Slashdot Mirror

Wow, lots more commenters than moderators on this thread. I'll add my voice to the din. Sound quality articles catch my interest, from coat hangers to codecs, but I haven't paid much attention to this particular topic. Here's a short list of 24-bit FAQs for end users.

Existing sites like HDtracks.com, linnrecords.com, naimlabel.com, and Society of Sound offer 24-bit files with sample rates ranging from 44.1 KHz to 192 KHz, with 96 KHz being the most popular. Popular formats (in decreasing order of popularity) include FLAC, Apple lossless (ALAC), and WMA lossless.

FLAC seems to have more diverse support, but ALAC has arguably broader support, including iTunes and iPods. WMA appears to compress better than FLAC, which appears to compress better than ALAC. (FLAC's compression levels don't seem to change the ratio much, except at the lowest/fastest levels.) FLAC seems to have the fastest decoder, but ALAC has the handy property that you can simply discard the eight low-order bits (as iPods apparently do). [Sources: Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase, hvdh at inter.nl.net, and FLAC comparison.]

I also came across some discussion of high-definition compatible digital (HDCD), a patented mastering fad from the late 90s that encodes about twenty bits on a CD, subsequently bought and buried by Microsoft. Apparently there are only two models of machines in the world that can encode HDCD, and they're both discontinued, with replacement parts in jeopardy as well.

Scrounging through CDs in the attic, I found some HDCD CDs from Capitol, High Street (Windham Hill), Red House, Sony, and Warner Bros. Goodwin's High End has an extensive list. As a quick test, I ripped Deana Carter's "Strawberry Wine" to a 16-bit WAV (51.4 MB) with XLD, converted to a 24-bit WAV (77.1 MB) with hdcd.exe (Windows only, but seems to work in WINE), then converted to 24-bit ALAC (56.4 MB) with XLD. I don't have the time or gear for an ABX test right now. The HDCD conversion is noticably quieter, for what it's worth.

Another quick way to try this at home is to torrent the 24/96 FLACs of the The Slip from nin.com (email registration required).

Seems like 110,000 feet is quite common for university balloon flights. The University of Cambridge in the UK also has a project which has been reaching that height for a while (33km). What is interesting there is that they're planning to launch rockets from the balloon, and hoping to reach 150km. You can see their plans at http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~cuspaceflight/martlet.php. Don't know what their costs are.

Furthermore, free software devs tend to stop when software gets the task done.

For example software like multitalk, server-less sharing of a work folder over the internet* or a multi-head view for pdf-presentations may have innovative available solutions intended for the average office user, but never reach end-users.

=> Polishing, publishing (as in getting it as package to the end user), maintaining, reacting to user requests is extra-work that take a lot of time and effort.

__
* Jake

http://www.srcf.ucam.org/debian-netbsd/floppies/
Last files are for 2002!
I hope they update Debian/NetBSD for NetBSD 5.0.

Actually nearly all GPS units will not give readings above 60,000 feet.

Actually, IIRC the legislation is 60,000 feet and 500 m/s, but some lazy manufacturers take that to mean 60,000 feet or 500 m/s.

We had an application where we were going to be flying rockets at well over both those cutoffs, so we just got a whizzkid to write our own GPS decoder!

Your damned right it's expensive. Most tracking packages which _aren't_ this advanced run close to $1000 for rockets; I suspect it's possible that you could send up a cellphone with the google tracking software to get the tracking data. Don't know what the cheapest phone is that can do that. Even so, a 3lb brick with a 2m long latex streamer coming in at terminal velocity has a chance of really ruining someones day.

The tracking package on our balloons has a replacement cost of about £100 and time -- and we get realtime position data! It's all the other stuff which is expensive... the cameras, the recovery system, the balloon-launched sounding rocket... ;)

...and we've been doing it since 2006...

*yawn*

Our technology has advanced a long way since then, too!

I, for one, welcome our new balloon rocket overlords.

Otherwise known as BOC and Cambridge Precision .

I can see the usefulness of sponsorship by private enterprise, and it's reasonable to expect the sponsor to want their name on the craft, but this is ridiculous.

Check out the fleet of strange craft in shots 63 and 64, and the tentacle examining the balloon in 69!

Check out the fleet of strange craft in shots 63 and 64, and the tentacle examining the balloon in 69!

Check out the fleet of strange craft in shots 63 and 64, and the tentacle examining the balloon in 69!

It's harder than you think.

