Tag Search for "resolution"

oritteropo

says...

The YouTube bitrate for live encoding is published on the google support page titled Live encoder settings, bitrates and resolutions

720p
Resolution: 1280x720
Video Bitrate Range: 1,500 - 4,000 Kbps

The normal encoder is likely to use better compression to reduce the bitrate while maintaining similar quality (in theory anyway) at the cost of not being realtime (after you upload a vid it takes a while before the encoding is finished and all resolutions are available).

According to http://blog.waterworld.com.hk/post/hd-quality-youtube-vs-vimeo the normal youtube encoder is limited to 3Mbps for 720p, but Vimeo is limited to 10Mbps (similar to a DVD).

What the higher bitrate means depends on how fast your internet connection is. If your connection speed is between 3Mbps and 10Mbps then this means that yt 720 will play without buffering, but Vimeo will stop. If your connection is 10Mbps or higher then the higher bitrate means nicer looking video with less compression artefacts.

Here's a bitrate comparison 2Mbps vs 5Mbps vs 10Mbps from the Aussie YouTube channel Tech YES City

YT is actually limited to 8Mbps for 1080p so for certain videos, with lots of motion for instance, the Vimeo 720p would be higher quality than YT 1080p.

enoch

says...

he seems so pleased with himself.

here is an idea buddy,how about talking to your neighbors?
i know that is a radical idea,but you do live RIGHT NEXT DOOR!

by making your neighbors aware that the music they are blasting is pumping directly into your place gives you an opportunity to address the situation.

the newer apartments have walls that are akin to rice paper.you can literally hear everything,but it does not take a lot of brain power to redirect the bass in order for the music to NOT travel through those paper thin walls.

this dude is just creating conflict where there really does not have to be any at all.

engineering WIN,
but conflict resolution FAIL.

enoch

says...

@bareboards2
yeah.i do not understand why he was hanging around while she talked shit.

it appears he may have messed her stuff up,and was looking for something that may have dropped.

we really do not know though.could be anything.could be he gave her boobs a goose for all we know.

we DO know that she was verbally abusing him.

i know i would have walked away.i have encountered women like this all through my life.apologizing just gets you a litany of new insults,and as long as you remain in their vicinity...the insults will only continue and get even more derogatory.

walking away is the best policy.

the majority of times that sufficed to appease their inner rage demon.maybe they would throw a few zingers at my back,but i never really gave a shit.more power to her..they are just words flying out of an entitled little girl who cant behave like an adult.

but...

on a few occasions.
the girl would follow right behind me,and continue to berate and harass me.possibly seeing my retreat as a sign of weakness.i really dont know.what i DO know,is that is a blatant sign of stupidity to take your 5"3" 110lb ass and try to jam it into my face as if you were rhonda rousey.

i have never hit a woman.
but i will not allow a woman to put her hands on me,especially when she has been verbally abusive and aggressive with me.

so the girls who have thought it totally ok to escalate the situation with physical violence,i have always responded in the same fashion: they get one shot.ONE.and then i whip around (and guys who have gotten into fights understand this) and in the most threatening and physically imposing manner,plainly let her know "ok thats ONE.go ahead and hit me again.i fucking DARE you.go ahead and hit me again and see what happens.because if you hit me again you are taking the place of a man,and AS a man i will knock you the fuck out".

i actually learned that from my dad.
one of the kindest and most gentle people you will have ever met,but his advice worked like a charm.

can you guess how many of those girls went for hit # 2?

thats right...none.

ya know.people get angry.
people can misunderstand a situation and react angrily.
humans will encounter conflict throughout our lives,and it is a testament to wisdom,intelligence and patience how we deal with those conflicts.

and there is never a time where it is ok to put your hands on another person,except for in self-defense.

so when a woman puts her hands on a man.
i dont care what level the rage meter is at,she should never put her hands on him.

for a few reasons:
1.its wrong.
2.you dont get a free pass because you own a uterus.
3.violence is never the proper choice for conflict resolution.
4.and most important.would you ever in your life walk up to a grizzly bear with a stick and start poking him? would you cry and whine about the unfairness of it all when that bear rips your face off?

use a little common sense and everything will be fine.

and did ya'all catch this womans glee?
the mere idea of her male friends killing this dude made her flush with excitement.that is a tad disturbing,but expected with such low quality females such as these.

experienced a bunch of women in that category as well.

but thats a story for another day.

simply put:this woman escalated the situation by making it physical and got popped in the mouth.
and thats all it was..a pop.
got her attention though didnt it?

so advice to all my lady friends here on the sift.
you have a right to your anger,your outrage and your indignation.
you do NOT have the right to be hitting,smacking or punching guys willy nilly without consequences.

and while i agree with BB (and others) that the dude should have just walked away,i will not put that responsibility solely on him.how is it HIS responsibility to control this womans actions.she hit.she got popped.
end of story.

greatgooglymoogly says...

The formation of Israel and the question of stealing land can be debated, but at this point it is history and cannot be changed. At some point a nation needed to arise out of the ashes of the Ottoman empire. The problem was, when one did it didn't encompass the entire area. Arab Palestinians didn't vote to accept the border, but neither did they declare war on Israel in 1948, how could they if they weren't even a state? The root of today's problems have to do with the taking of land by act of war. Palestinians are punished for the acts of the other arab nations.

I found it highly surprising the video didn't mention the countless UN resolutions condemning Israel's acts of land confiscation, usually with the USA and Israel the only ones opposing it. In war you can defend yourself, even invade the enemy's territory. But when it's over you have to go back your home, you can't keep a permanent army presence on the captured land and slowly allow your citizens to start living in the captured territory. The fact that the land wasn't part of Jordan made it easier for people to give Israel a pass since they weren't stealing land from a nation, just a nation-less people. That doesn't make it any more justifiable. Israel should have occupied the territory until the end of hostilities and then completely withdrawn.

