-neutral fast lane.
My past thinking is that the difference is precisely this: Neutrality means content neutrality. If streaming movies need a higher QOS not to stutter then they could be placed in a lower latency channel without violating net neutrality, provided every movie content provider had equal access to claim that QOS.
Where it gets fuzzy is if you have to pay for QOS. Does an ISP have to charge every movie provider in the above example the exact same rate? If it's the same rate Could they for example barter special deals for their "partners" and claim "equivalent" compensation through phoney booked charges?
or is QOS meant to be done without charging. How does one not have a tragedy of the commons if it's free to mark your packets urgent.
Slashdot Mirror
You are incorrect. To understand this better one needs to actually have read the Family Viewing Act. It contains some rather surprising, and refreshing, exceptions to copyright laws and content delivery restrictions. What Vid Angel and others are doing seems to be highly protected under this law.
The strategy the content companies have taken is the "bring me a rock" strategy where every company before and after vid angel that tries to sell bowlderized films, the company says yes that's all legal if you do it correctly but you are doing it wrong. They then fail to spell out what to them would be doing it right. Just everybody is doing it wrong.
I really enjoyed vid angel's original model because it made is affordable to strip out content of films that I was uncomfortable showing kids in the house (not just my kids). Their later model was much less convenient so I didn't use it.
http://www.dslreports.com/show...
Ever notice that $5 or so "internet recovery fee" on your bill. It's not for the govt taxes. It's for AT&T's shareholders. But it's not part of the advertised price even though it is part of the price. It's supposed to be for upgrading the network but that isn't happening. They should be forced to give back 20 years of internet recovery fees.
it's a trap!
it's a brilliant innnovation to have these cameras on the back so that the zombies walking around starting at their phones can see what is in front of them.
The new IPX 9 standard makes it less soggy when you dip it in milk
I wondered the same thing. First it's not even possible in the sense that it takes longer than a microsecond to collect the light for the image. But ignoring that, I suspect that the process is highly parallel and highly local in pixels so perhaps a GPU can do the job making the impossible processing throughtput requirements possible. Even so, The clock rate out of the camera chip itself would seem like a formidable barrier. I wonder if it's possible the camera chip itself has some logic in it. That would probably save a lot of energy too, doing in situ.
However I'm cynically guessing some software engineer here is quoting some algorithmic step's time ignoring the image formation time, the time it takes to even refresh the screen (after the unlock) or load the data into memory.
Having a lot of mind rotting time filling trash in easy reach leads to compulsive rather then deliberative TV watching. Pay as you go has the important psychological benefit of me thinking to myself do I really want to pay $4.99 to watch that movie? This brings to mind that I'm also paying with my lost time. Sometimes the answer is yes but sometimes it's no. And it's often "No" in cases where had I already paid to see (via the cable bill) I probably would have just tried to get my money's worth rather than go outside and listen to the birds and stare at trees.
It's like if soda's were free and plumbed to your house and all the junk food machines were free too. How often would you skip going to the corner store for some veggies and just take the free corn syrup.
Cord cutting leads to consuming better not just replacing one bundle with another. It isn't about saving money and the fact that it costs "more" ends up costing you less of your time wasted.
Netflix isn't tied to a location so how can the City know? Couldn't I just tell netflix I live in some state without taxes?
That's why I switched to Voip for my land line. Of course VOIP is more fragile that POTS but since I have a cell phone too I'm all ready robust on the coms department. By the way I use OOMA for my voip and am very satisfied with it for years. Pay once to get the box, then it's about $5 a month to pay for E911 and the local telecom fees. You can pay ooma more if you need extra services so it's full featured if you need that or bare bones if you don't.
This is my favorite Item on my DSL (Century Link) phone bill. What the heck is that. It's not a govt tax. $5 goes to Century link. So why isn't it part of the advertised price. If it's a gov't allowance they must earmark to pay for expansion then why hasn't my DSL service improved in 20 years?
I also wonder why companies that do sell what they sell at the advertised price (like T-mobile does) don't make a bigger deal of their honesty (at least honesty about the cost) because customer's hate these creeping fees
I assume they have tested this but to be a good antigen often you need to also have the proper decoration of the particle with lipids and sugars. I would doubt that plants could provide the right version of these for animal antigens. But it's possible this shows it's not neccessary or they have a way around it in the case of polio.
Even more intriguing is the potential for a flu vaccine. What makes that intriguing is that flu vaccine is often raised in eggs. And birds (hence eggs) are the natural resevoir of flu. So there's some risks associated with the use of the native host as the agent for growing the intentionally harmelss vaccine. And there might even be some selectivity on the animals part for things that are more bird adapted than others. With plants one presumably avoids that and the risk of a human catching a plant virus seem negligible.
The bit coin mining would be free since you'd be paying to heat the building with electrictiy anyhow (Hydro power).
This is not money for access but rather to make sure Bing can't have the default spot.
It's not illegal in the US for the NSA to spy on other countries. And it's not illegal in Russia to subvert elections in the US.
No the block chain just hashes the old block chain and truncated it
Bit coin is not limited to that rate of transactions. It's rate limit is infinitely higher than Visa. What you are confusing is transactions and mining events. Mining events happen slowly as you indicate. But each event can process an unlimited number of pending transactions. Thus the latency of transactions is ten minutes but the bandwidth is unlimited-- it's like a station wagon full of microSd cards has higher bandwidth than the internet just high latency
First how does this split prevent double spending ? Each block chain initially has all the wealth records of everyone. So now if I pay bob 1 bitcoin by posting the transaction to BTcash my wallet over on bitcoinOriginal isn't debited. Why can't I now pay Anna the same coin but posting the transaction on btOriginal?
Second question is about your clever derivative idea. Someone has to hold they key to the Reserve backing the derivative. What happens if they decide to spend the reserve?
For example Py-CRust.
Why is this on slashdot? how did it pass the firehose?
Their paper seems to ignore that this technique isomorphic to the well known phase unwrapping problem. The hard part has always been implementing it at the pixel level. This requires extra transistors, calibrations (because every pixel needs to be the same) and perfect uniformity in manufacturing, as well as a new source of noise. Finally the mathematical problem produces nasty noise unless you can also implement hystersis at the point of the amplitude wrap. If you don't it's going to suck, and if you do then you have even more transistors to implement for each pixel since it's now having to be stateful (know it's earlier state to implement the hysteresis)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jo...
https://www.dsprelated.com/fre...
This is what phase unwrapping algorithms do. THey have their own flaws too.
Saying something is 74% accurate without stating false positive and false negative rates falls apart for rare diseases.
Here's an example: I have actually have a better method that can distingish between a control group and the real cases with 98.8% accuracy. I'm not kidding. All I do is I always say the person does not have the disease. Since 98.8% of people do not have it, I'm automatically correct 98.8% of the time.
That's a good example and I'd like to use it. Do you have a citation for that?
My understanding is that the internet has always had a provision for marking Quality of Service (QOS) on packets. But I've never understood how that is supposed to work. And to what extent is this different from the whole anti-neutral fast lane.
My past thinking is that the difference is precisely this: Neutrality means content neutrality. If streaming movies need a higher QOS not to stutter then they could be placed in a lower latency channel without violating net neutrality, provided every movie content provider had equal access to claim that QOS.
Where it gets fuzzy is if you have to pay for QOS. Does an ISP have to charge every movie provider in the above example the exact same rate? If it's the same rate Could they for example barter special deals for their "partners" and claim "equivalent" compensation through phoney booked charges?
or is QOS meant to be done without charging. How does one not have a tragedy of the commons if it's free to mark your packets urgent.
lots I don't understand here.