Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re: That was then, this is now (Score 1) 118

Fantastic though..

I assume you are happy with the price of your devices going up 5 to 10 times to allow for this mandatory support, possibly more as they will need liability insurance thanks to your requirements.
Of course the dodgy ones will just shut down every 6 months to remove their liability leaving everyone high and dry..

Sounds like consumer heaven??

Comment Re: Bias? Or reality? (Score 1) 444

Dead right!

Einstein, Turing, Tesla, da Vinci, Newton, hawking, etal.. We should have beaten the god damn uniqueness out of those bastards. What good did they ever do for anyone. Go team!

They could have been good solid productive laborers.. Or paupers! Hell.. It's good enough for me and I dropped out of school first chance I got, knocked up the first easy lay I could find (and the second and third).. What more could you want?

Comment But a volcano can only do one thing to you.. (Score 1) 232

Because I am sure there are not dozens of very different causes of injury from a volcano.. being burnt by lava, hit by flying debris and gassed in the ash cloud are all the same thing ;) Why would a doctor care about the differences?

Red tape 101 - if it makes sense, fix that immediately!

Comment Re: there is no (Score 3, Insightful) 402

While saying there is no agw is presumptuous you make a very good point.

One of THE key tests of a scientific theorem is that it can predict.. And yet these 'state of the art' models have so far had a dismal record of prediction.
And yet their 'findings' are treated as science.
Global climate change is obvious, inevitable, and continuous as it always has been of course. There is no static climate.

However AGW is a very different proposition.. And there is a wide continuum of possibilities within in from minor self adjusting changes to serious positive feedback.
However so far no model has shown any actual predictive capability.. Therefore all we can say is no model is useful yet.
That's the problem with complex iterative models.. They need to be close to perfect or their output is complete junk as the errors compound.

THIS is the big issue always swept under the carpet.. If we are going to believe the models they need to demonstrate predictions.. Not in daily weather but in ongoing climate. As yet they cannot.

Until they can anything based on them is politics. In either direction.

If and when they can let's hope people can turn their energy to a true solution.. The obvious ones of course being nuclear power in its more modern versions.. And cut through the red tape and bs that a generation scared stiff by iron curtain nuclear Armageddon propaganda hammered in to their children.

Oh course most are all far to addicted to rampant consumerism to actually change.. So that is pretty much the only solution if there really is a problem.

Comment Re:$949/week? (Score 2) 449

You should perhaps visit a Teachers or Nurses college.
I wonder when there will be a push for more males there, as they are obviously far more heavily disadvantaged than women in tech.

In fact you dont need to go that far, since women are over represented at College level (yes, really, go check the numbers) where is
the male only higher education push?

Or perhaps we should go the other way - men are hugely over represented in high injury risk/low pay jobs, such as commercial fishing, forestry
work, and construction - where is the push to make more Women contribute to these needed areas?

So yes, I agree with you, lets all cry for equality - but lets just remember that cuts both ways - more women in low pay/high risk jobs!

Comment Re:Its going to be awesome (Score 1) 240

Well, perhaps if the US stopped doing its very best to destabilize and incite those groups
then they could? not that ISIS has neighbor states, any more than US rednecks have neighbor states.

However, of course, that would take a little critical thinking and a lot less kneejerk 'lets whoop their arse'! from the US..

Comment Re:Why start now? (Score 2) 124

Good luck with that.
People want to regulate things THEY dont do that could possible be seen as a threat.
Most people dont fly drones (or think their kids toys somehow dont 'count').

Try pointing out to people the well in excess of 10,000 bird HITS that happen each year in the US (and yes, thats official numbers from the FAA)
and watch them start making excuses for why that doesnt matter, and magically drones will be making airliners plunge from the sky real soon now.
Wonder why a couple of drones stops firefighting aircraft from operating when the large numbers of birds flying in a panic around such fires

Are the preexisting rules that apply to drones to keep them out of dangerous situations? Of course there are, they are regulated in exactly the same way
as other remote controlled aircraft always have been - the same way that radio controlled helicopters that are common as mud are. However like we are
now seeing with 'online' being tacked on the end of every regulation they can think of to make a new punishable crime, we will see the same thing with 'drone'
because...... well, I'll leave that up to you.

Yes, there are plenty of people who do stupid things with drones (which is also a stupid term for these, but hey, common use), just like there are plenty
of people who do stupid things with just about anything you can imagine.. Deal with it, use the ample existing regulations plus perhaps just a bit of EDUCATION
to address it, and move on, people.

Comment Re:China is a carbon creditor nation? What? (Score 1) 528

But the fact that we owe anyone for what went on in the past is nuts, especially to countries that have done the same damn thing or are making efforts to do so. We have been making efforts on pollution ever since the creation of the EPA.

Come on officer, so what if I have been beating my wife for the last 20 years, WTF has that got to do with anything! That guy over there just shoved her, arrest his damn arse! Throw the book at him!

Oh, and if you think the EPA has ever lifted a finger to curb any CO2 emissions, then you severely misunderstand how the good ole USA works.