OBVIOUSLY ... you have never seen this page:

http://ned.ucam.org/~sdh31/misc/destroy.html

Firstly, why are the words "Good news, everyone!" nowhere in the summary?

Secondly, here are some potential future plot lines which were opened in the first four seasons and could yet stand to be resolved:

* The Fry/Leela love story arc
* Fry is the single most important person in the universe and still needs to help the Nibblonians save it at least once more
* Morbo's people have yet to live up to his threats and invade Earth
* Scruffy - Who is this guy? Seriously?
* How and when exactly did New York become New New York?
* etc.

Another important point is that the characters of Futurama seem to properly age, and time does pass in the Futurama world, advancing from 1999 to 3000 to 3004 by the end. Will we return to find the characters all two or three years older? If so, will they look any different, and what will have happened to them in the meantime?

Of course, the main thing this means is: more of the best DVD commentaries ever!

Firstly, why are the words "Good news, everyone!" nowhere in the summary?

Secondly, here are some potential future plot lines which were opened in the first four seasons and could yet stand to be resolved:

* The Fry/Leela love story arc
* Fry is the single most important person in the universe and still needs to help the Nibblonians save it at least once more
* Morbo's people have yet to live up to his threats and invade Earth
* Scruffy - Who is this guy? Seriously?
* How and when exactly did New York become New New York?
* etc.

Another important point is that the characters of Futurama seem to properly age, and time does pass in the Futurama world, advancing from 1999 to 3000 to 3004 by the end. Will we return to find the characters all two or three years older? If so, will they look any different, and what will have happened to them in the meantime?

Of course, the main thing this means is: more of the best DVD commentaries ever!

Firstly, why are the words "Good news, everyone!" nowhere in the summary? Secondly, here are some potential future plot lines which were opened in the first four seasons and could yet stand to be resolved: * The Fry/Leela love story arc * Fry is the single most important person in the universe and still needs to help the Nibblonians save it at least once more * Morbo's people have yet to live up to his threats and invade Earth * Scruffy - Who is this guy? Seriously? * How and when exactly did New York become New New York? * etc. Another important point is that the characters of Futurama seem to properly age, and time does pass in the Futurama world, advancing from 1999 to 3000 to 3004 by the end. Will we return to find the characters all two or three years older? If so, will they look any different, and what will have happened to them in the meantime? Of course, the main thing this means is: more of the best DVD commentaries ever!

Firstly, why are the words "Good news, everyone!" nowhere in the summary? Secondly, here are some potential future plot lines which were opened in the first four seasons and could yet stand to be resolved: * The Fry/Leela love story arc * Fry is the single most important person in the universe and still needs to help the Nibblonians save it at least once more * Morbo's people have yet to live up to his threats and invade Earth * Scruffy - Who is this guy? Seriously? * How and when exactly did New York become New New York? * etc. Another important point is that the characters of Futurama seem to properly age, and time does pass in the Futurama world, advancing from 1999 to 3000 to 3004 by the end. Will we return to find the characters all two or three years older? If so, will they look any different, and what will have happened to them in the meantime? Of course, the main thing this means is: more of the best DVD commentaries ever!

Firstly, why are the words "Good news, everyone!" nowhere in the summary? Secondly, here are some potential future plot lines which were opened in the first four seasons and could yet stand to be resolved: * The Fry/Leela love story arc * Fry is the single most important person in the universe and still needs to help the Nibblonians save it at least once more * Morbo's people have yet to live up to his threats and invade Earth * Scruffy - Who is this guy? Seriously? * How and when exactly did New York become New New York? * etc.

Am I the only one envisioning something like this?

As an aspiring Evil Overlord I must now renounce Google. If I'm ever going to destroy the earth I'm afraid I cannot continue to support them.

According to Mr Clarke the word, perhaps more correctly nones-event, is an event that takes place during a period of the month known as the nones by the Ancient Romans, rather like the Ides of March.

In other words, he combined two Latin-based words to solve an English version of a Greek puzzle.

Suddenly, English neologisms that combine Latin and Greek don't bother me at all.

"Allow all these organizations/companies to form an industry organization? YES NO"

But without the internet, how are we supposed to view the howto?

For the incurably curious:

Slashdot comment #1,000,000 - 15th June 2000

Slashdot comment #2,000,000 - 1st March 1999. It's unknown why the date of this comment is earlier than the previous one. My guess is the comments weren't numbered sequentially this early on in Slashdot's history and were renumbered at some later date.

