Re: Whatever. @Kake
I dunno, I was expecting jake to come on and tell us this is nothing new, he made the first ones of these back in the 80s and can make his ranch disappear.
2701 posts • joined 21 Jul 2009
I dunno, I was expecting jake to come on and tell us this is nothing new, he made the first ones of these back in the 80s and can make his ranch disappear.
He's not dead, but he's pretty gone now, which is very very sad. Diseases which affect the mind are the most horrific of all.
I doubt it. The law is extremely clear hear, it does not depend upon interpretation or who is doing the collecting, if (UK) intelligence agencies need to see the data for a (UK) resident, they must have ministerial approval.
I'd imagine that in most scenarios the approval would be forthcoming though.
I remember when your programs came on listings you typed in from the magazine. I think the new way is better.
Users want features. We give them features. This makes the programs bigger.
The easiest way to make features is to build re-usable layers of components. This makes all the programs much bigger.
The way to make the programs smaller with all the features that the users still want is to remove all the encapsulation from all layers of the program. This makes the program buggier.
Try that argument with parents you know and see how they react then try again
Most breeders become insanely illogical when it comes to their precious little booboo.
40%-50%... ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE???
I pulled the stats out of my arse. Tony Blair's target was 100% in FE/HE, so I halved that.
The problem is too many people go to university. It should be just the top, brightest 40-50% who go to university, regardless of wealth or ability to pay. This is skewed by the richer parents paying the way for their less able spawn, which leads to a mis-representation of the classes at universities.
This mis-representation is seen by certain types as an outrage to equality. Tony Blair definitely saw it like that, and made it his aim to have every one go to university (whilst simultaneously crippling them in debt - hmm...)
A much better system would be to make university fees solely dependent upon academic success or lack thereof. If you're smart enough, full ride. If you're actually quite thick and still want to go, £50,000 a year please. Of course, this could never happen, as the traditional leftist view is that the rich can buy an education for their children, and therefore the grades achieved by them are not comparable to more 'worthy' candidates.
Did you miss the part where A level exam results come out on 15th of August (7th in Scotland)?
It's not like you even need to use a computer to use UCAS, everything can be handled by mail. It's not even (yet) peak time for UCAS, so downtime to a non essential computer system in the slow period is not news worthy, people don't need to lose jobs.
The level of entitlement people feel towards IT systems is astonishing, this is not a mission critical system that must be available 24x7x52, and saying that people should be sacked for not making it such, or that we should spend even more money on it is just crazy.
If the system is still down on August 1st, then sure, maybe a problem. Until then, it's just blah, you can confirm your firm/insurance offers in several ways.
It's hard to verify what "you" said at any point, hiding as you are behind your lovely cloak of anonymity. Going solely from this post, positing a massive bunch of kook like conspiracy theories and then jumping up and down when one of them is validated.
You: P, Q, R!
You: Therefore Q, R!
It's an obvious logical fallacy, and since you don't spot it, it makes it hard to trust your logic.
On the other hand, I only use Spotify from my phone and tablet, and the Spotify ios clients are "not great". I have absolutely no loyalty to Spotify, they don't have some of my favourite artists, if a competing service can offer me the same features with any of a) a better interface, b) more of my artists or c) cheaper monthly costs, then bye bye Spotify.
jake, its a big bad world out there, and, despite what your politicians tell you, different countries around the world have different laws to you.
For instance, walking around with a set of lock picks, and not being a locksmith, is called "Going equipped for stealing" and is an offence in most common law countries.
Any right minded terrorist would also get their maths right and make bombs that worked properly, rather than go 'PFFFT' and run away with Chapati flour dribbling down the legs, or turn your underpants on fire.
Any right minded terrorist would use a VPN, and 512 bit AES encrpytion, rather than using a substitution cipher in Excel.
Turns out, being a terrorist is an occupation that doesn't appeal to many right minded people, and as such, they often do stupid ass daft stuff.
