Oh don't even try. Rei is the most aggressive Assange hater Slashdot has ever seen because she was a victim herself once and so has decided that a man accused is a man automatically guilty, and that it's her quest to ensure all accused many are treated as such.

She was pushing the lie that the Swedish prosecutor couldn't question him over here because Swedish law wouldn't allow it even after the Swedish courts said in response to Assange appeal that they could and that it was odd that they hadn't.

I'm amazed she can show her face here now that this lie she pushed so zealously and so vehemently has been shredded by the very prosecutor she was defending, yet here she is, and worse, she's still pushing the anglakad lie, pretending these Swedish terms don't translate to English, even though they translate EXACTLY.

I can't tell if there's a lot of gullible people here or if she has her own team of mod-bot accounts, but if a story says Assange in the title you can guarantee she'll show up flooding it with +5 lies, many of which have been obliterated with the passage of time and the emergence of the truth, just like in this story in fact.

Erm, why are you even having this discussion if you believe that ITV has it's own private terrestrial broadcast infrastructure? You're completely out of your depth here. ITV, Channel 5, and Channel 4 are broadcast on the public service multiplexes, along with a bunch of radio stations, the funding for which is provided from the license fee under the transmission costs.

If the license fee has nothing to do with public infrastructure costs, why do you think hundreds of millions of pounds of license fee money have been diverted to the BDUK broadband rollout? The license fee has always been about funding more than just the BBC itself. That's why it's called the TV license, not the BBC license, and that's why it's a license you must pay if you use the UK's broadcast infrastructure even if you never watch BBC channels or use BBC content. That's also why there is now an argument to make it a tax that's simply paid by everyone given that everyone uses it - you could get FTTC in your home because of license fee money and never ever watch or have anything to do with the BBC but you're still benefiting from license fee money.

Sky has it's own satellite infrastructure, but we haven't been talking about satellite channels, we've been talking about terrestrial. That's why I said terrestrial from the outset.

That doesn't even make any sense, all BBC funded content is funded under the TV break down (~£2.2bn) because there's next to no iPlayer only content, it's just content already shown on TV. The online break down of ~£170m is for the BBC websites. Also, not all iPlayer content is fee funded, a number of iPlayer programs are supplied by BBC Worldwide and produced for foreign commercial sale, sometimes alongside other foreign organisations like America's Discovery Channel.

I'm also still not entirely sure how you think the UK's broadcast infrastructure is funded by ads. The people manning the infrastructure have no process for displaying ads themselves or gaining money from it. The BBC Trust has in the past stated that around 6% (~£200m) of the license fee goes on transmission costs which is the lion's share of the costs. Why do you think that has changed? how do you proclaim the companies running the transmitters are injecting ads into things and gaining revenue from it when as far as the broadcasters are aware they greenlight the ads and pocket the profits with the commercial channels simply paying a token amount for access and usage?

I'm not sure that's really true, cloning the best horse at the time doesn't preclude the possibility of a breeder breeding an even better horse for racing and so forth.

Then of course there's disease vulnerability, there's every possibility a disease could wipe out all the clones, whilst allowing many of the bred ones to survive.

Once you've discovered a horse is awesome in a race or whatever, it's already an adult, so sure you can clone it at that point you know it's awesome, but you still have to wait for the clones to grow up. In the meantime it's possible an even more awesome horse has already had time to grow up and enter the game and all those who bought their close are going to be embarrassed by being uncompetitive.

I don't see this harming breeding and horse racing, at best it's going to give more people access to a very good horse, but you're still going to need to try and breed even better horses if you want to give yourself the edge and more chance of winning.

In car racing you could all already build an identical car to the competition and have every car be exactly equal, but no one does that, everyone still tries to build a better car to give them the edge. It's really no different.

These guys in the summary would have an argument if we were talking about genetic manipulation, because then you could argue both an unfair advantage and that the manipulation means the horse is no longer of the correct breed, it's a custom breed, but that's not what's happening so their argument is basically wholly based on ignorance, they're talking like the type of folks who believe the world is 6,000 years old and flat - they're completely clueless about the science of genetics (which is disturbing for an organisation whose job is purportedly to deal with ensuring exactly that) and are arguing wholly on the basis of superstition.

