JPEG-2000 is fraught with licensing issues, however.

There was also Microsoft's attempt, HD Photo.. not going anywhere either, probably for similar reasons.

WebP has that one major advantage.. Google won't be as trigger-happy on wanting licensing moneys / suing people - yet they, too, have potential patent problems.

---

by the way.. JPEG also supports an encoding called "progressive"; although I've not seen this implemented anywhere, there's no reason the browser couldn't stop downloading the JPEG after the first, 2nd, 3rd level if the use resolution is smaller than the native resolution.

mod parent anon up, if you could.

I understand that a company at least -somewhat- vetting the apps in their store is better than the company that says "not our problem", but ultimately it -is- the end user's responsibility and decision of whether or not to trust the app/author.

I download extensions for FireFox and Mozilla certainly isn't certifying that they do nothing nefarious.. and I can't be bothered to check the code.. I *trust* the authors not to do anything wonky, but I fully acknowledge that the basis of that trust is a house of flimsy argument cards.

When you're about to install a dumb wallpaper app and your phone says that it wants access to your location, the internet, and your call log, that should be a giant warning sign.

Sure... but now try a navigation app.

The navigation app wants access to your position - sounds reasonable, right? Difficult to do that turn-by-turn thing otherwise.
The navigation app wants access to the internet - sounds reasonable, too, right? Lets you download map updates, POI data, etc.

But that doesn't mean there can't be a piece of code in there that uploads your position to some server.

Can't really protect against that sort of thing either except with code review... but who's going to review the code of all those apps? Even Apple let a few sneaky things through.

At some point, warnings or no warnings, you just have to decide whether you trust the app/author or not.

The only thing missing is his reviews of Episodes 4, 5 and 6.

It's all good and well to, as somebody above pointed out, nerdrage about the first 3 episodes - but in all fairness, the older episodes weren't exactly masterpieces of cinema either.. but either that reviewer thinks otherwise, or he realizes that wasting hours reviewing those movies in the same manner would just destroy the polarization he so carefully set up.

I started this small, unknown, a good thing to hear, many people are in machine translation is complete, there is a very good place. You May Have on the fire ;)

You make a lot of assumptions, though.. odds are it would be much less time.

You assume that the 62M all have internet connections, which you admit is rather generous. They don't, so the time would be cut down.. let's say it's maybe 40M, which is still pretty generous if I look at the age statistics, internet distribution, sharing of connections (2 adults in 1 household = 1 connection) etc.

However, you also assume that each and every one of them would be written to. Believe it or not, not -everybody- downloads stuff they have no explicit or implicit license to download.. so this would already change the time it would take into 'infinity'.. some people would simply never have to deal with this. But just for the sake of argument: this is where numbers get pulled out of orifices.. let's say 80% do, however... 32M.
Then you also assume that those who do, are caught.. looking around at people I know who download, I know several of them use proxies.. so those wouldn't have to deal with this either. Let's say that's a paltry 5%, so we're left with 30.4M.
Then you assume that those who are caught, and get their first warning, will turn it into a sport to get warning 2 the next day and be cut off on the 3rd day.. I guess some might do that on principle, but most people will just bow their head and clamor to their internet connection for general use more than their gotta-have-that-latest-movie fix. Say a third of the population does make it to Strike 3 for whatever reason. 10.1(3)M.

10.1(3)M / 0.15M/day = 67.(5)days or about 2 months + 2 days drop-off assuming that Strikes follow day-upon-day.. which also seems unlikely.. say there's at least 1 month between strikes, and it's closer to 4 months time in which all Contrefacteurs would be dealt with.

Seems rather speedy... where's the popcorn?

But then again.. orifice-numbers.

I'd love to see 150,000 court cases brought every day, all for downloading a couple of mp3s but the sad fact is that most cases won't go much further than sending a letter or two.

presuming that downloading those mp3s was not authorized... ...isn't "won't go much further than sending a letter or two" exactly the intent of the three strikes model? Those two letters being the first two strikes? If it does go further than that, it's Strike 3 and the court actually -should- come into play if that strike is contested. ( I'm more curious about if/how one might contest Strike 1, though. )

No.. but your choice -is- to eat at an establishment in a state where tipping is commonly used to make up for extremely low wages (even below minimum wage).

You could say "yes, but it's not like i have a choice.. they're -all- like that"... but then that's the point of argument for your other questions; if a restaurant simply asks more, let's say that 20%, up-front, then they'll be more expensive than their competitor without there being an increase in quality, quantity or service; and although you and I would be okay with that, given that it means the waitstaff and such would get normal pay, most people are just going to go to the cheaper restaurant and decide for themselves whether they want to pay 0%, 10% or 20%.
Besides.. it's not entirely true - you could eat at home.

It's basically a problem of the status quo, and is one that's incredibly tough to break - similar to gun laws. Make it legal in the UK to sell and own guns as freely as one is in the U.S. The market may be flooded with guns. Now revert that law and make it illegal again.. good luck getting all those guns out of the country again. It's much easier to restrict their sale in the first place and count your losses with the ones that get through.