The video mentions the land they grabbed from Egypt, the almost empty Sinai peninsula that was an incredible strategic value. They were plenty happy to hand it back for a peace treaty, mainly because the hardcore Zionists weren't determined to expand the state of Israel there as they are in the west bank, which has much more history for their people. Notice how they went out of their way to establish a salient to Jerusalem during the 1948 war.

The only reason at some point in the last 40 years Israel hasn't just put up a fence and closed the border permanently(surely the safest choice if you're really worried about suicide bombers) is they wouldn't be able to move beyond that border and capture more land, which is what the orthodox Jews demand. People living in the west bank live under different laws based on their religion. Israeli civil code if they're settlers, military rule if they're Palestinians. How ironic that Israel is lauded as the great democracy in the middle east, yet deny the right of representation to millions under their control.

enoch

says...

@Drachen_Jager

thats a pretty piss poor analogy.
while i can agree (and did in my original comment) that the militia is,by definition,engaging in terrorism.

i cannot agree to killing these men.

and to compare them to ISIS is a bit of a stretch.

1.they are american citizens.they are sovereign.ISIS are not.
2.while there has been an occupation of land,there has been no evidence of violence nor brutality.ISIS is notoriously brutal and violent.
3.while violence may be implied.they have consistently called this a protest against government over-reach and do not seek a violent resolution.ISIS not only threatens violence but engages on a daily basis.
4.when we consider incidents such as waco or ruby ridge,where there WAS government over-reach with tragic results.the federal governments tactics of standing down makes sense,and is fairly non-controversial and prudent.these nimrods are about to be run out of town by the very community they are proposing to be standing up for.

so how would YOU propose to deal with the situation in oregon?

ant

says...

Who made resolutions for 2016? I didn't.

shang says...

You wouldn't like my resolution.

Course main reason majority of Americans are against it is our culture and heritage. Americans have never ran. During British rule we didn't run to Louisiana territory begging Spain or France to accept refuges. We took up arms and bled for our land. Patriotism is not bad as political correctness morons try to push.

That's why for us, or many of us, refugee makes no sense. And our forefathers even exclaimed if any Americans became refugees they deserved no country, our creed "give me liberty or give me death!" The 2nd amendment left behind by our founders to ensure a free society.

"We need a revolution every 200 years, because all governments become stale and corrupt after 200 years. " - Benjamin Franklin

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

The word refugee makes absolutely zero sense to Americans. At least me being Generation X and all my generation and older. You do not run you die fighting. The beginning of the Revolution Americans didn't have hardly any weapons, it was sabotage and terrorism and the capture of gun stockpiles by militias the armed the beginning, then France helped supply us.

They should right, but the proof is they are not refugees! That's media political correctness lies. Just as said in that video
Quote by Muslim - "this isn't refugees, this is invasion"
They use political correctness as a shield to get in.

Syntaxed says...

I already addressed Eric3579 about the issue prior to your response...

We could continue in the vain as we have, spewing and manifesting fresh insulting and argumentative statements to lob at each other, the question begs itself be heard, however, why?

May we part, in all kindness and respect, agreeing favorably to disagree with each other? I wish not the previous recourse, me being of a somewhat indebted nature to you for your original kind welcome and aid in regarding my coming to the Sift.

I favor resolution, not dissolution in this matter,

Thank you,

Alastair

newtboy

said:

Because you are clearly confused.....

Don't make personal attacks here. You may be as insulting to any idea as you like, but not the poster. Do not say things like;
"I am speaking to someone who doesn't even know the language he is speaking"
"I cant help it if your general ignorance seeps into every pore of your conscious existence"
and "someone of such an argy-bargy disposition" (whatever the hell that means, it's clearly personally insulting).

Stick to the topics, not the posters. If you disagree with a poster, disagree, don't attack the poster personally.

Don't fear, I'm not making any move to ban you over this...I was warning you that what you are doing is not allowed here, and IF YOU CONTINUE, it will rise to the level of banning eventually. Banning is not a first step...explaining that you're breaking the rules, which have clearly defined consequences, is a first step, and the only one I've taken.

EDIT: And the users you want to talk to about this are dag and lucky760, they are the 'moderators', eric3579 is more of a facilitator

artician

says...

You're making some good points until you slipped into troll territory. If @aaronfr has experience with conflict-resolution, either he sucks at it or you could learn a lot from him.

For what it's worth, I'm just as disappointed in humanity as you seem to be.

coolhund said:

Intelligent species my ass.

aaronfr

says...

The problem is that you think that you get to decide where the starting line is. The path you are pointing down requires taking in the totality of history, not using some arbitrary point that is within living memory

For example, when do you think this started?

Was it with the Arab Spring and Assad's put down of the revolution? Maybe the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Perhaps when Iraq invaded Kuwait? When Libya bombed the plane at Lockerbie? The 6-day war? The establishment of the state of Israel? British Colonialism in the Middle East? The Crusades? The Battle of Yarmouk in 636?

Trying to find a singular, root cause is not how you end a conflict. That is done through humanizing your enemy, recognizing the futility of your efforts, finding alternative means to meet your needs, compromising and forgiving.

(source: MA in conflict resolution and 5 years of peacebuilding work)

coolhund said:

Of course it matters! How the hell should the shooting stop if we dont (want to) see the cause?? Just give the guy with the broken leg more pain killers and dont do anything about the leg, huh??
We just keep the circle going because we stay ignorant, even though were oh so morally high western countries.
Intelligent species my fucking ass. Cant even learn from simple history or cause and effect.