If I wanted one of these horses their argument would put me off completely so they're probably doing more harm than good for themselves. If they don't have a basic grasp of genetics how can I even begin to trust their ability to ensure I'm getting what I'm paying for? They're supposedly guaranteeing me a breed, but they've no idea what a breed even is.

So why are the BBC listing online in their license fee expenditure?

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/c...

Stop making shit up.

The problem is you're focussing on one or two fringe cases and letting that dictate policy rather than considering the bigger picture.

You're effectively arguing that someone so blatantly craving for attention and power should be given the power to dictate the outcome of an entire issue with his mindgames.

That doesn't sound an awful lot like punishment, it sounds an awful lot like you're giving this individual you're referring too power beyond his wildest dreams, power to individually bend an entire wide ranging political issue based simply on his individual actions.

Politics should be bigger than one person, if you're using these one or two fringe cases to dictate policy then you've let them win, you've let them manipulate a system far bigger than they are. You've fallen hook, line, and sinker in giving them the very attention and power they've been craving all this time. They've been caught, they don't care if they're going to be executed or not, all they care is that people are paying attention to them, and if they can twist entire political debates with their individual words? they're in heaven.

If punishment is what you're after and aren't interested in rehabilitation, then a better solution would be to tell them to shut up, stick them in solitary, and not let their voice be heard ever again. Now THAT would really kill them.

"Unfortunately, I can't find the Nyquist paper online anywhere (I originally read it off microfilm a couple decades back) so the Wikipedia article (not the one you quoted, the other one I linked) is the best I can do for references."

What you really mean is: "My attempt to try and argue myself out of this massive hole I've dug by using a combination of Google and Wikipedia rather than actually understanding of the topic has failed, but I'm still too insecure to admit I was wrong explicitly.". You can't argue your way out of this hole by simply quoting the names of papers and algorithms you've found on Google and Wikipedia in a desperate attempt to try and sound smart all the whilst showing a complete lack of clue about what any of it actually means in practice.

"I have to ask you though, why is it okay for you to insist that "sharp" has different definitions between digital imaging and photography"

It's not about difference in defintion, it's about difference in factors that can cause loss of sharpness. In photography loss of focus is the key thing that causes loss of detail, but in computer graphics there are other things - pixelation by reduced resolution for example.

If you think having read the defintion of blur that it backs up your position, then you're still just desperately clutching at straws to avoid just admitting you were wrong. Have a look at an aliased vs. an anti-aliased screenshot, zoom in to see what anti-aliasing does. The definition of anti-aliasing you linked states:

"make or become unclear or less distinct."

This is EXACTLY what anti-aliasing does, the whole point in it is to make strikingly pixelated areas look less pixelated, this is why I provided you the simple nVidia link, because it shows with a basic example the effects of anti-aliasing - it reduces jagged pixelated edges by blurring them into surrounding edges - it reduces the distinct pixelation by making it less distinct so that to the human eye in intended viewing conditions the edge looks more like a sharp diagonal line than a jagged pixelated mess.

Oh, and by the way, the way you make multiple posts in reply to me and yourself? It's like a desperation meter, the more desperate your argument gets the more desperately you flood the discussion. It's quite amusing.

Oh fuck me, I was wrong, you really are just too dumb to cope with any of this. You're now trying to say that whether something is a blurring effect is defined entirely on whether an article on an AA algorithm explicitly uses the word "blur".

You really didn't think before making even more of a tit of yourself it might be prudent to actually understand what a blur is? You realise the no matter what dictionary you check the term blur and it's synonyms describe the effect of AA exactly?

I can't believe you've reached the point where you're trying to argue a blurring effect isn't in a desperate attempt to save face. You really are a lost cause, a perfect example of someone who just wants to be right even when they're oh so wrong and will jump to extraordinary extremes like arguing that something that is the very definition of a blur isn't. You always know that someone is hopeless when they drop to the point of trying to redefine the dictionary to suit their argument and that's exactly where you're at. It's pathetic.

