Wavelets work well for a single image, but I don't think anyone has figured out how to improve on the block based motion compensation techniques used to exploit temporarl redundancy in most video coding.
Actually, there is one idea for a codec designed to do that, called Tarkin:
Tarkin is based on 3-D wavelet compression. A block of video has three dimensions, two spatial and one temporal, and is encoded as a unit with a 3-D discrete wavelet transform. This is in stark contrast to the more traditional method used in Theora and most other video codecs of doing a 2-D discrete cosine transform on single frames of video and doing inter-frame differences and perhaps motion compensation in a separate step.
Unfortunately, it apparently isn't complete, nor is it being worked on right now.
How is this NOT allowed in the necessary and proper clause?
The Necessary and Proper clause only authorizes actions undertaken in support of those powers which were already listed. In other words, if the other clauses don't give the federal government the authority to create a national ID card (and they don't), then the necessary and proper clause doesn't add that authority.
And that system would exist just as well without DRM! It's an artificial restriction imposed for purely anti-consumer reasons, and that is what makes it illegal (in Norway) and immoral (everywhere).
I'm from Georgia... believe me, I know (of course, the war itself was still reasonable on the part of the Union because human rights trump states' rights).
Wow, you're really a dumbass. We're talking about me having the ability to decode and use my own property. If you can't see why I should have that right, I don't know what to tell you. It's really fucking obvious.
Absolutely nothing at all is preventing someone from doing this, however there are licensing costs and stipulations which would certainly prevent this "open source" thing you espouse so zealously. It would be just like a legal software DVD player for Linux.
"Licensing costs and stipulations" are not the same thing as "absolutely nothing at all." In fact, they constitute an onerous, unfair, and unethical requirement!
Of course, Apple doesn't license FairPlay to anyone, so while it is possible for a legal PlaysForSure player to be released for Linux, you're really SOL with FairPlay. Keep defending them, though. It doesn't really make you look like a complete and total prat.
Please point out where I was defending Apple, because it sure would be news to me! In fact, my very first comment in this thread mentioned that I'm glad Norway outlawed FairPlay. My only problem is that I don't think it goes far enough.
That still isn't any good, because it still requires "obtaining PlaysForSure licenses" from Microsoft. What if I want to write my own program to do the decryption? What if I want to use a Free Software program to do the decryption? Since the media in question would be my property, I should have the right to decrypt it without having to obtain permission from anyone!
Interesting. By the way, what about this bit of the Constitution (which I had forgotten about when I wrote my previous post)?
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Interesting; I didn't know that. Of course, from the Federal Government's perspective, the state constitutions are irrelevant and it's the states' responsibility to control their representatives. By the way, was Georgia one of those states?
How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)
You're still trying to ask "why not?" That's the wrong question!
The correct question to ask is "what good would it do?" Since the answer is "none whatsoever," the government has no business doing it!
Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.
That's a shitty reason. You realize that people with valid IDs could just as easily be terrorists too, don't you?
Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?
The difference is that in the case of traffic laws, the benefit is real. In the case of IDs, "keeping people safe" is an excuse to keep people from realizing that the actual reason is to infringe people's right of privacy.
Well, then I think you got bigger fish to fry than just a little ID card standard!
I completely agree! However, there's no reason not to pursue this issue as well.
May I recommend starting with the IRS.
You may, but it would be stupid to do so:
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Again, no one can tell me how this is a violation of rights.
It doesn't matter if it violates any fundamental human rights like free speech, etc. The fact that it violates the states' rights and the people's rights by going far beyond what could reasonably be construed as "regulating interstate commerce" is enough to make it unconstitutional.
Ok, can someone explain to me how bills like these are grouped together (someone with the political knowhow not just knee-jerk "because america sucks" responses)?
How about "because politicians suck" instead?
No, really: this unrelated crap gets tagged on because politicans have no morals, and they want to push their agendas even when they're against the will of the people (not to mention the rest of the politicians). So, they tack stuff onto the bills at the last minute so that the issues don't have to be voted on, and the rest of the politicians don't call them on it because they're all doing the same damn thing themselves.
Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.
The Hell it doesn't! Read it and weep:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Everything you mentioned -- HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. -- is, in fact, unconstitutional!
The implication that it would lead to NAZI-style oppression is what's wrong with a national ID standard, and it's a legitimate argument. Trying to dismiss it out of hand does not change that!
Re:My Talk With Richard Stallman About This
on
Norway Outlaws iTunes
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Microsoft never made their own music player. So I have no idea where you got you're info, but it's quite incorrect.
Go re-read my post, and you'll see you missed the keyword: "software." I'm not complaining about the Zune, I'm complaining that I can't legally write myself an alternative to Windows Media Player that works on Linux and plays "PlaysForSure" media!
It's not a farce. They're pushing to enforce consumer choice.
The only way to actually do that effectively is to outlaw DRM entirely, because DRM is inherently antithetical to choice.
Well, it's not so much that it should be illegal for the same reason, but that it should be illegal because it ultimately has the same effect (i.e., harming Norwegian citizens).
Solution #1 requires that they take on the record labels.
Well now there's something to show on "World's Most One-Sided Fights Part Forty-Two!" Norway is a sovereign nation, and you'd think it'd have difficulty "taking on" entities that don't even get to vote?
Re:Not so much that you need an iPod to listen
on
Norway Outlaws iTunes
·
· Score: 1
As for being "lock in Microsoft-approved vendors", you're also out of luck (ex: "PlaysForSure vs Zune").
Obviously, Microsoft isn't a Microsoft-approved vendor.
Yes, and my point was that if they'd known what it would have turned into, they wouldn't have put in that clause. In fact, they nearly didn't -- Jefferson was against it, but Madison convinced him (the letters between them discussing the issue are public -- go read them).
