Well if you read the article and not the summary, the authors are discussing that there doesn't seem to be any fundamental changes coming anytime soon. Sure newer codecs are coming out but they are all the same approach. It's like if we discussing public key cryptography and the algorithms used. Imagine if RSA was the only real technique and the only new changes coming out were merely larger keys and that other techniques like elliptic curves didn't exist.
No in this case "Coding" is the correct word as the subject is video encoding and decoding as well as the standards, approaches, and models. Coding for short.
Seriously the title and summary would have been much better and easier to understand if they used a single word "Research": "The End of Video Coding Research". The article discusses that while video coding use is pretty much everywhere, there hasn't been much progress or change made into newer standards despite lots of interest and investment. New codecs are coming out but there are all variations of the "block-based hybrid video coding structure" of MPEG-2/H.264/VP9, etc. Netflix is one company that would benefit from newer encoding standards.
There's tons of fortunes tied up in those assets and it's not easy to divest
Oh really? I can pick any fund I want with my investment. I can also look at the makeup of each fund. I can pick fossil free funds. I can even pick funds that are full of fossil fuels. More like it's lazy investment used as a reason not to use solar. There were lots of money invested in housing at one time but you don't see any argument made against companies trying to make houses from cheaper/green materials/whatever.
. People's retirements are heavily vested in them.
Why would anyone with sense bet on one industry for their retirement? People should diversify for retirement. This is not a great argument against solar as a good argument against terrible investment advice.
Why do people hack anything? In the case of current smart phones one primary motive is money. Does Blackberry have enough of a market share for hackers to consider? No.
Another is the for the sake of it. All Blackberry has done with that kind of statement is paint a big target on them.
First of all it's not. In the best conditions with the best film and best cameras you may get 6k with a 35mm film scan but increasing the resolution also increases the grain. Second we are taking about images that came satellites that have been in orbit for nearly 20 years. What does film have to do with anything?
[sarcasm]I mean who would think that nearly 20 year old technology would have low resolution? I mean everything should be at least 8K or NASA isn't doing their jobs.[/sarcasm]
The thing is that Apple did help but they did only what they legally could do like handing over all the data Apple had. What they were not going to do was circumvent their own security features and what they designed their system to do was protect their customers.
Yes. One is a flaw that can occur in programming and one is a use of an intentional feature of the design of the programming.
No, one is a flaw and one is the exploitation of a flaw. A privilege escalation is not an "intentional use" of feature by definition. Please read up on what it is.
Of course you've now shifted focus to the programming and not the transactions. The transactions exercising the intentional feature of the design of the programming are not in any way different, especially from a technical perspective. One merely has a "disagreement" as to whether a block was solved by a miner, or whether a coin has actually been spent. The fact that you consider mining the block or wanting the transaction spending the coin to complete to be a prerequisite is irrelevant to the system and design.
Of course you missed the point entirely. The difference as I said are by definition. The difference is intent and use. Please read above. The difference A programmer doesn't intend to have buffer overflows in his program but a hacker can take advantage of them. A 51% attack is an entity trying to take control of the network where a disagreement is what may normally occur when mining happens.
Please show me anywhere in the film where Luke got his training between ESB and ROTJ and if he received additional training. It is not told in the film. You can't, can you? Shadows Of the Empire which fills what happened in the Star Wars universe between ESB and ROTJ wasn't started until 1996 (15 years after ROTJ was released). Most of Luke's additional knowledge came from a book he found in Ben's hut on Tattoine specifically how to construct a lightsaber. But NONE of that was told in the film. It wasn't told till 15 years after the film. Or is your knowledge of Star Wars lacking?
According to Kasdan and Lucas, about a year.
Citation Needed. And was that IN THE FILM when ROTJ was released?
Luke didn't get any more training from Yoda after he left for Bespin. It's clear in ROTJ that he is only now returning to complete his training and Yoda tells him it is already complete--yet he scoffs when Luke says, "so I am a Jedi!"
We don't know what training Luke got between ESB and ROTJ. We only know it wasn't from Yoda. We also don't know for sure how much time has passed. I'm sure somewhere through novels or comics it was filled in but it wasn't told in the movies. We do know that Luke's powers and training have grown enough for him to build his own lightsaber.
Vader was toying with Luke in Cloud City but it's Luke's temptation to anger that lets him beat Vader in ROTJ, it was not Vader letting Luke win.
My point was that the original trilogy was not exactly clear when it came how powerful each Force sensitive character was. The Emperor was supposed to be much more powerful than Vader but was easily killed by him. I don't know if Lucas had decided or planned out each character either. Of course much of the universe written after ROTJ was negated by Lucas when he did the prequels.