There's no point in going any further, I can't help you, I've explained multiple times, I've given you everything you need, but you're just beyond it, you're just far too retarded to be able to rationally take part in this topic.

Yeah it's still a crime, that's not in dispute, but we do have the concepts of extenuating circumstances and public interest in British law.

I can't see what the public interest would be if it turns out there are no charges to answer, it's not like anyone and everyone can just get an embassy to put them up in order to skip bail, even Ecuador very nearly didn't take him. It's not like people are going to start running to embassies left and right under the assumption they'll get given protection- Assange was an extreme exception because of the politics of his case.

Yeah I'm interested to see how that plays out. If Sweden drops it's extradition request, there's every possibility that the British courts may deem that that adds weight to his argument that there was no case to answer, that it was political, and that he shouldn't have had to be on bail in the first place making his fleeing of that effectively irrelevant.

But then if there is a political dimension, it may be that they'll be happy to get him on whatever they can, and they do indeed punish him for skipping bail.

It'd be interesting to see how that plays out, but it really depends what happens after the questioning that is finally going ahead.

It's interesting that Ny cites the impending statute of limitations date as the reason for the change of heart. There have been two other key events in the last 6 months that I suspect were more relevant:

1) Assange's petition to the Swedish courts to have the case dropped failed, but in the ruling the Swedish judiciary was clear that it could not understand why Ny hadn't just questioned him over here, that it was incredibly odd that she hadn't and that she must do this ASAP.

2) There has been growing political pressure to stop guarding the embassy. When £10million has been spent on guarding the embassy whilst police forces have been cut MPs have faced increasing pressure from the public and even policing unions to stop wasting time on it. Recent cuts have meant that some crimes such as car crime have become defacto decriminalised because the police no longer have the resources to pursue them. In that context it's rather galling for the police and public alike to hear we're spending millions just to have officers stood around doing nothing.

So I imagine the weight of these two events have been the key reasons for this shift rather than expiry of statute of limitations for the most minor allegations. If Ny defied the Swedish courts a further appeal to have the case dropped would likely succeed due to Ny refusing to do her job and actually pursue a prosecution. Similarly, the Ecuadorian embassy might stop being watched and Assange could flee anyway.

She's really been left little choice. At least the case is finally moving, and Ny has been forced to do her job properly rather than simply persisting with long discredited excuses not to do it (the most amusing of which is that the Swedish justice system doesn't allow overseas questioning - what a laughing stock the folks that persisted in pushing that myth have now become).

Saying you want to learn when all question posed have clearly been answered multiple times shows a clear disconnect between what you're saying you want to do, and what you actually want to do.

You're still displaying a fundamental lack of understanding about most things here. You're trying to explain MSAA and using that as an obscure argument that in some cases an estimated pixel is blurring, and in others it's not. This makes no sense - blurring occurs when you have an approximation of a set of pixels, rather than the actual pixels. An approximation of 4 pixels downscaled to 1, is still an approximation, as is 1 pixel upscaled into 4 approximated pixels. Have a look at the font example here:

http://www.geforce.co.uk/whats...

What do you think those intermediate pixels between the black and the white when anti-aliased are if not a literal blurring of the lines to make a jagged edge look smoother?

You're reaching for a single very specific algorithm, and using very arbitrary (and hypocritical) definitions to try and argue your point. This tells me that you've already decided what's what, which again shows what a farce your claim to want to learn is- if you've already decided you know best (whilst admitting you're wholly unqualified on the subject) then why are you pretending you care? why are you even discussing? don't say you're doing so because you want to learn whilst simultaneously proving that you do not.

You're arguing as someone whose taken their knowledge from a "my graphics card is better than your graphics card" type website or forum discussion with maybe a bit of Googling thrown in to try and mask the most embarrassing elements of your lack of knowledge. What you're not showing is an understanding of the visual impact these algorithms and techniques have on a finalised scene and it's that that makes it clear that you're out of your depth.

If you want to lecture on discussion etiquette whilst complaining about not getting detailed answers - consider this, don't enter a discussion posting in a manner where it's clear you're looking for a fight, continue on with "I've no idea about any of this but here's a logical fallacy" and then persist with "I want to learn but I can't be arsed to think so you're wrong". I don't owe you anything, much less am I willing to put any effort into providing more detailed an in depth explanations with examples when you act like an ass from the very outset and persist through the duration.

