[gareth]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
You mean _false_ accusations of abuse. Much like the _false_
insinuations of paedophilia that he sends to people's employers in
poison pen emails.
Untrue, as described previously.
Arthur C Clarke decamped to Ceylon to escape attention
from his obsession with paedophilia.
You are similarly obsessed and have escaped to the Canary Islands.
Strange, indeed.

Quote-trapped potential actionable comment for Mike's attention.

If you think it to be actionable then you are an even bigger fool than you
make out to be, for you have repeated the comment in public.

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo , Stephen Thomas Cole
escribió:
"gareth" wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
You mean _false_ accusations of abuse. Much like the _false_
insinuations of paedophilia that he sends to people's employers in
poison pen emails.

Untrue, as described previously.

Arthur C Clarke decamped to Ceylon to escape attention
from his obsession with paedophilia.

You are similarly obsessed and have escaped to the Canary Islands.

Strange, indeed.

Quote-trapped potential actionable comment for Mike's attention.

Thanks Steve. Forwarded to Wiltshire Police.

--
:: je suis Charlie :: yo soy Charlie :: ik ben Charlie ::

[Stephen Thomas Cole[_3_]]

Mike Tomlinson wrote:.

Quote-trapped potential actionable comment for Mike's attention.

Thanks Steve. Forwarded to Wiltshire Police.

No problem, Mike. That file they're building on him must be massive by now!
Evans has been flailing around and lashing out at all and sundry for the
last few days, he's probably suffered another self-inflicted calamity in
his personal life.

How's life in the sun treating you this week? Dreadful weather in Kent
today, ****ing it down non-stop. Have a piña collada for me!

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

[gareth]

"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
...
No problem, Mike. That file they're building on him must be massive by
now!
Evans has been flailing around and lashing out at all and sundry for the
last few days, he's probably suffered another self-inflicted calamity in
his personal life.

It remains that 100% of your postings consist of rather silly and infantile
personal remarks.

As amateur radio is a technical pursuit, and you yourself elected to
cross post to comp.dsp which is even more technical, why not make
your first technical post ever, since you first arrived to pollute Usenet
just over 2 years ago with your tirades of abuse?

I think that you lack any technical acumen and your bluster
is your attempt to cover up.

[gareth]

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , Stephen Thomas Cole
escribió:
"gareth" wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
You mean _false_ accusations of abuse. Much like the _false_
insinuations of paedophilia that he sends to people's employers in
poison pen emails.
Untrue, as described previously.
Arthur C Clarke decamped to Ceylon to escape attention
from his obsession with paedophilia.
You are similarly obsessed and have escaped to the Canary Islands.
Strange, indeed.
Quote-trapped potential actionable comment for Mike's attention.
Thanks Steve. Forwarded to Wiltshire Police.

Really? For your recent posts have been full of your obsession that the
badge of paedophilia was attached to you, but it was not put there by me,
nor by any real person.

Therefore, it is a truism that you are obsessed by paedophilia, as, indeed,
you quote yourself abive.

[[email protected]]

In rec.radio.amateur.equipment Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But
here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for
years (here come the trolls).

trolls trolls trolls trolls



--
Jim Pennino

[Stephen Thomas Cole[_3_]]

"gareth" wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artÃ*culo , Stephen Thomas Cole
escribió:
"gareth" wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
You mean _false_ accusations of abuse. Much like the _false_
insinuations of paedophilia that he sends to people's employers in
poison pen emails.
Untrue, as described previously.
Arthur C Clarke decamped to Ceylon to escape attention
from his obsession with paedophilia.
You are similarly obsessed and have escaped to the Canary Islands.
Strange, indeed.
Quote-trapped potential actionable comment for Mike's attention.
Thanks Steve. Forwarded to Wiltshire Police.

Really? For your recent posts have been full of your obsession that the
badge of paedophilia was attached to you, but it was not put there by me,
nor by any real person.

Therefore, it is a truism that you are obsessed by paedophilia, as, indeed,
you quote yourself abive.

Quote-trapped further potentially actionable comments for Mike's attention.


--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

[rickman]

On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:58 AM, AndyW wrote:
On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the
same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However,
it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P,
1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the signal
is decompressed.

I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital.
Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago.
I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs
come with built-in 'Freeview'.

