Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Meh (Score 1) 36

by pla (#47537917) Attached to: How Stanford Engineers Created a Fictitious Compression For HBO
Or if you're into math, you invoke the pigeonhole principle

Though technically true, in fairness we need to differentiate between meaningful data and noise. Yes, a universal compressor doesn't care. Human users of compression algorithms, for the most part, do care.

So the limit of useful compression (Shannon aside) comes down to how well we can model the data. As a simple example, I can give you two 64 bit floats as parameters to a quadratic iterator, and you can fill your latest 6TB HDD with conventionally "incompressible" data as the output. If, however, you know the right model, you can recreate that data with a mere 16 bytes of input. Now extend that to more complex functions - Our entire understanding of "random" means nothing more than "more complex than we know how to model". As another example, the delay between decays in a sample of radioactive material - We currently consider that "random", but someday may discover that god doesn't play dice with the universe, and an entirely deterministic process underlies every blip on the ol' Geiger counter.


So while I agree with you technically, for the purposes of a TV show? Lighten up. :)

Comment: Re:Alternative explanation (Score 1) 31

Except Verizon here lets just some "low capacity" cables connect them to Netflix's provider on purpose

...because Netflix's provider (which is Level3) isnt paying for the bandwidth disparity between Level3 and Verizon on purpose.

Thats how the internet is paid for. The sending provider pays the receiving provider for the bandwidth, and this is the only rational way it can be.

You do know that Netflix uses Level3 because Level3 offered the best deal, and the only way they could offer the best deal is to skimp on their responsibility to pay for the packets originating on their network.

Comment: Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (Score 1) 31

by pla (#47537877) Attached to: Enraged Verizon FiOS Customer Seemingly Demonstrates Netflix Throttling
It is also possible the the VPN packets are transiting a different upstream peer from Verizon and bypassing the peering bottleneck at issue. Assuming that Verizon is performing inspection of packets and throttling only Netflix packets is quite a leap.

Failing to have peerage agreements in place to honor your downstream sales commitments is a form of throttling - Or, I would daresay, a form of outright fraud.

If I offer to sell you "unlimited" beers from my fridge for $50 a month, but I only resupply it at a rate of one six-pack per week, I have intentionally cheated you. That basic relationship doesn't magically change because of some hand-waving technobabble about peerage agreements and network congestion.

(Yes, I know those don't strictly count as technobabble, and what they really mean - But they effectively reduce to Verizon having zero interest in upgrading its infrastructure to support its commitments to their customers as long as the FCC and FTC will allow them to outright lie)

Comment: Re:I don't see what good unlocking does (Score 1) 71

by pla (#47537821) Attached to: Compromise Struck On Cellphone Unlocking Bill
Or a month's unlimited data [three.co.uk] for $25. And interestingly (for this topic) a 3UK SIM can be used in a handful of countries without roaming charges - including the USA [three.co.uk] (but data's limited to 25 gigabytes per month and you're not allowed to tether.)

Holy crap... Can I sign up with them AS an American? Tethering aside, that beats my current plan by 5GB and $50.

No, the US doesn't need to regulate the greedy-four in charge of our cell networks - We clearly have the best products and services available at the best prices thanks to free market pressures.

Comment: Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (Score 1) 270

Or do you figure the militaries aren't paid for by taxes?

You seem to be missing the painful fact that spending is not taxes. It could easily be said that out military as paid for by borrowing.

Why will you not simply admit that when you take more money away from one company than another, the one that has less money taken from it can out-compete the one you took more money from?

Its clearly not hard to understand.. right? So you are just being willfully ignorant? Its a fact that you clearly refuse to ever admit, meaning that you are not being intellectually honest on purpose. That means your arguments are dishonest. Purposely being dishonesty is called lying...

So the question stands as to why you are lying.. why you refuse to simply admit something so basic.. is it because your economic philosophy is a religion rather than something based on rational thought, or do you have an agenda of some kind such as wanting to hurt corporations due to simple hatred? Doesnt matter what the answer is.. you are a dishonest fuck at this point. hatred or ignorant religion.. doesnt matter.

Comment: Re:pfft, 3.5% overrun (Score 1) 123

by Rockoon (#47534117) Attached to: SLS Project Coming Up $400 Million Short

It stimulates the economy with relevant tech spending, inspires our children, and sets a rocket ahead of other nations.

So what you are saying is that if they were $400 billion short instead of only $400 million short, then that would be even better.

(translation: Your broken window fallacy isnt any more correct the second time that you post it)

Comment: Re: According to Wikipedia (Score 3, Insightful) 123

by Rockoon (#47533901) Attached to: SLS Project Coming Up $400 Million Short

The falacy is related to destroying things to create work. It does not apply here.

The fallacy is related to making a decision by looking only at the parties directly involved in the short term, rather than looking at all parties (directly and indirectly) involved in the short and long term.

Thats a direct quote from the link that you do not understand but amazingly had to balls to act like an expert on. Dont open your mouth when ignorant unless its to ask questions to reduce your level of ignorance.

Comment: Re:Hmm. I smell a rotten bucket of fish (Score 2) 123

by Rockoon (#47533843) Attached to: SLS Project Coming Up $400 Million Short

So...the rules designed to prevent spending more money than necessary that would end up in the pockets of people who'd have no business getting their hands on it in a sane world...cause more money than necessary being spent and ending in the pockets of other people who'd have no business getting their hands on it in a sane world?

Yes, thats why big government is bad. Bigger government means bigger amounts of money does this.

Comment: Re:Someone has an agenda to push (Score 1) 270

The purpose of a carbon tax is to make carbon emitting-technologies more expensive

Then why do the people that push for carbon taxes always say the exact words: "pay the cost of [the] externalities"

You are admitting that they are lying in order to sell their carbon tax scheme. So why do you trust anything that they say then?

Comment: Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (Score 1) 270

You also might want to consider that many of the countries with "lower" corporate tax rates than the US have higher personal income rates.

Yes, so they are business friendly whereas we are business hostile. You don't seem to be making the point that you wanted to make.

In addition, they don't spend anywhere near as much on a military.

What does that have to do with anything? It seems like you are just reaching for whatever data point you think can be sloppily spun into something that supports higher corporate tax rates, but your reasoning is so poor that you arent realizing that these data points are either irrelevant (a specific spending datapoint) or actually do the opposite of supporting your narrative.

Comment: Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (Score 1) 270

If you think the corporate tax rate is high, compare it with the rates from the 1950s through 1980s.

Irrelevant without also comparing them to the tax rates of other countries over the same periods. I know why you arent doing that. Its because the United States never had the highest corporate tax rates until recently. Everyone else has figured out that having the highest corporate tax rates is bad for their respective economies. We havent yet, and its because of people like you that dont even know what the right questions to ask are.

Comment: Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns (Score 1) 270

The terms are similar.

No they arent. One term carries no content and is in fact wishy-washy shit that is purposely not specific about anything so that the goalposts can be arbitrarily shifted around. When 'green' is suggested to mean 'efficient' it frequently later gets altered to mean 'sustainable', 'carbon neutral', or even shit like 'a step in the right direction.'

However efficient generally implies the current style just being better at it.

Yes. A specific goal. "Green" isnt a specific anything unless you are talking about color and clearly you didnt mean the fucking color when you said it. You meant the nebulous catch-all goalpost-moving crap that all falls under the wishy-washy way-you-feel-about-it umbrella.

This is part of the reason why you find it so hard to accomplish anything. You wont narrow down what you want to accomplish to something specific enough that people can later on say "yeah, they accomplished what they intended" ---- why not just call these things slush funds and be done with it?

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

Working...