Category: Uncategorized

A flagrant FUD foul on Ogg Theora

Greg Maxwell posted an essay in response to an implausible claim by Google employee Chris DiBona on the WhatWG mailing list. That claim, which can be seen as FUD-filled, in part, reads:

Comparing Daily Motion to Youtube is disingenuous. If yt were to switch to theora and maintain even a semblance of the current youtube quality it would take up most available bandwidth across the internet.

I, like Greg, will concede that Theora has room for improvement, still; Greg characterizes Theora as “competitive” when judging “[b]y conventional criteria” and I would agree.

Greg also states:

I do not believe Chris intended to deceive anyone, only that he is a victim of the same outdated and/or simply inaccurate information that has fooled many others.

Then, he goes on to compare the same video converted to YouTube format versus the same video encoded to a comparable Ogg/Theora+Vorbis file (the Ogg/Theora+Vorbis files are slightly smaller). The reference footage he uses is the first 5 minutes (approx.) of Big Buck Bunny.

I believe the higher resolution Ogg/Theora+Vorbis file to be at least as good as its YouTube H.264 MP4 counterpart; apparently I’m not the only one. (I have not viewed the lower resolution files yet.)

Ogg Theora was in alpha for so long after its initial announcement that many people forgot about it or never took it seriously. As of 2008-11-03, the public release (i.e. production quality) version of Theora is out there; combined with the previous releases of Vorbis, Speex, and FLAC, most needs of unencumbered audio and video codecs are satisfied. The only thing Theora does not do well is high-bitrate/archival-quality video; the future release of Dirac as an Ogg-contained codec is intended to fill this gap.

Some notes for those confused by some of the above:

  • The use of “Ogg/Theora+Vorbis” is a more technical way of specifying what exactly is in a “standard” Ogg Theora file. Theora is a video codec; without Vorbis one would only have a silent movie. It is also possible to create Theora+Speex or even theoretically Theora+FLAC movies.
  • Vorbis is roughly comparable to MP3Pro, AAC (Advanced Audio Codec, used in high-bitrate form on DVDs), and WMA (Windows Media Audio). Vorbis usually outperforms MP3 given identical bitrates.
  • Speex is a lower-bitrate codec used for speech encoding. It can be used with the Ogg container format for storage but is more often directly transmitted over the Internet (via UDP/RTP).
  • FLAC is a lossless codec primarily used for archival purposes. You may find it easier to think of it as a “gzip (or bzip2) for audio.” The reason for FLAC is that Vorbis and Speex are both lossy (the decoded output is not the same quality as the input).
  • Ogg is a container format, similar to AVI, Quicktime, Matroska, etc. In theory one can also embed Theora, Vorbis, etc. in these other container formats; outside of Matroska this is rarely done and sometimes fraught with problems (particularly in the case of Vorbis in AVI).

A few thoughts on “too big to fail”

A recent New York Times article poses the question: If it’s too big to fail, is it too big to exist? The article poses some good points which I’ll summarize as best I can:

  • We have moved past the era of many small banks, and will probably not return to it any time soon if at all.
  • Sheila C. Bair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (if you don’t know who they are, look for the FDIC sticker next time you go to a bank) argues for fees imposed on larger banks after they have been bailed out by the government.
  • The other people in the story tend to agree that allowing the taxpayers to foot the bill for large bank blunders is unsustainable long-term.

I agree that we can’t let the largest of the banks fail more than once. We must focus on prevention of future bank failures. At the same time, the possibility of a bank the size of Washington Mutual just up and failing is frightening, and would have had dire consequences for everyone, even those that do not have a bank account and deal only in cash or prepaid debit cards.

The consequences of any of GM, Chrysler, and AIG failing completely would also be rather dire. As it stands, I find the demise of GM’s Pontiac marque rather saddening given I own one of the vehicles. (As if that was not enough, my previous vehicle was a Plymouth.) Without going into specifics, we did not get through the Great Depression of the 1930s without a great deal of government intervention, and the leadership of a truly great president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I find it unrealistic to think that in our greatest economic crisis since that the best policy is “hands off and let the market do its thing.”

I do think that the best strategy looking forward is to keep a closer eye on the size of companies; there is a reason we have antitrust regulations, and it is entirely possible they do not always go far enough.

Did the ADL go out of bounds?

An article from SocialistWorker.org reports on the case of William Robinson, a professor of sociology at the University of California-Santa Barbara (UCSB). This controversy centers around Robinson’s condemnation of the Israeli invasion of Gaza that began in 2008 December.

