[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] H.264/SQV3 separation: h264data.h

[Baptiste Coudurier]

Uoti Urpala wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 13:10 -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>> Uoti Urpala wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 12:32 -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>> Uoti Urpala wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 11:48 -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
>>>>>> Well, considering the "random" factor is discussed here, I 
>>>>>> won't take words for granted. If you want to make your point 
>>>>>> valid, give a code example.
>>>>> How would giving a code example affect its validity?
>>>> You know, what is called "proof".
>>> What would it prove? I already gave the results.
>> No, you threw numbers saying something you cannot prove, and you assume
>> we should trust your words. This is stupid.
> 
> I told you the facts, and I told you how to verify them if you want to.
> What's stupid is your argumentation in this thread.

You are even contradicting yourself because you claimed that changes and
symptoms were random, how can you guarantee that my tests would verify
them ? This is still absurd, and your argumentation is still stupid.

>>> You can't reproduce the same ones so it's pointless to give the exact
>>>  same code. But you should be able to reproduce the existence of 
>>> random variation with the method I gave.
>> If I cannot reproduce, your point is null and your claim is absurd.
> 
> I just told you how to reproduce the existence of random effects. And
> there are lots of other facts that you're _not_ capable of reproducing
> and which still are not "absurd".

This is still absurd, see the previous point.

>>>>> Did my description of the change not give enough information 
>>>>> about it? It's not like you could yourself verify that the 
>>>>> particular example I used behaves the way I said - it's unlikely
>>>>>  the random effects would be the same on your system.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to test the random effects yourself I gave one way to
>>>>>  do that above.
>>>> What are you trying to say here ?
>>> That you can't reproduce the same random values I did. If you want to
>>>  verify the existence of random variation you need to find the 
>>> samples that show differences on your system.
>> This is pure absurdity.
> 
> Why? You couldn't find any stupider and less constructive way to argue?

What is pure absurdity is claiming that I cannot reproduce the same
random values that you did, since you told me what to do to experience
the same random values ....

You are even reexplaining how to experience it.

Now please backup your claims and stop this "randomness" pointless
discussion.

>>>> That no benchmark ever can be trusted, because it has everything 
>>>> has random effects on every system ?
>>> That has nothing to do with what I was saying in the part I quoted.
>> Let's go forward, will you ? This has everything to do with what you
>> said.
> 
> You quoted some text and asked whether that was what I was trying to say
> "here". So I answered that it was not. And I added this part: "But what
> I've said elsewhere in the thread is basically that small benchmark
> changes show little else than the absence of very significant changes
> either way.".
> 
>>  You claim that since every change produce random effects on every
>> computer, no benchmark is worth, no proof is worth being showed.
> 
> You snipped the part reproduced above where I clearly say something else
> and then wrote this false claim?

Twisting words as you always do won't lead you somewhere this time.
You deliberatly claimed that showing proof wouldn't makes your point valid:

"How would giving a code example affect its validity?"

But you keep deliberatly quoting only what you want...

>> If you want to say anything, please give valid arguments.
>>
>> This is all absurd and stupid IMHO.
> 
> I think you should take your own advice. Try to give some actual
> arguments instead of repeating "absurd". Your inability to form a
> coherent argument is what makes this stupid.

You inability to remember your own claims, once again show how absurd
your whole argumentation is.

>>>>> Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. What are you trying to 
>>>>> say?
>>>> Im saying that your point is void because the current code is 
>>>> assumed to
>>> Which "your point"?
>> I won't repeat myself. You are intelligent to understand and no playing
>> around, I hope.
> 
> I in turn am not certain whether the content of your post is due to your
> relatively low intelligence or if you're intentionally behaving
> stupidly.

Insulting people when you out of valid arguments can only reflect how
stuborn you are.

>>>> not contain anything useless, and adding "useless" code would be 
>>>> stupid, but I thought mentioning this would be useless as this is 
>>>> obvious.
>>> Your comments here are such complete nonsense it's hard to even tell 
>>> what mistake you're making and correct it...
>> Blabla, playing around won't make your point valid, I say your point is
>> void, because code is assumed to not contain anything useless, so
>> nothing useless will _ever_ be added, so don't even consider it nor talk
>> about it. Is it so hard to understand for you ?
> 
> That adding unused code affects performance in essentially random ways
> means that changes to meaningful code will also cause similar "random"
> performance changes as a side effect.

Your point is void until you show proof that adding "useless" code cause
slowdown _AND_ speedup. Stop claming things without backup.

>> Debating with you is really tiring since you make so many efforts to
>> show that you do not understand what people say while you obviously do.
> 
> I honestly thought that you'd understand the point above. Sorry if I did
> not adequately consider the limits of your intelligence.

Your lack of understanding is not an excuse for insulting people.

-- 
Baptiste COUDURIER                              GnuPG Key Id: 0x5C1ABAAA
Key fingerprint                 8D77134D20CC9220201FC5DB0AC9325C5C1ABAAA
checking for life_signs in -lkenny... no