Go look at Silver Peak. They do a WAN optimization that uses variable FEC to increase FEC as packet loss increases, to minimize waste as conditions change.
There are 7/8 FEC (meaning 1/8 wasted on FEC), and if you code the FEC into the stream, then you'll hide the "loss". They look to be hiding the loss, so people don't complain about the "waste."
Maybe they are trying to cover the case where they come out of order, then there's a drop?
But I agree in principle, the whole thing was poorly worded. Like it was written by a writer that doesn't understand it. That was dictated to by an engineer who was ordered to not be specific about it.
Many of the details fail under closer examination. It doesn't "use" TCP-IP. It could use a propritary IP stack that is TCP/IP compatible. So it'll use IP addresses and port numbers like a TCP packet would so that switches and routers in the middle wouldn't know or care what it's doing. If they put it on an IPX/SPX core it'd fail to route across the Internet. But it isn't TCP. It doesn't use a TCP compliant stack. It just looks like one to the outside world. It will not re-transmit a lost packet via TCP mechanisms. But it'll work on the same hardware on both ends and software in the middle. You just have to replace the network stack on both ends, which isn't hard. Though they indicate that the only thing it needs is "software" on both ends. Maybe they'll be doing it over actual TCP/IP. That, and the way they keep saying TCP-IP, that includes UDP. They don't say TCP, or UDP. And I don't trust them when they keep saying TCP-IP, it should be a slash, not a dash. So is it running over TCP/IP (which could mean UDP)? Or does it run over TCP (which excludes UDP)?
If you named all the files the same, then the repairs are done in-band. All that's "new" here is calling all the packets *.PAR, rather than some RAR and some PAR. You need one extra block per block lost (though you can have multiple blocks per packet and other tricks to hide the actual redundancy).
How is R-S theoretically best, when it's been beaten by almost everything else in wireless FEC?
I saw this and was looking for the tech details. It looks like they are putting in FEC at the application layer. It's been done before. They are just hiding it better to not have to explain why 1/8th of the data is padding (or whatever ratio they are using).
You've heard all the arguments. Have you set up a 720p next to a 4k and fed them both the same 4k source (using a very good down converter for the 720p)? I have. They are the same at most practical distances. Your opinion based on why you think your wife prefers HD (most OTA is so badly compressed that I doubt you can see a difference in resolution, and you may be seeing a difference in compression quality, not screen quality) doesn't trump my experiences with it. Go try it. Get a 720p TV and feed it the HD channel and feed the SD channel to the 1080p TV. I bet she'd prefer the 720p. Then try feeding the same HD signal to both. She won't notice a difference.
He's reporting about other engineers talking about electricity from air, and that's an example of him telling others they are wrong? Your logic doesn't work.
UHDTV is coming, and these current 4k TVs will not be compatible. For a start, the resolution will be UHDTV1 2160p (just under 4k) and UHDTV2 4320p (that's almost 8k!), rec.2020, 100fps and 120fps, plus much more. Plus DRM issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high_definition_television#Resolution or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2... UHDTV 2160 *IS* "4k TV"
Plus, I can already get 2160p out. I have a media player capable of 2160p, and I've found some source material out there for it. And my receiver will do 4k. I just lack a 4k TV. Of course, my 720p TV is more than enough for the average person, and sending in 4k source into my receiver for it to re-code at 720p works fine. And yes, my receiver is the best place to do that. Doing 1080p to 720p conversion at the media player or TV results in a worse picture than doing it in the receiver.
HDMI 1.4 works fine with 4k at 30hz, but yes, you should wait for HDMI 2.0 for 4K@60 and 8k@30. And some unstated update after that for 8k @60Hz or higher.
I'm not aware of any DRM issues with 4k or 8k. Could you give more details?
Have you seen a 4K screen displaying legit 4K content?
Yes, I have. When you get less than 2' away from a 65" 4k screen, it does look amazing. When you have the same source material split native 4k on one and 2k (1080P) on another, they look "the same" from 6-10' away. "The Same" meaning setup and environmental factors exceed any resolution difference.