I love how you believe that "disagreements" and "bogus transactions" are in any way different, especially in any technical way regarding recording into the blockchain.
They are different in the same technical sense that a buffer overflow is not a privilege escalation. One is a flaw that can occur in programming and one is an attack meant to undermine a system. The intent and use are different. Disagreements in Bitcoin can occur when two competing miners solve a block at nearly the same time and how to resolve who should be awarded. A 51% attack means that some entity can effectively control the whole network and all transactions. Do you see the difference now?
The problem isn't about rules. The rules were originally designed that for disagreements so that transactions 51% of the group decides a dispute. Where this becomes an attack vector is it is possible for a large enough group to create bogus transactions and get them accepted into the chain. After a time, the transactions become permanent and cannot be changed.
Yeah, Vader let Luke cut his hand off just to make him feel powerful. Idiot.
In my version of history Vader did not have his hand cut off until ROTJ after Luke "completed" his training according to Yoda. Also in ROTJ, the all mighty Emperor Palpatine who took out the entire Jedi order in the prequels was easily thrown to his death by Vader. The emperor couldn't sense Vader's change or heart or force pull himself to safety. But that's my version. Are we talking about the same original trilogy? What is your version of history?
Chances are you already have Apple software on your device as Apple has contributed to many open source projects. For example, Chrome is forked from WebKit which Apple forked from KHTML.
Well let's start with the first thing in that originally FaceTime was wifi only. It added LTE later depending on which carrier allowed it. Second, my understanding that viLTE was hardly used because the carriers refuse to allow phones to interoperate. So even if Apple adopted it, two people couldn't use if were on different carriers regardless if they had the same iPhone or Android or Windows phone. The only way to get around it was to use 3rd party apps which enforce their own segregation as they may not interoperate between apps. For example Skype works with other Skype devices but not WebEx
Why Apple had to invent their own thing instead of just picking some standard, nobody says. But it's not too hard to guess the usual reasons for this kind of crap.
Probably the same reason why some of the 3rd party video conferencing apps also do not employ a standard and operate among each other.
Does Facetime actually bring anything useful to the table? I was under the impression that it was just a "me too" videoconference app that is limited to apple only so that Apple could continue to have their walled garden. Does it actually have some valuable and unique feature that I should be coveting?
The first assumption that everyone makes is that Product A was meant to compete with Product B. In this case, I don't think FaceTime was ever meant to replace multi-user business video conferencing apps like Skype and WebEx. It was meant to be an alternate to consumer phone calls by adding video. But it worked over Wifi so consumers didn't have to use minutes. Android has many alternates to FaceTime including Google Hangouts which debuted after FaceTime; however, every 3rd party app might suffer from the same lack of inter-operability with other apps.
Luke didn't want to harm either of them and had to hold back. One of these doesn't fit your narrative. In Empire you could argue that Luke held his own against Vader after a few weeks of training but that isn't the reality. Vader was toying with him the whole time.
How was Luke "saved" by Rey? Luke went to the island to die. Luke never left the island. Yes, he helped his sister in the end but he did it his own way.
Poe: risk taker, mutineer, failure. Saved by Holdo.
How was Poe "saved" by Holdo? He explicitly does not do anything that he (as a flight officer) should do. The only person that might have saved Poe was Leia who stuns him instead of killing him outright when he mutinies. And Poe isn't a smuggler like Han; he, again, is an officer of the Rebellion.
Finn: coward, failure. Saved by Rose.
Did you watch the first film? Finn was a coward running away from the First Order. His character is always looking for a way out for himself.
Snoke: Psychopathic tyrant, failure.
As was the Emperor before him.
Hux: Evil bastard, failure.
Just like the successful Grand Moff Tarkin and the whiny Admiral Motti? The only different is Hux is a combination of the two.
Kylo: Trained force user beaten by an untrained one, failure.
While heavily injured and bleeding all of the battlefield. Sure.
Rose: Nobody turned hero.
You mean like a moisture farmer from Tattoine who saved the Rebellion? You mean like a shady smuggler who saved the Rebellion many times? What about a non-descript utility droid that seems to know how to do everything.
Holdo: Saved the rebellion.
Yes and if her character was a man would you say the same thing? What does that say about you if the gender matters to you?
The article says a weight reduction as well as probably increased structural integrity.
Windows have to be engineered into the plane and are another point of failure as noted by the recent Southwest airlines death.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if you read the article and not the summary, the authors are discussing that there doesn't seem to be any fundamental changes coming anytime soon. Sure newer codecs are coming out but they are all the same approach. It's like if we discussing public key cryptography and the algorithms used. Imagine if RSA was the only real technique and the only new changes coming out were merely larger keys and that other techniques like elliptic curves didn't exist.