I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex
images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer
chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible
because of the higher power chipset.

The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold,
presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the
TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then
for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway.

My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed
time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display
it before it has to start on the next frame.
Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and
displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot
handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding
the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all.
Standing ready to be corrected.

Andy



Andy,

I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But
here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for
years (here come the trolls).

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf

http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560

http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?

The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a
consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone...

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf

--

Rick

[Jerry Stuckle]

On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:58 AM, AndyW wrote:
On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the
same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However,
it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P,
1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the
signal
is decompressed.

I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital.
Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago.
I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs
come with built-in 'Freeview'.

I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex
images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer
chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible
because of the higher power chipset.

The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold,
presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the
TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then
for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway.

My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed
time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display
it before it has to start on the next frame.
Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and
displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot
handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding
the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all.
Standing ready to be corrected.

Andy



Andy,

I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But
here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for
years (here come the trolls).

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf


http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560

http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?


If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).

And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.

The decoding is very much *not* proprietary to one company. There is a
consortium of companies who own patents for the MPEG-2 decoder alone...

http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/...ts/m2-att1.pdf


Once again you show you don't understand the technology, but have to
argue anyway. MPEG-2 is NOT H.264.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

[[email protected]]

In rec.radio.amateur.equipment Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:28 PM, rickman wrote:
On 2/26/2015 10:09 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 2/26/2015 3:58 AM, AndyW wrote:
On 25/02/2015 13:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

Not really true, at least in the United States. All TV's here use the
same (proprietary) chipsets to decompress the digital signal. However,
it makes a huge difference on the resolution being used, i.e. 720P,
1080P, 1080I, UHD... The difference is in what happens after the
signal
is decompressed.

I am unsure of US TV. In the UK terrestrial TV is all digital.
Analog(ue) was switched off a few years ago.
I am referring to the whole box from antenna to screen, most of our TVs
come with built-in 'Freeview'.

I have a digital set about 6 years old that struggles to handle complex
images but my new toy handles it perfectly. My newer TV uses a newer
chipset and more efficient decoding algorithm that is made possible
because of the higher power chipset.

The older chipsets are still in production and still being sold,
presumably the TV manufacturers can buy them cheaply, stick them in the
TV and rely on marketing buzz over technical demonstration to sell then
for a larger markup. Most people I know buy on screen size anyway.

My understanding - which may be incorrect - is that the TV has a fixed
time based upon the framerate in which to decode the image and display
it before it has to start on the next frame.
Better quality TVs are capable of fully decompressing the image and
displaying it between frames but the cheaper and older ones cannot
handle a new image every frame and so, when it runs out of time decoding
the image it just gets sent to the screen, tesselations and all.
Standing ready to be corrected.

Andy



Andy,

I don't know what the Europeans use, so I can't speak for you guys. But
here in the United States, everything is digital also, and has been for
years (here come the trolls).

Yes, the TV only has a certain amount of time to decode the signal. But
in the U.S., the method used is proprietary to one company. The
chipsets required to decode the signal are all produced by this company,
so all TV's have similar decoding.

I think you are confusing all chip makers using the same algorithm with
all TV makers buying their chips from the same chip maker.

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/componen...GProdBrief.pdf


http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cab...utions/BCM3560

http://www.fujitsu.com/cn/fsp/home-e...t/MB86H01.html

Are you suggesting that all of these chip makers are reselling one
company's products?


If you would bother to understand what you referenced, NONE of these
chipsets are hi-def (1080).

And yes, H.264 is a proprietary algorithm, with only one company
providing the chipsets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

begin quote
A hardware H.264 encoder can be an ASIC or an FPGA.

ASIC encoders with H.264 encoder functionality are available from many
different semiconductor companies, but the core design used in the ASIC
is typically licensed from one of a few companies such as Chips&Media,
Allegro DVT, On2 (formerly Hantro, acquired by Google), Imagination
Technologies, NGCodec. Some companies have both FPGA and ASIC product
offerings.[56]

Texas Instruments manufactures a line of ARM + DSP cores that perform
DSP H.264 BP encoding 1080p at 30fps.[57] This permits flexibility
with respect to codecs (which are implemented as highly optimized DSP
code) while being more efficient than software on a generic CPU.
end quote

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/M...mplementations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA


--
Jim Pennino