One of the reason the higher resolutions look better in displays, is that they'll compare next year's top-of-the-line TV at 8k and an older, lower model 1080p.
Oh no, the non-LED LCD has worse blacks and more washed out colors than the OLED prototype you can't buy.
Yeah, the marketing shows are set up to prove the difference (even if there is none), rather than show the difference (if any).
Back when 1080p was new, I had a friend at Best Buy. He set up a blind test where two TVs were side by side, and he'd get people to guess which the 1080p was, and which was 720p. He liked to rig the test, almost nobody got it right. Resolution at about 720p is the limit that one would be able to tell the difference between that and half that. But even then it's hard to know, because most of the "lower" TVs were completely different. There was a huge jump from CRT to LCD/plasma. Then smaller jumps from LCD to LED, and LED to IPS, and IPS to OLED. The year on year differences between the top of the line sets is much smaller now than the large jump from CRT to LCD, and many people take that jump to be sustainable.
The thing is, marketing exists to trick people. The screens are curved (primarily) to keep the brightness even at all points on the screen. If the corners are farther away than the center, then the center will be brighter. This can cause a reduced viewing experience.
Everything else beyond that is lies (marketing).
There are people working on the immersive experience, by projecting images on the walls around you for a full experience. But a small curve on a TV does nothing to improve the viewing experience.
So you don't watch any movies or shows of any kind? 30 years ago "TV" meant "broadcast TV", now TV means "content played over a TV" which includes how many people watch streaming, DVDs, console games, media players, and a variety of other things. I'm unclear whether you watch nothing on an HDMI monitor, or are just using an obsolete definition of "TV".
The odd bit is at the end of TFS where they say that curved TVs are a gimmick like 3D TVs.
Yeah, more accurate to say "3d is a gimmick like color TVs" The author reduces their credibility by dismissing 3D. He would have done better dismissing curved TVs as a gimmick like 4K is.
You can also just save it in CSV, and that will separate it out like you want. In plain text. But in a spreadsheet, it's possible to lose track. A single error can go undetected because you can't see the equation within the program. Yes, I've used equations to long that I had to copy them to notepad to be able to read them. You can scroll the function bar, but it's impossible to see the whole thing at one time in the original format. Though, it's quite easy to write the equation in notepad and copy it into a cell. You can even format it to line up parenthesis and make it easier to read/edit.
Yup. It was an example. I know it doesn't use SNMP (I've sniffed the packets myself), but going into the specifics of a protocol I don't know is harder than making a substitution for a more common protocol. The point still stands, as you noted.
Yes, but they had to actually exist and actually be persecuted for your analogy to work.
I can still advocate for it. In this case, the group is people whose only readily available Internet connection is outgoing HTTP through a proxy.
Mattered more before I could get The Internet on my phone, easily bypassing any proxy in place. I've even tethered on a work PC while at work to bypass any work tracking, though I could get there, I couldn't do so without showing up in some logs somewhere. "people whose only readily available Internet connection is outgoing HTTP through a proxy" don't exist anymore.
Having worked tech around the world, I've heard lots of anti-American sentiment towards the involvement in the Internet. I've heard people pushing for "The Web" over "The Internet", and explain that "The Web" was created without American influence at CERN, and The Web should be independent of US control, even if the US built The Internet and TCP/IP, those are irrelevant to the modern The Web.
There's a lot of subtle anti-American sentiment in the world. I haven't worked in the UK, so I don't know if it holds there. Those in the US don't get the anti-American sentiment, especially after revelations that the NSA is tapping everything world-wide. People don't like the US iron grip on the Internet, and that's one of the ways I've seen people try to diminish the US involvement.
Great, and if you could did so, you could control the volume of my stereo and turn my hot water heater off.
So you might as well use http.
HTTP has greater overheads. SNMP walk is similar to a GET, so why do most networking devices support SNMP for monitoring, and not an HTTP interface? SNMP is simpler, requiring fewer resources for the same functions. That you don't understand says plenty about your perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
Go look at Silver Peak. They do a WAN optimization that uses variable FEC to increase FEC as packet loss increases, to minimize waste as conditions change.