You can get real meat kebabs in the UK, used to go to a place in Sheffield that did amazing lamb kebabs with big chunks of lamb, mmmmmm.
You can get quality meat kebabs in almost every single kebab house in the UK, just stop ordering doner, get yourself a nice shish kebab.
The Greek gyros is good, but is commonly pork, where as in the UK most kebab shops are run by Muslims and so tend to offer lamb/chicken instead of pork/chicken. If anyone knows a good greek gyros place in London...
Put two slices of bread into one slice of the toaster to toast the underside.
Crack two eggs in a bowl and beat until mixed
lots of Lee & Perrins
Mix ingredients well in bowl
Spread thin layer of whole grain mustard on the untoasted side of the toast
Cover liberally with the cheese
Grill until bubbly
More black pepper
Phoronix is the open source equivalent of News of the World, they couldn't put together a competent benchmark to save their lives. If you believe 30% of what you read on that site, you're trusting them too much.
2008 called, they want their gag back.
I still call em Renault
No, we can't burn down all the hedges, but the police do need to know when you visit hedges. Therefore, in future, all visits to hedges will be recorded in a big diary hanging at the end by the hawthorne. You don't have to write down what you were doing, just who you were talking to and for how long.
Simple fact of the matter is that all the porn in the world was available in the nation's hedges when we were kids, where as for today's kids they can get access to porn in the safety of their own home.
Restricting the flow of porn to kids will only drive porn back out to the hedge row. Won't someone think of the kids and stop sending them out in to the cold wet night to find pages of "Readers Wives".
I wonder how frequently they send those re-synch frames in the data stream?
This was talked about briefly in the article, the stream is arranged into GOP, Groups Of Pictures, a list of frames. Each frame can be of I, P, B. I-frames are the entire picture, P-frames are forward predictive and B-frames are bi-directionally predictive frames, ie they add to the previous/next frame. If you haven't decoded the previous frame, then it can only show the difference, and the video looks "corrupted".
Obviously, I-frames take the most space, P-frames, being one way predictive, take up less space, and B-frames take even less space, so for optimum quality at a given bandwidth, you want as few as possible I-frames, less P-frames and more B-frames. However, as you point out, you need as many I-frames as possible to make seeking/scrubbing not appear corrupted.
A typical GOP may have something like this structure "IBBPBBPBBPBBI". The next I-frame is 12 frames after the first I-frame, and this is the GOP length (N). The maximum distance between 2 reference frames (like an I or P frame) in the GOP is 3, which is the GOP size (M), so this GOP would be described as N=12 M=3. The GOP length is also called the Intra Period.
Anyway, all of these things are configurable by the encoder. So the answer to your question is, "as infrequently as the encoder thought they could get away with". You want enough I-frames that you can seek easily, you want as many P/B-frames as possible to keep the bitrate down. Pay your dollar, make your choice.
No it isn't. The license fees payable are only necessary if commercially distributing video, and even then they are trivial, and having the best technology disseminated by all parties is the best possible outcome.
Going back to each platform having its own proprietary-yet-massively-identical-to-h264 codec would be a fucking nightmare. Do you want a world where Sorensen Spark is still relevant?
No, the blockiness will be down to the bitrate used for iplayer being quite low. The 'HD' iplayer streams are around 832x468 in size, and a bitrate of around 1400 Kbit/s.
For blockiness, CPU doesn't come in to it at all, internet download speed only matters if you cannot download the file fast enough, which would present as pausing/buffering and not blockiness - although if your download speed is not sufficient, iplayer could switch you to an even lower bitrate stream, which would of course appear blocky more often.
MP3 is actually short for "MPEG-1/2 Audio Layer 3", and a ".mp3" file describes both the codec the audio has been encoded with and the file format.
".mp4" on the other hand is simply a generic container as described by the MPEG-4 Part 14. It's a container format that can contain all kinds of data, audio data, video data, subtitles, pictures - all kinds of things, all kinds of codecs. The file suffix may be ".mp4", but there are lots of other file suffixes used for the same format (m4a, m4v, m4b...). The audio is typically AAC, or some variant like HE-AAC, but can be almost anything, including things like Apple Lossless, or even MP3.
