As you don't have any evidence to back up your point, your personal beliefs show you are a bigot. You are also conveniently forgetting a whole shit-tonne of facts that don't help your position, such as that this chart is not accurate. Using it as some sort of metric into the scientific capability of women is fucking retarded. Seriously retarded.
I fear you are not familiar with all the uses of "unwavering":) I was using it in the sense of "consistent, practically unvaried", to highlight the massive disparity between inmates coming out better people (few) and those who come out worse than when they went in (most). That hasn't changed since prisons were first invented. Even if a person comes out and does not commit further crimes, they have learned a lot of very bad habits and information from other inmates, which might affect the rest of their lives.
And you might want to re-read your post. Something about stones and glass houses springs to mind;)
MPEG LA has no business raising the licensing costs. It will only serve to lose them customers. H.264 is as popular and widespread as it is because of this position. If they changed, they'd lose support, and that would cause them to lose massive amounts of market share.
Of course designing a mousetrap is maths. It's abstracted a lot, but it doesn't stop a successful invention from requiring working mathematical underpinnings.
And the cap for enterprises is $5m per year for all royalties owed to MPEG LA, so I doubt Google will be thinking twice about paying it. In case you wonder, if they were paying for only YouTube (and they aren't - Google's use of h.264 is widespread) that works out to around $0.000007 for every video YouTube serves, and covers anything and everything Google wants to do with h.264 content.
No, you can use that camera for professional work, without paying a dime. It's only if you sell massive numbers of pieces of work, numbering in the thousands, that you might have to pay *shock* $0.02 per copy. The horror!!! Oh, and you can put that video on your website, and stream it without worry. If you are selling access to the video, and have under 100,000 subscribers, you don't have to pay anything. It's only when you have hundreds of subscribers do you have to pay, and even then it's practically nothing. So please stop lying.
You do realise that you can use h.264 for free for most uses? And if you don't qualify for free, the prices are practically trivial at the scale of business you'd have to be engaged in to require licensing? Apparently not.
And the difference isn't just "slightly better", but massively better. There is no hardware support for WebM, for example. That's massive. Also, WebM isn't supported in most standalone A/V hardware, as it's a massive outsider of a codec, already technically surpassed.
Then you're not being pragmatic. What's the point in putting crappy-looking video on the web (using WebM), and only have a competitor create a very similar website (but use h.264) and show your site up for the horrific-looking stutter-fest that it would be? That's not pragmatic, but stupid.
You do realise that it would cost anyone selling more than 5,000,000 copies of their OS a year just $0.10 per copy, with a cap at $5m? That's nothing. And if you sell between 100,000 and 5,000,000 copies, it's $0.20 per unit. And if you don't even manage that, if you sell 100,000 or fewer a year, it's free.
There is no talk of making any codec mandatory for HTML5 video. None. HTML5 video specifically relies on the underlying browser (or OS) to provide decoding. Just as you can put whatever kind of image you want in an img tag and rely on the browser to render it (if it can). Most browsers (ie not Firefox) pass on video decoding to the operating system. As most users have OS X or Windows, for which free, licensed h.264 decoders are readily available, or Linux with a GPU that has a hardware (also licensed) h.264 decoder, most users don't have to worry about all this licensing malarkey. I'd root for Google's standard if it didn't suck balls so much and have practically no hardware support.
HTML5 has no codecs in it. There is a discussion to try to get the support of one codec in HTML5, but it can't be patent-encumbered, so h.264 is out of the question. Please stop making things up.
The vast majority of those cameras are run by private entities, and have nothing to do with the government (local or national). Get a fucking grip - you are being scared by shadows. Paranoid, much?
How about freeing up those parole officers to concentrate on this system? Families won't be torn apart (reducing the likelihood of the children of offenders from themselves turning to crime), society won't have to pay to house these folks, and these folks will be paying taxes through working and spending money in shops. If we keep the millstone of the current approach to justice around our neck, any workable plan will fail. The first step to fixing the situation is to sort out the number of folks in prison for stupid things. That would save so much money, free up so much of the associated institutions (courts, prisons, public defenders, etc.) that they can focus their work on those who actually should be passing through their part of the machine.
It's not non-PC, it's just retarded. You sound like a bitter, nasty cunt. Congratulations. I hope none of your family ever commits a small crime, as it seems you'd think it would be your moral duty to snap their neck. Awkward.