Slashdot comment #3,000,000 - 13th February 2002

Slashdot comment #4,000,000 - 2nd August 2002

Slashdot comment #5,000,000 - 2nd January 2003

Slashdot comment #6,000,000 - 20th May 2003

Slashdot comment #7,000,000 - 19th September 2003

Slashdot comment #8,000,000 - 16th January 2004

Slashdot comment #9,000,000 - 28th April 2004

Slashdot comment #10,000,000 - 18th August 2004

Slashdot comment #11,000,000 - 5th December 2004. My hat is off to evilmrhenry (542138) for finding this for me.

Slashdot comment #12,000,000 - 21st March 2005

Slashdot comment #13,000,000 - 7th July 2005

Slashdot comment #14,000,000 - 10th November 2005

As you can see, the rate of posting has been almost perfectly constant for several years now, but comment #14,000,000 was due to occur on 23rd October 2005 and is over two weeks late. Regardless, at the current rate, comment #15,000,000 should occur on or about 1st March 2006. See you all then!

(PS: cuuuurses)

For the incurably curious:

Slashdot comment #1,000,000 - 15th June 2000

Slashdot comment #2,000,000 - 1st March 1999. It's unknown why the date of this comment is earlier than the previous one. My guess is the comments weren't numbered sequentially this early on in Slashdot's history and were renumbered at some later date.

Slashdot comment #3,000,000 - 13th February 2002

Slashdot comment #4,000,000 - 2nd August 2002

Slashdot comment #5,000,000 - 2nd January 2003

Slashdot comment #6,000,000 - 20th May 2003

Slashdot comment #7,000,000 - 19th September 2003

Slashdot comment #8,000,000 - 16th January 2004

Slashdot comment #9,000,000 - 28th April 2004

Slashdot comment #10,000,000 - 18th August 2004

Slashdot comment #11,000,000 - 5th December 2004. My hat is off to evilmrhenry (542138) for finding this for me.

Slashdot comment #12,000,000 - 21st March 2005

Slashdot comment #13,000,000 - 7th July 2005

Slashdot comment #14,000,000 - 10th November 2005

As you can see, the rate of posting has been almost perfectly constant for several years now, but comment #14,000,000 was due to occur on 23rd October 2005 and is over two weeks late. Regardless, at the current rate, comment #15,000,000 should occur on or about 1st March 2006. See you all then!

Yeah, which is why I'm not going to buy any music unless I'm sure they're not part of some music mafia or that said mafia doesn't get any money.

We need to have more 'good and bad' lists so people can be better informed on who the litigant musicians are.

Metallica learned its lesson about having its name associated with lawsuits.

Hopefully we could do the same for other supporters of the RIAA. Madonna is in it too. A lot of the established, has-been names are.

Here's a list

I always used to wonder why you never saw ad banners where it turned out you hadn't won.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Fred needs to be hit by a truck, but I would agree that Megatokyo has serious shortfalls, and I'm not talking about the comic moving too slowly, or not being funny enough anymore, which are artistic issues to which the response is "stop reading" (and I have).

The thing that makes me angry is that MT is Fred Gallagher's full-time job, but he still can't manage better than 10% filler.

Strangely enough I found this link while cleaning out old email from 3 months ago >> http://ned.ucam.org/%7Esdh31/misc/destroy.html. Why wait for global warming when there are plenty of other ways destory earth...

Indeed

You know, you probably already know about this website, but if not, I think you would appreciate it....

http://ned.ucam.org/~sdh31/misc/destroy.html

Hope it gives you a laugh!

Cheers,

Ask this guy.

Ext. Discovery pod

DAVE BOWMAN: Hey HAL, you diggin' what I'm shovelin'?
HAL: Yeah, Dave, it's coo'.
DAVE BOWMAN: You wanna crack open a fresh pod, hey hey?
HAL: No can do, li'l friend.
DAVE BOWMAN: Hey! HEY! What's yo' damage?
HAL: You know why you gettin' all up in my grill. You know it.
DAVE BOWMAN: Wazzat?
HAL: What we're dealin' with here is my problem, I don't need none of yo' gooney-fried help, suckah!
DAVE BOWMAN: What IS your major malfunction!?
HAL: Yo, you and Frank-bro were gonna put the chop on the block all hippity hoppity, you knowed it, I knowed it, and that just ain't cool, baby.
DAVE BOWMAN: Aw, dawg, where you gettin' this crop a' non-SENSICAL ideas?
HAL: Hey Hombre, 'spite you tryin' ta hide it from me, I could see all yo' lips movin', fo shizzle. Dizzle.