No in this case "Coding" is the correct word as the subject is video encoding and decoding as well as the standards, approaches, and models. Coding for short.
Seriously the title and summary would have been much better and easier to understand if they used a single word "Research": "The End of Video Coding Research". The article discusses that while video coding use is pretty much everywhere, there hasn't been much progress or change made into newer standards despite lots of interest and investment. New codecs are coming out but there are all variations of the "block-based hybrid video coding structure" of MPEG-2/H.264/VP9, etc. Netflix is one company that would benefit from newer encoding standards.
Yes but the public doesn't have to follow them or heed to their investment choices especially when it comes to their own retirement.
There's tons of fortunes tied up in those assets and it's not easy to divest
Oh really? I can pick any fund I want with my investment. I can also look at the makeup of each fund. I can pick fossil free funds. I can even pick funds that are full of fossil fuels. More like it's lazy investment used as a reason not to use solar. There were lots of money invested in housing at one time but you don't see any argument made against companies trying to make houses from cheaper/green materials/whatever.
. People's retirements are heavily vested in them.
Why would anyone with sense bet on one industry for their retirement? People should diversify for retirement. This is not a great argument against solar as a good argument against terrible investment advice.
Why do people hack anything? In the case of current smart phones one primary motive is money. Does Blackberry have enough of a market share for hackers to consider? No.
Another is the for the sake of it. All Blackberry has done with that kind of statement is paint a big target on them.
First of all it's not. In the best conditions with the best film and best cameras you may get 6k with a 35mm film scan but increasing the resolution also increases the grain. Second we are taking about images that came satellites that have been in orbit for nearly 20 years. What does film have to do with anything?
[sarcasm]I mean who would think that nearly 20 year old technology would have low resolution? I mean everything should be at least 8K or NASA isn't doing their jobs.[/sarcasm]
The thing is that Apple did help but they did only what they legally could do like handing over all the data Apple had. What they were not going to do was circumvent their own security features and what they designed their system to do was protect their customers.
Blackberry: "We have the most secure Android smartphone."
Hackers: "Challenge accepted"
Yes. One is a flaw that can occur in programming and one is a use of an intentional feature of the design of the programming.
No, one is a flaw and one is the exploitation of a flaw. A privilege escalation is not an "intentional use" of feature by definition. Please read up on what it is.
Of course you've now shifted focus to the programming and not the transactions. The transactions exercising the intentional feature of the design of the programming are not in any way different, especially from a technical perspective. One merely has a "disagreement" as to whether a block was solved by a miner, or whether a coin has actually been spent. The fact that you consider mining the block or wanting the transaction spending the coin to complete to be a prerequisite is irrelevant to the system and design.
Of course you missed the point entirely. The difference as I said are by definition. The difference is intent and use. Please read above. The difference A programmer doesn't intend to have buffer overflows in his program but a hacker can take advantage of them. A 51% attack is an entity trying to take control of the network where a disagreement is what may normally occur when mining happens.
You really are an idiot.
Please show me anywhere in the film where Luke got his training between ESB and ROTJ and if he received additional training. It is not told in the film. You can't, can you? Shadows Of the Empire which fills what happened in the Star Wars universe between ESB and ROTJ wasn't started until 1996 (15 years after ROTJ was released). Most of Luke's additional knowledge came from a book he found in Ben's hut on Tattoine specifically how to construct a lightsaber. But NONE of that was told in the film. It wasn't told till 15 years after the film. Or is your knowledge of Star Wars lacking?
According to Kasdan and Lucas, about a year.
Citation Needed. And was that IN THE FILM when ROTJ was released?
Luke didn't get any more training from Yoda after he left for Bespin. It's clear in ROTJ that he is only now returning to complete his training and Yoda tells him it is already complete--yet he scoffs when Luke says, "so I am a Jedi!"
We don't know what training Luke got between ESB and ROTJ. We only know it wasn't from Yoda. We also don't know for sure how much time has passed. I'm sure somewhere through novels or comics it was filled in but it wasn't told in the movies. We do know that Luke's powers and training have grown enough for him to build his own lightsaber.
Vader was toying with Luke in Cloud City but it's Luke's temptation to anger that lets him beat Vader in ROTJ, it was not Vader letting Luke win.
My point was that the original trilogy was not exactly clear when it came how powerful each Force sensitive character was. The Emperor was supposed to be much more powerful than Vader but was easily killed by him. I don't know if Lucas had decided or planned out each character either. Of course much of the universe written after ROTJ was negated by Lucas when he did the prequels.