There are 7/8 FEC (meaning 1/8 wasted on FEC), and if you code the FEC into the stream, then you'll hide the "loss". They look to be hiding the loss, so people don't complain about the "waste."
Maybe they are trying to cover the case where they come out of order, then there's a drop?
But I agree in principle, the whole thing was poorly worded. Like it was written by a writer that doesn't understand it. That was dictated to by an engineer who was ordered to not be specific about it.
"Application level FEC" Is that easier? They try to make it sound cooler, or harder, but it's been done before.
No, it's the other away around. You get "pay" priority performance in the "free" queue under FCC net brutality.
I think they are lying.
Many of the details fail under closer examination. It doesn't "use" TCP-IP. It could use a propritary IP stack that is TCP/IP compatible. So it'll use IP addresses and port numbers like a TCP packet would so that switches and routers in the middle wouldn't know or care what it's doing. If they put it on an IPX/SPX core it'd fail to route across the Internet. But it isn't TCP. It doesn't use a TCP compliant stack. It just looks like one to the outside world. It will not re-transmit a lost packet via TCP mechanisms. But it'll work on the same hardware on both ends and software in the middle. You just have to replace the network stack on both ends, which isn't hard. Though they indicate that the only thing it needs is "software" on both ends. Maybe they'll be doing it over actual TCP/IP. That, and the way they keep saying TCP-IP, that includes UDP. They don't say TCP, or UDP. And I don't trust them when they keep saying TCP-IP, it should be a slash, not a dash. So is it running over TCP/IP (which could mean UDP)? Or does it run over TCP (which excludes UDP)?
If you named all the files the same, then the repairs are done in-band. All that's "new" here is calling all the packets *.PAR, rather than some RAR and some PAR. You need one extra block per block lost (though you can have multiple blocks per packet and other tricks to hide the actual redundancy).
How is R-S theoretically best, when it's been beaten by almost everything else in wireless FEC?
I saw this and was looking for the tech details. It looks like they are putting in FEC at the application layer. It's been done before. They are just hiding it better to not have to explain why 1/8th of the data is padding (or whatever ratio they are using).
What happens when the gamma engineers come around? Are they all green with envy?
You've heard all the arguments. Have you set up a 720p next to a 4k and fed them both the same 4k source (using a very good down converter for the 720p)? I have. They are the same at most practical distances. Your opinion based on why you think your wife prefers HD (most OTA is so badly compressed that I doubt you can see a difference in resolution, and you may be seeing a difference in compression quality, not screen quality) doesn't trump my experiences with it. Go try it. Get a 720p TV and feed it the HD channel and feed the SD channel to the 1080p TV. I bet she'd prefer the 720p. Then try feeding the same HD signal to both. She won't notice a difference.
How about having one trillon dollar coin, and no trillion dollar coins? Is it the same then? Oooh, can I call it the Obama Penny?
He's reporting about other engineers talking about electricity from air, and that's an example of him telling others they are wrong? Your logic doesn't work.
UHDTV is coming, and these current 4k TVs will not be compatible. For a start, the resolution will be UHDTV1 2160p (just under 4k) and UHDTV2 4320p (that's almost 8k!), rec.2020, 100fps and 120fps, plus much more. Plus DRM issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high_definition_television#Resolution or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2... UHDTV 2160 *IS* "4k TV"
Plus, I can already get 2160p out. I have a media player capable of 2160p, and I've found some source material out there for it. And my receiver will do 4k. I just lack a 4k TV. Of course, my 720p TV is more than enough for the average person, and sending in 4k source into my receiver for it to re-code at 720p works fine. And yes, my receiver is the best place to do that. Doing 1080p to 720p conversion at the media player or TV results in a worse picture than doing it in the receiver.
HDMI 1.4 works fine with 4k at 30hz, but yes, you should wait for HDMI 2.0 for 4K@60 and 8k@30. And some unstated update after that for 8k @60Hz or higher.
I'm not aware of any DRM issues with 4k or 8k. Could you give more details?
Have you seen a 4K screen displaying legit 4K content?
Yes, I have. When you get less than 2' away from a 65" 4k screen, it does look amazing. When you have the same source material split native 4k on one and 2k (1080P) on another, they look "the same" from 6-10' away. "The Same" meaning setup and environmental factors exceed any resolution difference.