Broadcasters lowering bitrates is not always the issue it is made out to be.
The BBC were accused of this, but they were simply using an encoder tuned for a particular Constant Rate Factor (CRF), which attempts to encode at a particular quality level, not a particular bitrate. The encoder was replaced, and similar scenes were encoded much more efficiently with the new encoder, which reduced the required bit rate for a particular quality factor. The new stream had a lower bitrate (9Mb/s) than the old stream (17Mb/s), but (allegedly¹) the same quality.
Course, its not always like this. ITV are notorious for cramming in their channels in to any bandwidth (I know its MPEG-2, but look at ITV-4 on Freeview, the bitrate is so low you can almost see artefacts on every frame).
¹ Lots of people disagreed, there was lots of arguing, eventually the encoders were replaced again, this time with VBR encoders that used, on average, 9 Mb/s, but could be bursty in high action segments and use up to 17 Mb/s briefly.
Yeah, £5 to that chinese guy down the market. Thanks to him I have Windo's 8 and a copy of Office 364 and it cost me next to nothing, mwah ha ha.
You want to pop back down the market, they've released Office 365 now.
Obviously not, but I do pay the amount that's due unlike Apple, Google et al who by creative application of corporate residency and dodgy cross-border sales manage to pay a fraction of the tax money the law says they should owe.
No, by creative application of corporate residency they pay exactly the taxes the laws say they should. If you don't like how the tax laws are set up, you shouldn't have voted in the clowns that set them up.
You can tell how good someone will be with computers by going back 25 years or so to the late 80s. At this point, pretty much every household has a VHS player. Every VHS player can tell the time, and can be programmed to record TV shows.
The 30-something who back then couldn't even set the time on his VHS player, let alone set it up to record, these people are the targets for the "PCs anyone can use" ads. Think back, try to remember - they were everywhere.
More importantly if just ONE of the civillians who was near was armed & trained, they could have intervened, taken out the criminals and rendered first aid before the police even turn up...
More importantly if just ONE of the civilians who was near was armed & trained, they could have intervened, killed the criminals before they could be interrogated and shot a couple of by-standers by accident.
Terrorism is violent crimes committed for the purpose of intimidating people to achieve political purposes. These people had political aims, they committed a violent crime for no other purpose than to further promote their purposes, they even hung around to make sure their message was heard.
You can say it is inept terrorism, you can say it is ineffective terrorism, you can say it is lone wolf terrorism - it's still terrorism.
First off, the nutters who carried out the Woolwich attack are just that: barking mad, eye-rolling, loony, nutters
Steady on, I don't think it's been confirmed they were members of UKIP.
Yes, because that's what we want, governments chasing profitable investments..
Do you not see something hypocritical about the home of capitalism giving state aid to private enterprises that do not benefit the common good? Yes, this was a loan that they have paid back (in part) and not a subsidy, but it was a loan that banks would not give.
Why does this company, which is only making toys for rich people, and has no publicized aims of producing energy efficient electric cars for the masses, deserve state aid? Should the criteria for giving state aid, "will we make our money back"?
Please, commentards, remember there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.
Tax avoidance is entirely legal, moral, natural and a human response to being asked to pay taxes. We all do it - when VAT went up, did you not buy large ticket items in advance before it went up? I know I saved about £50 buying my season ticket in December rather than January.
I dislike Ed Miliband's policys (or lack thereof), but I don't think more or less of him knowing he has sensibly arranged his affairs to minimise inheritance tax*. If he is doing things by the book, he is/will be paying the right amount of tax for his circumstances, he has just structured his circumstances to minimise how much the revenue can take away.
Lord Clyde said it best, that's why he got the big bucks:
No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue
The biggest issue affecting us in the UK is that the rules of the EU allow commercial activity to seep out of our country and be registered in another one for tax purposes. I've no problem with google claiming chargebacks for the cost of providing systems to the UK sales teams, or funnelling all the profits after tax to some holding company in the Caymans, but fuck it, revenue and profit from UK sales should result in UK taxes. I don't think we should leave the EU, but some rules have to change.