As stated in the second paragraph of the article:

This campaign against academic freedom is not just an attempt to punish me. Much more importantly, it aims to create an environment of fear and intimidation in which any criticism on Israeli policy is subject to sanctions and censorship.

Robinson’s article goes on to detail the course material he chose for his class on 2009-01-19, the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. Suffice it to say, he does not mince words in his condemnation of the atrocities.

Two students out of a class of 80, who Robinson does not know personally, were offended by the images that they withdrew from the class. If only that were the end of it. Fast forward to 2009-02-09, when Robinson receives a letter from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), courtesy copied to the president of the University of California, the chancellor of the Santa Barbara Campus, and other universiy staff not specifically named in the article.

Then, a month later on 2009-03-09, Abraham Foxman, the director of the ADL, flew all the way from Washington to Santa Barbara to meet with about a dozen university officials, including two deans. Most thought the meeting was about a Jewish studies program; it instead was a thorough indictment of Robinson, discussed for an hour.

A short while later on 2009-03-25, UCSB begins investigating Robinson for violations of the faculty code of conduct.

Robinson reports that he is accused of two things: anti-Semitism, and introduction of course material “substantially unrelated” to the course. From what is mentioned in the article, I believe neither hold water.

First, anti-Semitism. I fail to see how condemnation of Israeli state conduct, particularly the scoffing of international law, can be anti-Semitic. Israel is subject to the same international law as any other country, and when that law is violated, they are subject to the same sanctions and criticism.

Second, this is a global affairs course that Robinson is teaching. The assertion that the conduct of Israel, especially within the context of complaince with international law, is irrelevant to a global affairs course is absolutely, positively, galactically stupid and absurd.

I believe the Holocaust was a tragedy and condemn true anti-Semitism, just as I condemn hate based on criteria such as race, gender, and sexual orientation. But at the same time I’m not going to give the modern-day Israeli government a free pass when they thumb their collective nose at international law.

Robinson concludes the article with a stirring condemnation of those responsible, implying the Israel lobby are “anti-democratic, authoritarian, or totalitarian” and also highlighting the suppression of academic freedom in apartheid South Africa, dictatorships in Latin America, the now-collapsed USSR, in the US under McCarthyism, and, oh yeah, Nazi Germany.

I believe my thoughts on the matter are summed up quite nicely by this quote from a reader of the Los Angeles Times, whom I wholeheartedly agree with:

[I]f you do not like Nazi comparisons then urge Israel not to commit Nazi-like atrocities rather than condemn and ostracize those who make the comparison.

AP sticks their nose in reporters’ Facebook profiles

Wired.com’s Threat Level reports on a new Associated Press policy aimed at reporters. The intent of the policy is “to make sure material posted by others doesn’t violate AP standards.”

That would be all well and good. Except this is for employees’ personal Facebook profiles–and that is where I think this policy goes over the line. The policy is also vague, quoting from further down in the article:

It’s a good idea to monitor your profile page to make sure material posted by others doesn’t violate AP standards: any such material should be deleted.

This is in addition to these ominous and censorious directives:

[E]mployees also should avoid including political affiliations in their profiles and steer clear of making any postings that express political views or take stands on contentious issues.

Further down, in the Twitter-specific section:

Also, when tweeting, remember that’s there a big difference between providing an observation (“I nearly bumped into Chris Matthews outside Penn Station”) and an opinion (“I nearly bumped into the loudmouthed and obnoxious Chris Matthews”).

And it gets even worse:

Do these guidelines apply just to AP employees who are journalists?

They apply to all employees, just as the Statement of News Values and Principles does. We cannot expect people outside the AP to know whether a posting on Facebook was made by someone who takes pictures, processes payroll checks or fixes satellite dishes. We all represent the AP, and we all must protect its reputation.

This edict is most troubling when combined with the fact that the Facebook terms of service only allow one account per user. If you maintain two identities, you run the risk of losing both of them. So it’s not like AP employees can make a “work account” and a “non-work account.” Facebook has this as a term of service for several reasons, the first being that it provides one easy way to clamp down on flagrant dishonesty.

I can see an issue if one heavily advertises that one works for the AP right before launching into a heavily political tirade, but this is different than expressing one’s political views outside of working hours under one’s own name.

To draw an analog, I avoid wearing my work uniform outside of work; I made it a point to bring a change of clothes when I played in my bar poker league after work, and would change out long before the game began. (I will concede that comfort was a contributing factor, but I probably would still have changed clothes even if it were not.)

It’s the same with the AP. There’s a difference between “on the clock” and “off the clock.” Within reason, “off the clock” conduct should be “off-limits” for company policies.