Re: Cowboys herding cats
- From: "David V. Loewe, Jr" <daveloewe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 14:55:39 -0500
On 31 May 2009 14:28:13 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
David Loewe, Jr. <dloewe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What you *have* been told is that the cost of the DSL - by itself
- would not be significantly *more* than what you pay Panix, per
month, *now*. And, it isn't.
How significant is significant? Anyhow, the comparison is irrelevant
unless I were to drop Panix, which I don't plan to do.
Which is irrelevant to what you *could* do.
Given that I'm
not dropping Panix, and that DSL costs more than Panix, you're talking
about my more than doubling what I pay for Internet.
Double would be $350. This would be more than $300, but less than $350.
Remember that your Panix charge would drop since you would no longer be
getting your connectivity from them.
In a word, no.
Not unless you're volunteering to pay for it.
Ask the one person in the newsgroup demonstratably worse off than you
financially to pay for it. Did you fall and hit your head?
"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Right. Unless you're able to do that, you can't watch them unless
you have enough bandwidth to view them in realtime, i.e. to
download a one-hour video in one hour or less.
That is false.
Where on your machine is the video stored between the time you start
downloading it and the time you start watching it, if not the hard disk?
When they talk about downloading the video, they are talking about
saving it to the hard disk, not sticking it in the swap file. And they
may not have to use the swap file at all - depending on how much memory
they have installed in their system.
Why are you talking about standard resolution NTSC video when the
discussion is about mainly about YouTube clips (and news site clips)
which are much smaller than SD TV?
Is it? I didn't think there was any demand for sub-standard video.
We're talking about "dancing postage stamps," circa 1989?
"YouTube originally offered videos in only one format, but it now has
three main formats, as well as a "mobile" format, for viewing on mobile
phones. The original format, now labelled "standard quality", displays
videos at a resolution of 320x240 using the Sorenson Spark codec, with
mono MP3 audio. This was, at the time, the standard for streaming online
"High quality" videos, introduced in March 2008, are shown at 480x360
with mono MP3 sound. They can also be viewed with the H.264 codec
and stereo AAC audio by adding &fmt=18 to the end of the video URL. This
offers a significant improvement over standard quality. This was
followed up in November 2008 by 720p HD support. At the same time,
the YouTube player was changed from a 4:3 aspect ratio to a widescreen
16:9 aspect ratio. This was introduced more than a year behind competing
website Vimeo. 720p videos are shown in full 1280x720 and encoded with
the H.264 codec."
I'm supposed to double what I pay for the net, for *that*?
There you again...
"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever
count on having both at once."
- Re: Cowboys herding cats
- From: Keith F. Lynch
- Re: Cowboys herding cats
- Prev by Date: Re: A quiet afternoon
- Next by Date: Re: Cowboys herding cats
- Previous by thread: Re: Cowboys herding cats
- Next by thread: Re: Cowboys herding cats