* TBH, I reckon David set it all up
In the article it says:
... it's [Yahoo!] paying roughly 20 per cent of what it earned for an asset estimated to have made a mere $13m. At Tumblr’s estimated earnings, it would take about 10 years before Tumblr pays off.
Tumblr’s CEO might have a gift of spotting a budding social networking opportunity, but he’s not been able to turn his skill at attracting short-form bloggers into the ability to make money from them. Yet - we're being lead to believe - Tumblr's CEO will remain in charge and independent of Yahoo!.
so it is making money at the moment, just not enough for your liking, and presumably, not enough for someone who spent over a beeeeelion dollars on it.
The reason for its current success is also the reason it will fail, it is currently managed by someone who monetizes the site as little as possible while still making a reasonable profit. In this manner, users are encouraged to use the site because it does not have invasive monetisation of the user.
Yahoo have said they are going to keep a hands off approach, and yet at the same time massively increase revenue because of the acquisition. If they do the former, they won't make any more money from it than they are now, if they do the latter all the users will leave and they still won't make any money from it. Of all the things you could spend a beeeeeeelion dollars on, this is not the one I would choose.
you have forgotten how the U.S.A. was won from England, which was very much poor people with guns.
Ahaha, no. The US revolution was run by a bunch of rich white slave owners who no longer wanted to pay their taxes. The rest is sentimental bullshit.
Eadon, you're logged in to the wrong account
I live in Stratford, and work in the City. The entire purpose of Shoreditch is that it is cheap, and close enough to the City that you can easily meet people in real companies. Stratford is cheap, but it's way too far away from the City for anyone to come see you. It might as well be Slough.
Until you're 25, car insurance is prohibitively expensive, and yet at the same time completely necessary. When you're a young adult, the one thing you don't have much of is money, and so any way you can get or save money, any money, is a huge draw. 20% of £2000 is £400, a significant sum.
Being tracked is of secondary importance compared to saving some money.
When you're older, car insurance is not so expensive anymore. Plus, there's a good chance you will be earning more money too. At this point, saving 20% of your insurance might net you £60, not inconsiderable, but not going to change your year.
I'd prefer a simpler system for younger drivers. It seems unfair that many of them are penalized, or potentially spied on, simply because a minority of this class of driver cost insurance companies the most. Insurance should cost more for them, but it should be rebated or rolled-over each year to the same as an over-25 if they have no claims.
Eg, £2k for fully comp for a year for a 19 yr old, same car/town might be £400 for a 30 yr old. After a year of no claims, the 19 yr old's renewal is only £400, or £2k if they made a claim. This may be unmanageable, doing the sums may make the 19 yr old's 1st year costs too high, since subsequent ones are not as high..
fairly silly remark, not sure what land you live in but i've worked with many talented developers who only use IE
It may be different now, IE actually has some developer tools to speak of, but anyone developing websites in the past 5 years ago who wasn't doing most of their work in Firefox or (eventually) Chrome was totally wasting their time, since the debug features just aren't there.
Even now, for doing certain debug tasks in IE you are better off using Fiddler, rather than the simplicity of chrome's approach.
Infinity is a brand name of BT's for the Retail Fibre service they offer.
FTTC (the fibre most people have that can get it) is a wholesale product many ISPs offer.
Please don't help BT in making everyone believe Infinity IS fibre and thus they're the only game in town, they've already nabbed the majority of the business.
It's all FTTC from BT though, isn't it, regardless of what the badge says? It's a BT line from you to the cabinet, it's BT from the cabinet to the exchange, and it's BT from the exchange to your ISPs POP.
BT make most of their money in broadband charging by the GB for backhaul from exchange to POP, I don't want to be exploited that way.
Funny, Goscomb offer broadband based either on BT, TTB or O2/Be, and recommend using O2/Be as their preferred supplier.