You strike me as someone that could actually get into this in a bit more detail and could, if you wanted to, learn to write your own rendering engine. But before you do that you need to sort your attitude out and actually want to learn rather than pretend to want to learn but actually just be looking for a fight. You're so nearly there, you recognise that learning is important, and that wanting to learn is important, but you've not quite crossed the line yet where you're willing to put self-pride aside to actually do it.

If you're not going to do that and finally cross that line you may want to consider that there's a reason you're the sort of person that ended up working in a fast food joint as you mentioned in another post. It's your choice, but I think you probably do have the potential to actually get into this stuff properly and actually do it, rather than skirt about on the edges with half-arsed third hand knowledge learnt from the second hand knowledge of some bottom of the rung gaming website faux-journalist.

If you want to do that I can tell you exactly what you need to do to get going, and how to avoid or deal with the inevitable roadblocks that learning this stuff creates because whilst being a game developer is easy, being a graphics developer isn't - anyone can chuck something together with Unity, Unreal Engine and so forth, but far fewer people can write those engines in the first place. Don't look upto game developers as rockstars, they're not. The days where every development house is building it's own engine and has it's own engine development team are long gone. Most are little more than glorified mod teams nowadays using pre-built engines- if you want to be a game developer you can be one. If you want to be an engine developer? that's going to take a lot more work, but either way you sound like your worship the profession and what it does, and if so then why aren't you aspiring to it? it's within your reach.

Ultimately it depends how much you really care. But don't pretend you want to learn if you actually just want to always be right, even when you're not. I'm not asking you to listen to me, if you're still skeptical of the idea that an upscale can still create a sharper scene than a lower resolution non-upscaled scene, that blurring is sometimes a good thing and so on and so forth then that's your prerogative, but rather than telling me I haven't explained something when I have and just assuming I'm wrong, or bad at teaching just accept that maybe you've got a bit more learning to do first and go learn or experiment, or figure it out yourself from another source.

"The upshot is that enforcement is now in the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, rather than the civil system."

No it's not. License fee evasion is still dealt with entirely in the civil justice system. I doubt the BBC would even want it reclassified because it'd require a higher standard of evidence for a criminal trial than for a civil trial and that'd massively increase the cost to them of enforcement. Right now they can win trials by knocking up shoddy, and frankly unacceptably poor standards of evidence, if it went criminal they'd probably never win a case again.

"by abolishing the TV Licence and reintroducing it as an all-households tax (call it an "Air tax"?), so you have to pay it whether you have a TV or not, to also remove the requirement and burden of proof that a TV is in fact present."

Right but that actually makes an awful lot of sense. The license fee doesn't just pay for the BBC, it helps fund ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5. It pays for all our broadcast infrastructure including for both TV and radio. It pays for iPlayer and the BBC website.

I doubt there's a person in the UK that can't honestly say they haven't consumed a service at least in part paid for by the license fee. If you've ever read an article on the BBC website, or using their numerous apps you've done it. If you've watched iPlayer you've done it, if you've watched any of the hundred odd Terrestrial freeview channels you've done it, if you've ever listened to the radio you've done it.

The license fee isn't even close to fit for purpose anymore, because the range of things it covers is necessarily expanding as technology improves and habits change. It makes sense to keep our tax system uptodate to represent reality, rather than have it outdated and nonsensical.

Why should people who own TVs subsidise everyone else? It makes far more sense to spread the cost and have everyone pay for something that everyone uses. We can finally get rid of free TV licenses for elderly millionaires and other such idiocy at the same time.

Yeah, we'd never have held onto the Falklands if it weren't for old Attenborough telling those Argies all about their parrots.

And yet the UK technology industry still manages to piss it all away and be an also-ran.

Seriously. How the fuck do we do it?

Er, just realised my tablet changed shotguns to just Guns for some reason. First sentence should be:

Yes we are. Shotguns and hunting rifles are perfectly legal in the UK.