One of the reason the higher resolutions look better in displays, is that they'll compare next year's top-of-the-line TV at 8k and an older, lower model 1080p.
Oh no, the non-LED LCD has worse blacks and more washed out colors than the OLED prototype you can't buy.
Yeah, the marketing shows are set up to prove the difference (even if there is none), rather than show the difference (if any).
Back when 1080p was new, I had a friend at Best Buy. He set up a blind test where two TVs were side by side, and he'd get people to guess which the 1080p was, and which was 720p. He liked to rig the test, almost nobody got it right. Resolution at about 720p is the limit that one would be able to tell the difference between that and half that. But even then it's hard to know, because most of the "lower" TVs were completely different. There was a huge jump from CRT to LCD/plasma. Then smaller jumps from LCD to LED, and LED to IPS, and IPS to OLED. The year on year differences between the top of the line sets is much smaller now than the large jump from CRT to LCD, and many people take that jump to be sustainable.
More or less a gimmick than colorizing TV?
The thing is, marketing exists to trick people. The screens are curved (primarily) to keep the brightness even at all points on the screen. If the corners are farther away than the center, then the center will be brighter. This can cause a reduced viewing experience.
Everything else beyond that is lies (marketing).
There are people working on the immersive experience, by projecting images on the walls around you for a full experience. But a small curve on a TV does nothing to improve the viewing experience.
So you don't watch any movies or shows of any kind? 30 years ago "TV" meant "broadcast TV", now TV means "content played over a TV" which includes how many people watch streaming, DVDs, console games, media players, and a variety of other things. I'm unclear whether you watch nothing on an HDMI monitor, or are just using an obsolete definition of "TV".
The odd bit is at the end of TFS where they say that curved TVs are a gimmick like 3D TVs.
Yeah, more accurate to say "3d is a gimmick like color TVs" The author reduces their credibility by dismissing 3D. He would have done better dismissing curved TVs as a gimmick like 4K is.
You can also just save it in CSV, and that will separate it out like you want. In plain text. But in a spreadsheet, it's possible to lose track. A single error can go undetected because you can't see the equation within the program. Yes, I've used equations to long that I had to copy them to notepad to be able to read them. You can scroll the function bar, but it's impossible to see the whole thing at one time in the original format. Though, it's quite easy to write the equation in notepad and copy it into a cell. You can even format it to line up parenthesis and make it easier to read/edit.
I thought it was getting an award for being the 10,000,000th restating of GIGO.
Yup. It was an example. I know it doesn't use SNMP (I've sniffed the packets myself), but going into the specifics of a protocol I don't know is harder than making a substitution for a more common protocol. The point still stands, as you noted.
I can still advocate for it. In this case, the group is people whose only readily available Internet connection is outgoing HTTP through a proxy.
Mattered more before I could get The Internet on my phone, easily bypassing any proxy in place. I've even tethered on a work PC while at work to bypass any work tracking, though I could get there, I couldn't do so without showing up in some logs somewhere. "people whose only readily available Internet connection is outgoing HTTP through a proxy" don't exist anymore.
Having worked tech around the world, I've heard lots of anti-American sentiment towards the involvement in the Internet. I've heard people pushing for "The Web" over "The Internet", and explain that "The Web" was created without American influence at CERN, and The Web should be independent of US control, even if the US built The Internet and TCP/IP, those are irrelevant to the modern The Web.
There's a lot of subtle anti-American sentiment in the world. I haven't worked in the UK, so I don't know if it holds there. Those in the US don't get the anti-American sentiment, especially after revelations that the NSA is tapping everything world-wide. People don't like the US iron grip on the Internet, and that's one of the ways I've seen people try to diminish the US involvement.
My philosophy of browsers is:
"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." - Yogi Berra
So you might as well use http.
HTTP has greater overheads. SNMP walk is similar to a GET, so why do most networking devices support SNMP for monitoring, and not an HTTP interface? SNMP is simpler, requiring fewer resources for the same functions. That you don't understand says plenty about your perspective.