The main thing is that prison is the absolute best way western societies have to turn Mr. "Sold a little bit of weed to his friends" into Mr. "Stabbed some dudes in the neck in a bar" or Mr. "Habitual burglar". Prisons have an unwavering ability to turn non-violent offenders into more violent ones, which are then released into society. You asking "where's the punishment" would make sense if prison worked perfectly from society's point of view. It doesn't. The first question that should be asked is how we can make prison into the deterrent it should be, while at the same time ensuring that society doesn't lose a great chunk of its money-making public into violent offenders.
The punishment is that your schedule is controlled 100% by the prison. Yes, you could steal from shops or sell drugs, but as you can be placed at the scene rather easily, and would be sent back to prison for any infraction, I doubt anyone would do it. The same goes for selling drugs.
1. Not all illegal drugs have been tampered with. Some are pharmaceutical-grade. And weed? Why would anyone screw with weed, at least without telling the buyer if it's dosed. 2. You are guessing that these folks are taking the recommended doses of their prescription drugs. They probably aren't if they're overdosing.
I'm not saying you're wrong, simply that adding in some more guesses and conjecture in order to balance out other guesses and conjecture is very rarely going to result in fact;)
It takes testicular fortitude to not chicken out and kill murderers. It's far too easy to stoop to their level. Not doing so requires dedication and self-control.
Stop crying "liberal!" it's making you look seriously retarded. When you were young, did your dad bang on about how communists are trying to take down the US? It's pathetic.
Anyway, the people you are decrying are people who simply spotted a serious and counter-productive way this new suggestion could be misused, and pointed that out. So I guess in your mind "liberal" == "someone who's paying attention".
An average person is capable of learning more geography than just the US or Europe. It's perfectly common for people to know about both, even when they are not from either. Not perfect knowledge of, but a decent grasp. Just knowing about the US, and knowing nothing of Europe, is a terrible cop-out. It smacks of wilful ignorance. That you seem to think that what goes on in France or Germany doesn't have a direct impact on the US, and its citizens within, is also rather strange.
Case in point (presented here for anecdotal reasons only): An old manager in the US asked me if England was near the UK. Wow. He's a manager, and he doesn't know that? He went to university. He's supposed to be educated.
Yeah - the former is practically impossible, and the latter is barely possible. Ooooh scary brown folks stealin' our monies and rapin' our wimmins! You'll get over it, hotshot.
Slashdot Mirror
As you don't have any evidence to back up your point, your personal beliefs show you are a bigot. You are also conveniently forgetting a whole shit-tonne of facts that don't help your position, such as that this chart is not accurate. Using it as some sort of metric into the scientific capability of women is fucking retarded. Seriously retarded.
It's there:
1. To make the servers physically safer
2. Because it impresses investors
It's not in a bunker to ensure uptime, but to ensure istime.
I fear you are not familiar with all the uses of "unwavering" :) I was using it in the sense of "consistent, practically unvaried", to highlight the massive disparity between inmates coming out better people (few) and those who come out worse than when they went in (most). That hasn't changed since prisons were first invented. Even if a person comes out and does not commit further crimes, they have learned a lot of very bad habits and information from other inmates, which might affect the rest of their lives.
And you might want to re-read your post. Something about stones and glass houses springs to mind ;)
MPEG LA has no business raising the licensing costs. It will only serve to lose them customers. H.264 is as popular and widespread as it is because of this position. If they changed, they'd lose support, and that would cause them to lose massive amounts of market share.
Have this one on me: The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein.
As long as they come with a docking computer, I'm all for it.
"One does not simply SSH into Mordor"?
Of course designing a mousetrap is maths. It's abstracted a lot, but it doesn't stop a successful invention from requiring working mathematical underpinnings.
And the cap for enterprises is $5m per year for all royalties owed to MPEG LA, so I doubt Google will be thinking twice about paying it. In case you wonder, if they were paying for only YouTube (and they aren't - Google's use of h.264 is widespread) that works out to around $0.000007 for every video YouTube serves, and covers anything and everything Google wants to do with h.264 content.
No, you can use that camera for professional work, without paying a dime. It's only if you sell massive numbers of pieces of work, numbering in the thousands, that you might have to pay *shock* $0.02 per copy. The horror!!! Oh, and you can put that video on your website, and stream it without worry. If you are selling access to the video, and have under 100,000 subscribers, you don't have to pay anything. It's only when you have hundreds of subscribers do you have to pay, and even then it's practically nothing. So please stop lying.
You do realise that you can use h.264 for free for most uses? And if you don't qualify for free, the prices are practically trivial at the scale of business you'd have to be engaged in to require licensing? Apparently not.
And the difference isn't just "slightly better", but massively better. There is no hardware support for WebM, for example. That's massive. Also, WebM isn't supported in most standalone A/V hardware, as it's a massive outsider of a codec, already technically surpassed.