I love how you believe that "disagreements" and "bogus transactions" are in any way different, especially in any technical way regarding recording into the blockchain.
They are different in the same technical sense that a buffer overflow is not a privilege escalation. One is a flaw that can occur in programming and one is an attack meant to undermine a system. The intent and use are different. Disagreements in Bitcoin can occur when two competing miners solve a block at nearly the same time and how to resolve who should be awarded. A 51% attack means that some entity can effectively control the whole network and all transactions. Do you see the difference now?
The problem isn't about rules. The rules were originally designed that for disagreements so that transactions 51% of the group decides a dispute. Where this becomes an attack vector is it is possible for a large enough group to create bogus transactions and get them accepted into the chain. After a time, the transactions become permanent and cannot be changed.
Yeah, Vader let Luke cut his hand off just to make him feel powerful. Idiot.
In my version of history Vader did not have his hand cut off until ROTJ after Luke "completed" his training according to Yoda. Also in ROTJ, the all mighty Emperor Palpatine who took out the entire Jedi order in the prequels was easily thrown to his death by Vader. The emperor couldn't sense Vader's change or heart or force pull himself to safety. But that's my version. Are we talking about the same original trilogy? What is your version of history?
Chances are you already have Apple software on your device as Apple has contributed to many open source projects. For example, Chrome is forked from WebKit which Apple forked from KHTML.
Well let's start with the first thing in that originally FaceTime was wifi only. It added LTE later depending on which carrier allowed it. Second, my understanding that viLTE was hardly used because the carriers refuse to allow phones to interoperate. So even if Apple adopted it, two people couldn't use if were on different carriers regardless if they had the same iPhone or Android or Windows phone. The only way to get around it was to use 3rd party apps which enforce their own segregation as they may not interoperate between apps. For example Skype works with other Skype devices but not WebEx
Why Apple had to invent their own thing instead of just picking some standard, nobody says. But it's not too hard to guess the usual reasons for this kind of crap.
Probably the same reason why some of the 3rd party video conferencing apps also do not employ a standard and operate among each other.
Does Facetime actually bring anything useful to the table? I was under the impression that it was just a "me too" videoconference app that is limited to apple only so that Apple could continue to have their walled garden. Does it actually have some valuable and unique feature that I should be coveting?
The first assumption that everyone makes is that Product A was meant to compete with Product B. In this case, I don't think FaceTime was ever meant to replace multi-user business video conferencing apps like Skype and WebEx. It was meant to be an alternate to consumer phone calls by adding video. But it worked over Wifi so consumers didn't have to use minutes. Android has many alternates to FaceTime including Google Hangouts which debuted after FaceTime; however, every 3rd party app might suffer from the same lack of inter-operability with other apps.
You mean how Luke was also beaten by Kylo Ren.
OR
Luke didn't want to harm either of them and had to hold back. One of these doesn't fit your narrative. In Empire you could argue that Luke held his own against Vader after a few weeks of training but that isn't the reality. Vader was toying with him the whole time.
Luke Sywalker: coward, failure. "Saved" by Rey.
How was Luke "saved" by Rey? Luke went to the island to die. Luke never left the island. Yes, he helped his sister in the end but he did it his own way.
Poe: risk taker, mutineer, failure. Saved by Holdo.
How was Poe "saved" by Holdo? He explicitly does not do anything that he (as a flight officer) should do. The only person that might have saved Poe was Leia who stuns him instead of killing him outright when he mutinies. And Poe isn't a smuggler like Han; he, again, is an officer of the Rebellion.
Finn: coward, failure. Saved by Rose.
Did you watch the first film? Finn was a coward running away from the First Order. His character is always looking for a way out for himself.
Snoke: Psychopathic tyrant, failure.
As was the Emperor before him.
Hux: Evil bastard, failure.
Just like the successful Grand Moff Tarkin and the whiny Admiral Motti? The only different is Hux is a combination of the two.
Kylo: Trained force user beaten by an untrained one, failure.
While heavily injured and bleeding all of the battlefield. Sure.
Rose: Nobody turned hero.
You mean like a moisture farmer from Tattoine who saved the Rebellion? You mean like a shady smuggler who saved the Rebellion many times? What about a non-descript utility droid that seems to know how to do everything.
Holdo: Saved the rebellion.
Yes and if her character was a man would you say the same thing? What does that say about you if the gender matters to you?
The article says a weight reduction as well as probably increased structural integrity. Windows have to be engineered into the plane and are another point of failure as noted by the recent Southwest airlines death.
I would suspect that the cockpit and door windows are not part of this proposal.