Comment Re:Bad timing (Score 1) 528

Ah, let me translate that for you.

Isnt it impressive how US run organisations these days see disasters in 3rd world countries as a nice fat cash cow so they can pour millions more into their own coffers and not even lift a finger for the people in need. Go USA!

There, fixed that for you.
If you want to avoid such things, its really pretty simple, avoid American charities. There are still a few people in the world who actually work to help people in actual need - most of them, surprisingly, are actually local to the needs, not sitting in offices in Washington.

Comment Re:GIVE US THE MONEY! (Score 1) 528

Great, so STFU about their current production - if it was a problem then, then it is not a problem now.
Or agree that it is and always was a problem, and pay up for your share.
Its pretty simple really, isnt it.

Of course such realities are very unpopular in todays 'me me me' climate of people demanding debt forgiveness and government support without wanting to contribute..

Or do you think those big houses, fancy cars, and latest consumer goods came from working the fields?

Comment Re: US Bill is only 4 Trillion? (Score 5, Insightful) 528

You really need to think that through for a while.
Or do you really think that most of the world pollution happened in the last decade?
Perhaps you think the US had nice solid restrictions in place over the last 100 years?

Of course, what you will want to do is start everyone on a clean slate now, right? to be fair?
After all, the US has finished its major construction, infrastructure, and industrial development - and what could be better than taxing back anyone else who tries to follow.

The whole point is the US has been a major CO2 producer for a long long time - it will take a long time yet for others to catch up to that.
The whole point of this research is to quantify just that - how some countries have been able to become very wealthy partyly by producing a large amount of CO2 over a long time, and that if we are now going to penalise current producers, it is only fair that we also penalise those who dug the hole in the first place.

The flip side is if you dont want to hold the past producers equally responsible, then you cannot expect the current ones to be held responsible.

Make your choice, but you should not expect to have it both ways.

Comment Re:Rotten apple ?!? (Score 1) 217

Because apple, who make a huge amount of noise about wanting to protect their dear beloved users dont disable the storage of and access to the security tokens when their devices are jailbroken?

THATS the story here, they could, however they do not. Hence they have left the apple IDs knowingly open to theft.

Users, for better or worse, have convinced themselves that Apple keeps them magically out of any such trouble, however this is a clear
case where they could, but they do not. Which is a pity.

Come on Apple, the obvious fix is to make the secured data inaccessible once jailbroken.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 1) 174

I would really REALLY suggest you spend a little more time researching those other compressors you so easily consider to be 'text streams', they are not.
for example, one of them also happens to hold the current record for non lossy image compression..

Its all a matter of feeding them the right models, and I can guarantee that a good PPM or CM set of models will do much better than a weeks worth
of model development - but of course they reason they WILL is because they take care of the downstream details - the work you have done in finding
context is exactly what they do need.

Remember, there are three stages to compression, and using 'state deep within a video decoder that doesn't apply to text streams (like what above-neighbor color presence bits are set)' is the top level - finding context to model. What I would suggest is that the decades of research as to how best to utilise that context
could be of use... then again perhaps you have done better than they can - and that is what testing against the corpus will show.
When it comes to non lossy compression, there is no such thing as a text compressor, there is no such thing as an exe compressor, there are just different
models of data, and different ways of using those models.

You are not the first, or I would suspect the last to look at bitstream detokenisation and recompression in its many forms..

If you dont read up on this, you are missing something that matters, for example:
But then perhaps you are aware of that all.

Dont get me wrong, 22% is VERY respectable on jpeg.. but why not try to do better.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 2) 174

Its good that you understand that bold claims require clear evidence.. Thank you for replying.

It is not surprising you can compress h264 using a 4mb block and token decode/recode, because of course that means you are using more resources than it (as you state) and removing functionality..
I refer you to the following, hopefully you are aware of it..
Perhaps you should try your core modeling/tokenising against that, then consider how the ones that beat you do so.. not as an insult to your systems
but as a guide to current advanced techniques. IF you cannot match them, perhaps you should consider why and if using some of those techniques
would help... (hint: they will)

BTW, by your description your system is not useful for streaming - streaming requires the ability to both recover from errors rapidly and to enter a live
stream at an point withing a small window - that is pretty much WHY h264 has to reset state with great regularity. If you cannot do that then you do
not support streaming.

Towards the end you seem to be talking at odds to your 4MB block.. you claim you only need a single previous frame for decode, and that your memory requirements are small.. If that is so then I would suggest that there is other memory also being used.. or you are not fully utilising your 4MB block.

Just a suggestion, you should compare yourselves with h264 that is extended to use similar resources - that can still be beaten (as it must support streaming and you dont), but you will find its compression goes up significantly - even though you are going 'off book' with respect to its standards.

What you seem to be doing in effect is decoding the h264 token stream and then recompressing that without some of the functional demands that cause h264 to be structured as it is - that works, just be aware of the limitations you create - they are not just there because of 'committee'.

If it's worth hacking on well, it's worth hacking on for money.