I'm staying. Sky have said they will keep existing agreements and add features that I currently have (static IP). My preference would be to stay with Be as a separate ISP, ie not merged with the rest of the riff raff on Sky, which is what we had with O2, but it is not to Be :/
I can't get fibre in my central London location, and there is no way I'd move to a BT provisioned ADSL product, so my choices are
BeSky, Sky, C&W (ADSL24 or other resellers), TalkTalk, PipexTalkTalk or TiscaliTalkTalk. Given that list, I'll take Sky.
The problem with these sorts of surveys is that the majority of people staying on Be are not on the forums moaning about leaving, and therefore the survey is of an unrepresentative sample. It does show that lots of people are leaving though, perhaps not in the percentages inferred though.
Oh I see Lulzsec were just doing them a favour! It all makes sense now.
And if I kick in your door, smear faeces all over your bed and walls, and steal your home sex tapes and bank account records and release them on the web I'd be doing you a favour too for not having a stronger door. You'd thank me for it. Right?
Er, no - that isn't what I said at all. Tone down the "Righteous of Romford", this isn't the Daily Mail.
My point is that part of the "loss" to Sony is Sony having to do what they should have done in the first place. You can't attribute the totality of the costs to LulsZec, Sony are also to blame.
Sony made the choice to ignore industry standards and just hashed passwords instead of hashing combined with a salt. It was this failure that meant that passwords were readily decipherable by use of rainbow tables.
The $20m cost of the intrusion was largely related to having to provide ID theft monitoring services to all US users, which would not have been necessary had the appropriate measures already been taken.
You can tell from Sony's actions that they are partly culpable. They have a duty of care to protect their users personal information using industry standards. They failed to do so, and so have had to pay for ID theft protection, credit card fraud monitoring and protection, and so on.
Just Sony alone claimed they lost $20 million which is not unreasonable given how long PSN was down, the loss of reputation, the loss of revenues and the theft of 24 million account details.
LulzSec hacked Sony, which required Sony to bring down PSN, and fix PSN's codebase so that it was fit for purpose. What proportion of the $20m total cost are you assigning to Sony for being incompetent, and to LulzSec for exposing their incompetence in a criminal manner?
Then all these schemes, the Double Irish, the Dutch Sandwich, the Luxembourgian Book Bonanza¹ and the Swiss Bean Swindle¹ all become impossible. Yay! We'd get all this lovely increased tax revenue that these multinationals are just ripping out of our country at the moment.
However, we would also lose all the lovely money that we rip out of the rest of the world. I'm no macro-economist, but I bet if you got 100 of them in a room and said "UK leaves the EU, does tax revenue go up or down", you wouldn't get a quorum.
Personally, I think the EU is a good thing, but there shouldn't be areas like Luxembourg for vast multinationals to take the piss with their tax rates. It may be easier just to leave.
¹ This is not a real thing
I plan to get a 3D TV when I replace my current TV, if 3D is still around in 2020.
Please don't denigrate LOGO, my first programming language.
repeat 8 [repeat 4 [rt 90 fd 100] bk 100 lt 45]
It only needs to be as technically competent as their readership. Most Telegraph readers I know are "of a certain age", this would (and does) flummox them to the extent that it does work.
It only has to work for a certain percentage of the readership, and then you don't worry about the others. It's like piracy, as long as it is extremely hard and on the fringes of the internet, nae bother, if it is easy enough that Jammie Thomas can do it, plenty bother.
Protecting "Witnesses"?? What witnesses?
This is solely about blocking out the names of anyone who thought they could fuck up someone's life for political gain, and is now terrified of the political loss if their names are released.
Cretins, the lot of them.
Obsidian. It'll take an edge so sharp it's smooth even on nano-scale. Puts metal blades to shame. Tricky to work, but it'll cut someone with much less effort than a metal blade. Put a bit of mass behind it and you could probably lop someone's head off without too much effort.
Plus it will work on White Walkers.