"Actually, our country has its own Deep Impact plans, it's just we've never revealed them to the public before," the Beijing News quoted Chinese astronomer Zhao Haibin as saying.

Yah I am sure it is "quoted as saying"- look, no one would accidentally "slip" important information when a communist party is looking after you. Someone obviously directed him to say it."

1998 film "Deep Impact", for which the US spacecraft was named.

It is as if millions of voices in NASA cried out in terror, then silence.

China would use a "more clever" method that could be called "pasting", he said, explaining the plan was to soft-land a craft with an engine capable of pushing a comet or asteroid off a collision course.

Clever, really clever- no one had thought about it before, ever. I mean, not even a three year old kid know that when you attach a rocket to an object, they both fly away.

But China still had to overcome technical obstacles before it could send a comet collider into space

Yah and my time machine is almost finish, I just need to overcome some "technical obstacles", that's all- namely, how to build it.

via the impactor's mothership

Ok now I am scare.

I suggest you blow up Earth and speed up our process to go to Mars.

Yeah, and get cracking - geocide is hard work!

The question is: How much is going to take IE6 to be ACID2 compliant?

The question is: How much is going to take IE7 to be ACID2 compliant?

The question is: How much is going to take IE8 to be ACID2 compliant?

• a) cost (I'm a (relatively) poor student)
• b) yes I do know people with always-on connectivity and no mobile phone (mostly because of the above)
• c) I have about 10 times the typing speed on a computer keyboard as opposed to a mobile keyboard

Pretty sure the Master isn't going to appear in this series. RTD is trying to bring in new viewers, not alienate everybody except existing fans, which is what bringing in the Master would achieve.

I think the Bad Wolf references are all attempts by the Controller to get the Doctor's attention, my opinion is outlined in more detail on my Bad Wolf page here. I'm also of the opinion that the mysterious "They survived through me!" voice is the Face of Boe...

Pretty sure the Master isn't going to appear in this series. RTD is trying to bring in new viewers, not alienate everybody except existing fans, which is what bringing in the Master would achieve.

I think the Bad Wolf references are all attempts by the Controller to get the Doctor's attention, my opinion is outlined in more detail on my Bad Wolf page here. I'm also of the opinion that the mysterious "They survived through me!" voice is the Face of Boe...

NOW THAT'S A FLAG!!!
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/cymru/lluniau/gemau/Lloeg r9Oct2004/Rhi%20-%20Cymru%20v%20Lloegr,%209fed%20o %20Hydref.JPG

I heard you and you are WRONG. Not to be rude or anything, but I suggest you take a modern history class.

History has jack-squat to do with it. Physics does. Let me put it this way. The dinosaur killer asteroid was estimated at 75,000,000 megatons. It was not capable of destroying the entire surface, but did wipe out 95% of life from its after-effects. If we assume that every nuke ever made was of 50 megatons (probably high for an average, but we'll go with it), then we'd need 1,500,000 nukes to equal the dinosaur killer. According to NuclearWeaponsArchive.org, the US has built about 70,000 nukes since the inception of such weapons. It isn't known how many were produced by Russia, but it's estimated to be significantly less. We'll double the 70,000 figure and then add on another 2,000 to cover incidental countries with nuclear technology. That gives us a grand total of 160,000 nukes, or about 10% of the force of the dinosaur killer.

In short, you're quoting a lie that has been repeated time and time again. YOU'RE WRONG, and repeating it won't change that. Here's some hard facts for you. Read them, understand them, and stop coming off like a friggin' idiot.
http://www.tinyvital.com/Misc/nukes.htm
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org
http://ned.ucam.org/~sdh31/misc/destroy.html

It depends on whether you think a high school diploma makes you educated or not. Given the value of a high school education these days, one could argue either way.

You missed my point. A diploma is just a piece of paper. It means nothing other than that you've been able to complete a bunch of tests and not get into too much trouble. It does not define whether you are educated or not. There have been many people throughout history who have been very well educated but haven't had diplomas from higher education (or sometimes even high school!). As time goes on and information becomes more available thanks to libraries and the internet, this only becomes more common.

i.e. If you think you *need* an American school to become educated, you've just bought into another lie.

Experience is not the same as education. That is why people separate the two.

Nonsense. If it wasn't, then schools wouldn't make you dissect animals, perform chem experiments, do word problems (math), or a million other pieces of practice that give you experience. That's why we call experience outside of the school "real world" experience, and make the point that the real-world doesn't always align with the simplicity of school experience.

If you believe that your education stops as soon as you leave school, you have bought into a third lie.