That said.. I -have- also seen a logical, albeit slightly disturbing, rationale for tipping to make for a decent income in an older discussion on /. .. I'd imagine it's somewhere in these comments, too...
If you already pay the person a decent wage, then their only motivation for providing excellent service and thus higher tips comes from trying to make a little extra money for niceties. If you underpay the person, then those tips are needed to make ends meet... that's a much greater motivating factor. It makes for a relatively shitty high-stress job where most waitstaff are fakes, and of course fosters much more spite (i.e. if you don't tip, next time they'll mess up your order on purpose some.. or worse) than if you don't tip in a place where the tip would only go to those niceties anyway.

Doing nothing at all is cheaper, faster and.. well, not more effective, but it's not particularly all that much -less- effective.

Here's the rub.. if your content is popular - and I'm guessing it is - then it will end up on YouTube. So what do you do..
A. Pay a staffer to monitor YouTube continually and a legal department (or lawyer) to draft legal complaints (DMCA takedown notice if applicable), send this to Google, wait for reply and video takedown, then wait some more to see if the person who uploaded is feeling fresh and decides to tell Google that they think the upload was fair use or somesuch, and you get to write some more legal documents, or they just bow their heads and admit that it was infringement at no cost to them beyond reading the youtube e-mail subject (don't even bother with the body content). In the mean time, start your work with the legal peeps to deal with the other 2 videos of the exact same show, uploaded while you were dealing with the aforementioned. After all.. Google isn't obligated to remove -all- the videos.. just the one you complained about.. and you can only complain about one.

B. Try to sue Google to get them to implement better filtering methods, fingerprinting, removal of -all- the videos that match ones you've already complained about, etc. and spend a whack of cash... that you would've been spending under A anyway.. but of course go nowhere because the courts do firmly side with Google on this.

C. do nothing.

of course there's also...

D. upload the videos yourself, be the official channel for that show, and people will have less of a reason to visit JoePirate's version of the video with crappy compression and "A JOOOOOEEEEEEEEE PIIIRAAAAAATE production!!!!" leader in front of it with its feeble "I'm not the copyright holder - I do not mean to infringe on any copyright!" description that would make me wonder about the uploader's frame of mind if not for the fact that this is, after all, YouTube.

To some, though, option B may seem more attractive.. perhaps it'll fly in some jurisdiction eventually.. but option A is certainly completely pointless. Option C is the only worthwhile approach if you abhor option D for some reason.

oh silly me.. wrong blob. north east california it is; in or near Alturas

I was thinking something along the same lines. Proposing that maybe this would be possible.. and if it isn't possible, why not - and how CAN they make it possible? After all, ACTA is being negotiated with quite a few other nations and it would be nice for the U.S. government if they can invoke that agreement to shut down sites within/access to sites from other nations as well; as a side-benefit, all the funny business about piracy would get accepted as well. Like a 'rider' attached to a bill.. except that riders are used to 'ride along with' the general consensus on the bill.. and this would almost be the reverse case.. pushing through ACTA -because- it'd then allow the shutdown of e.g. wikileaks, not because of its original intent.

I haven't poked at the actual data, but just by looking at the map for 2009...
http://www.datapointed.net/visualizations/maps/distance-to-nearest-mcdonalds/ ...and then the one for 2010...
http://www.datapointed.net/visualizations/maps/distance-to-nearest-mcdonalds-sept-2010/ ...aside from seeing a bunch of new restaurants opening, a bunch of restaurants shifting (corrections in data or stores moving locations), there's the one obvious 'big blob' one that disappears near the west coast. But not in California, I guessed.

Overlaying it on Google Maps...
You need to rotate the map CCW a fair bit.. just match up LA, SF and SLC and if you search for "McDonald's" the blobs from the map should line up with several of the Google Maps blips along the I80 - e.g. at Winnemucca, Battle Mountain and Elko ...the big blob that disappeared actually seems to be centered on the location at Tonopah...
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=mcdonald's&ll=38.153997,-117.004395&spn=1.187873,2.469177&z=9&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=38.056254,-117.216531&panoid=0l-zQQd6AtlI4McY-UjHkg&cbp=12,47.78,,0,5.25 ...which is in Nevada, not California.

Any Tonopahians around?

You mean like STEREO?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/main/index.html

Except that perhaps you'd want them much, much, much, etc., further apart if you want to directly resolve parallax in objects at interstellar distances.

+, enter, ctrl+m, alt+f, ^.*-.*-\s, alt+x, enter
Total Commander - at your service.

The only reason "the gui" (which one are you referring to?) is apparently more difficult than figuring out your bash script is because nobody bothered to make that gui work for the user.

There are certainly times where a CLI, or a semi-programmable (filesystem) processor, reigns supreme - but for most cases, a GUI will do just fine or even do better. I certainly much prefer moving/resizing partitions visually than punching numbers into the CLI only to have it complain about the new partition being too large for the drive given the pre-existing partitions' sizes, or that I `can't` move a partition to a particular location because another partition is already there (duh - I know that. resize the other partition to make room for this one!). But to each their own.