Then you're not being pragmatic. What's the point in putting crappy-looking video on the web (using WebM), and only have a competitor create a very similar website (but use h.264) and show your site up for the horrific-looking stutter-fest that it would be? That's not pragmatic, but stupid.
You do realise that it would cost anyone selling more than 5,000,000 copies of their OS a year just $0.10 per copy, with a cap at $5m? That's nothing. And if you sell between 100,000 and 5,000,000 copies, it's $0.20 per unit. And if you don't even manage that, if you sell 100,000 or fewer a year, it's free.
There is no talk of making any codec mandatory for HTML5 video. None. HTML5 video specifically relies on the underlying browser (or OS) to provide decoding. Just as you can put whatever kind of image you want in an img tag and rely on the browser to render it (if it can). Most browsers (ie not Firefox) pass on video decoding to the operating system. As most users have OS X or Windows, for which free, licensed h.264 decoders are readily available, or Linux with a GPU that has a hardware (also licensed) h.264 decoder, most users don't have to worry about all this licensing malarkey. I'd root for Google's standard if it didn't suck balls so much and have practically no hardware support.
HTML5 has no codecs in it. There is a discussion to try to get the support of one codec in HTML5, but it can't be patent-encumbered, so h.264 is out of the question. Please stop making things up.
The vast majority of those cameras are run by private entities, and have nothing to do with the government (local or national). Get a fucking grip - you are being scared by shadows. Paranoid, much?
No, as it's possible to offend while in prison, which many inmates do.
How about freeing up those parole officers to concentrate on this system? Families won't be torn apart (reducing the likelihood of the children of offenders from themselves turning to crime), society won't have to pay to house these folks, and these folks will be paying taxes through working and spending money in shops. If we keep the millstone of the current approach to justice around our neck, any workable plan will fail. The first step to fixing the situation is to sort out the number of folks in prison for stupid things. That would save so much money, free up so much of the associated institutions (courts, prisons, public defenders, etc.) that they can focus their work on those who actually should be passing through their part of the machine.
It's not non-PC, it's just retarded. You sound like a bitter, nasty cunt. Congratulations. I hope none of your family ever commits a small crime, as it seems you'd think it would be your moral duty to snap their neck. Awkward.
The main thing is that prison is the absolute best way western societies have to turn Mr. "Sold a little bit of weed to his friends" into Mr. "Stabbed some dudes in the neck in a bar" or Mr. "Habitual burglar". Prisons have an unwavering ability to turn non-violent offenders into more violent ones, which are then released into society. You asking "where's the punishment" would make sense if prison worked perfectly from society's point of view. It doesn't. The first question that should be asked is how we can make prison into the deterrent it should be, while at the same time ensuring that society doesn't lose a great chunk of its money-making public into violent offenders.
The punishment is that your schedule is controlled 100% by the prison. Yes, you could steal from shops or sell drugs, but as you can be placed at the scene rather easily, and would be sent back to prison for any infraction, I doubt anyone would do it. The same goes for selling drugs.
1. Not all illegal drugs have been tampered with. Some are pharmaceutical-grade. And weed? Why would anyone screw with weed, at least without telling the buyer if it's dosed.
2. You are guessing that these folks are taking the recommended doses of their prescription drugs. They probably aren't if they're overdosing.
I'm not saying you're wrong, simply that adding in some more guesses and conjecture in order to balance out other guesses and conjecture is very rarely going to result in fact ;)
It takes testicular fortitude to not chicken out and kill murderers. It's far too easy to stoop to their level. Not doing so requires dedication and self-control.
Stop crying "liberal!" it's making you look seriously retarded. When you were young, did your dad bang on about how communists are trying to take down the US? It's pathetic.
Anyway, the people you are decrying are people who simply spotted a serious and counter-productive way this new suggestion could be misused, and pointed that out. So I guess in your mind "liberal" == "someone who's paying attention".
It must suck to be you. Seriously.
An average person is capable of learning more geography than just the US or Europe. It's perfectly common for people to know about both, even when they are not from either. Not perfect knowledge of, but a decent grasp. Just knowing about the US, and knowing nothing of Europe, is a terrible cop-out. It smacks of wilful ignorance. That you seem to think that what goes on in France or Germany doesn't have a direct impact on the US, and its citizens within, is also rather strange.
Case in point (presented here for anecdotal reasons only): An old manager in the US asked me if England was near the UK. Wow. He's a manager, and he doesn't know that? He went to university. He's supposed to be educated.
Yeah - the former is practically impossible, and the latter is barely possible. Ooooh scary brown folks stealin' our monies and rapin' our wimmins! You'll get over it, hotshot.