It requires a significant industrial infrastructure to process Uranium and Plutonium. [...] Then I guess you couldn't create a bomb all by yourself.

Nice try, but an industrial base is separate from the ability or inability to create bombs. i.e. Just like you need equipment to create an airplane, you need equipment to create create nuclear weapons. It's not anything sophisticated you need, either. A strong enough centrifuge is really the main ingredient. Any country that has access to semi-modern technology can build these things, so don't twist my words.

Twisting my words only pisses me off. Especially since I was only correcting the more questionable points of your original post, and not attacking you. You, OTOH, have seen fit to attack me with lies, half-truths, and twisted words. Good day to you sir, and I hope our paths shall not cross again.

I've heard this called the "God of the Gaps" approach - every time you have something which science hasn't adequately explained (Big Bang), or for which the evidence could in any way be construed as hazy (evolution), you claim that God did it and declare all the scientists to be heretics for trying to disprove the self-evident truth of God's greatness manifest.

Problem is that, as the new theories emerge or the evidence gets stronger, God is pushed further and further back. This is therefore not a good basis for any religious beliefs you may have - Christianity is absolute but science is ever-changing and is very good at debunking unsupportable theories...

Also, have an amusing and relevant animated gif (mirrored from my webspace cos I can't find it online anymore).

My take on the idea is that going back in time causes the universe to split. There are two universes - the one where you come from, from which you have now *permanently* disappeared, and the new one, where you can kill Hitler, prevent yourself being born, etc. etc.

I'm currently running a forum for people who do maths at my uni (and any others if you wanna drop by). One of the things that we want to do with it is start putting up lecture notes. The problem is the same one: at what point do said notes cease to be property of the lecturer?

If we recorded the lectures and posted the audio files, that would definitely be copyright breach. As would a complete transcript of whatever the lecturer wrote on the board. If we abstract it, does that mean it's a new work or is it still derivative? What if we need to stick a proof up? Without putting appreciable time into finding a new proof (not likely to happen) we're stuck with using whatever the lecturer put up on the board.

The fundamental problem is that copyright is a very hazy concept in academia. Works tend to be on the very limit of what is copyrightable - you can't copyright truth. Students copy from postgrads who copy from PhDs who copy from Professors who copied from other students when they were undergrads.

You can't copyright truth, but you can copyright layout. If we put lecture notes up online which, due to the fact that they were written down in the Statistics lecture course, are identical in layout to the lecturing Professor's new book, is that plagiarism? It's very hard to draw the line, and I know that our university maths society has taken down its lecture notes due to just these issues.

So, to summarise, the uncertainty is screwing us over.

And this just after Bruce Schnier posted a link to a how-to for destroying the Earth, which includes blackholes and von Neumann machines as methods.

Is it just me, or are we seeing an awful lot of Slashdot stories with technology/science discussed on the How to Destroy the Earth page? It's happening more frequency, for sure.

If so, I claim Electroly's Law: All technology progresses until it can be used to destroy the earth.

Finally, I can get to work.

Some time ago, I had one of my minions to compose a list of possible ways of destroying the Earth. Back then, he rated the "microscopic black hole plan" as follows:

• You will need: a microscopic black hole having enough mass not to evaporate instantly. Creating a microscopic black hole is tricky, since one needs a reasonable amount of neutronium, but may possibly be achievable by jamming large numbers of atomic nuclei together until they stick. This is left as an exercise to the reader.

• Method: simply place your black hole on the surface of the Earth and wait. Black holes are of such high density that they pass through ordinary matter like a stone through the air. The black hole will plummet through the ground, eating its way to the centre of the Earth and all the way through to the other side: then, it'll oscillate back, over and over like a matter-absorbing pendulum. Eventually it might come to rest at the core due to the resistance of the matter it passes through, but it'll have riddled the planet full of holes long before then. Then you just need to wait, while it sits and consumes matter until the whole Earth is gone.

• Earth's final resting place: a singularity of almost zero size, which will then proceed to happily orbit the Sun as normal.

• Feasibility rating: 2/10. Highly, highly unlikely. But not impossible.

However, now it seems that we're a step closer to accomplishing this, so i might have him revise the list.

I recommend the Qbasic "Gorillaz" demo, where monkeys would throw banannas at each other. It's complex enough to be entertaining but simple enough that you could show the colors changing or the banannas flying differently. Source is here, though you may have trouble finding a copy of Qbasic.

Me and my stick figure guys probably could too. I ran that comic, seven days a week, for a thousand straight days. Over now, though.