But the tying-down aspect is more subtle with playsforsure than with Fairplay.
So what? That tying-down aspect still exists, nevertheless. I guess the only relevant difference here is that the subtlety caused the Norwegian government to overlook it.
they think that it sucks when all these different companies decide to screw the end user and try to make them pay over and over to listen to the same bunch of songs by the same bunch of retired or dead musicians
If they really cared about that, they'd outlaw all DRM, not just Apple's.
I have a case with *ALL* DRM-pushers
on
Norway Outlaws iTunes
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't see how Sony benefits from shutting Linux users out.
I'm sure that, although Sony might want all operating systems to be able to play the media, it would only be interested in supporting Sony brand hardware players.
See, here's the real problem: no matter what DRM system you might propose, you're never going to get around the fact that DRM is inherently designed to be excluding and restrictive! If it doesn't prevent anybody from playing the file it isn't really DRM, now is it?
Therefore, I'll repeat yet again what I've always said: the only "good" DRM is no DRM at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there is one idea for a codec designed to do that, called Tarkin:
Unfortunately, it apparently isn't complete, nor is it being worked on right now.
The Necessary and Proper clause only authorizes actions undertaken in support of those powers which were already listed. In other words, if the other clauses don't give the federal government the authority to create a national ID card (and they don't), then the necessary and proper clause doesn't add that authority.
And that system would exist just as well without DRM! It's an artificial restriction imposed for purely anti-consumer reasons, and that is what makes it illegal (in Norway) and immoral (everywhere).
I'm from Georgia... believe me, I know (of course, the war itself was still reasonable on the part of the Union because human rights trump states' rights).
Wow, you're really a dumbass. We're talking about me having the ability to decode and use my own property. If you can't see why I should have that right, I don't know what to tell you. It's really fucking obvious.
"Licensing costs and stipulations" are not the same thing as "absolutely nothing at all." In fact, they constitute an onerous, unfair, and unethical requirement!
Please point out where I was defending Apple, because it sure would be news to me! In fact, my very first comment in this thread mentioned that I'm glad Norway outlawed FairPlay. My only problem is that I don't think it goes far enough.
That still isn't any good, because it still requires "obtaining PlaysForSure licenses" from Microsoft. What if I want to write my own program to do the decryption? What if I want to use a Free Software program to do the decryption? Since the media in question would be my property, I should have the right to decrypt it without having to obtain permission from anyone!
Interesting. By the way, what about this bit of the Constitution (which I had forgotten about when I wrote my previous post)?
I understand that point perfectly well. I just think "interest group politics" is a load of bullshit.
Right, and which of those clauses authorizes the creation of a compulsory national ID card?
Interesting; I didn't know that. Of course, from the Federal Government's perspective, the state constitutions are irrelevant and it's the states' responsibility to control their representatives. By the way, was Georgia one of those states?
You're still trying to ask "why not?" That's the wrong question!
The correct question to ask is "what good would it do?" Since the answer is "none whatsoever," the government has no business doing it!
That's a shitty reason. You realize that people with valid IDs could just as easily be terrorists too, don't you?
The difference is that in the case of traffic laws, the benefit is real. In the case of IDs, "keeping people safe" is an excuse to keep people from realizing that the actual reason is to infringe people's right of privacy.
I completely agree! However, there's no reason not to pursue this issue as well.
You may, but it would be stupid to do so:
It doesn't matter if it violates any fundamental human rights like free speech, etc. The fact that it violates the states' rights and the people's rights by going far beyond what could reasonably be construed as "regulating interstate commerce" is enough to make it unconstitutional.
How about "because politicians suck" instead?
No, really: this unrelated crap gets tagged on because politicans have no morals, and they want to push their agendas even when they're against the will of the people (not to mention the rest of the politicians). So, they tack stuff onto the bills at the last minute so that the issues don't have to be voted on, and the rest of the politicians don't call them on it because they're all doing the same damn thing themselves.
The Hell it doesn't! Read it and weep:
Everything you mentioned -- HUD, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. -- is, in fact, unconstitutional!
The implication that it would lead to NAZI-style oppression is what's wrong with a national ID standard, and it's a legitimate argument. Trying to dismiss it out of hand does not change that!
Go re-read my post, and you'll see you missed the keyword: "software." I'm not complaining about the Zune, I'm complaining that I can't legally write myself an alternative to Windows Media Player that works on Linux and plays "PlaysForSure" media!
The only way to actually do that effectively is to outlaw DRM entirely, because DRM is inherently antithetical to choice.
Well, it's not so much that it should be illegal for the same reason, but that it should be illegal because it ultimately has the same effect (i.e., harming Norwegian citizens).
Well now there's something to show on "World's Most One-Sided Fights Part Forty-Two!" Norway is a sovereign nation, and you'd think it'd have difficulty "taking on" entities that don't even get to vote?
Obviously, Microsoft isn't a Microsoft-approved vendor.
Yes, and my point was that if they'd known what it would have turned into, they wouldn't have put in that clause. In fact, they nearly didn't -- Jefferson was against it, but Madison convinced him (the letters between them discussing the issue are public -- go read them).
So what? That tying-down aspect still exists, nevertheless. I guess the only relevant difference here is that the subtlety caused the Norwegian government to overlook it.
If they really cared about that, they'd outlaw all DRM, not just Apple's.
I'm sure that, although Sony might want all operating systems to be able to play the media, it would only be interested in supporting Sony brand hardware players.
See, here's the real problem: no matter what DRM system you might propose, you're never going to get around the fact that DRM is inherently designed to be excluding and restrictive! If it doesn't prevent anybody from playing the file it isn't really DRM, now is it?
Therefore, I'll repeat yet again what I've always said: the only "good" DRM is no DRM at all.