Possibilities are endless, just a few here: 1. Fixing bugs found by Coverity might give false sense of "goodness", especially as: 2. Coverity does not catch all problems, e.g. timing or parallelism related. Dual cores are now abundant. 3. A lot of hardware is flaky.
Instead of fixing your old device driver code to the latest whim of some uber-geek, you can write another device driver. At least I find latter more rewarding ("scratching the personal itch").
Instead of running short tests against the latest changes you could run long and hard to repeat tests as you know your code will not get obsolete next week.
Increasing performance does not mean you have to break backward compatibility all the time. The USB stack has broken (or made unstable) far too many devices far too many times during last five years.
When the layoffs come, it will order of magnitude easier to fire a department/product which is not making profit than trying to find out whether Tim is better programmer than Bob. Sure manager can hand pick one or two best, but not more. Not that much easier for the manager, but easier for those programmers who *STAY* in the company.
Actually I do not know if the trucks reversing are required to make "beep beep beep" in USA. Here in EU they make you wish you knew the guy who passed the law... 15 years in prison would be about OK.
"The Transmitter: This operates on the message in some way and produces a signal suitable for transmission to the receiving point over the channel. In telephony, this operation consists of merely changing sound pressure into a proportional electrical current."
Won't change your stance that LP is inherently better than CD, but that is your problem. Just remember that almost[1] all mathematics is against that belief.
[1] High quality LP can have somewhat better frequency response.
To have information you must somehow code it. LP does have a coding in this sense: amplitude change is coded as displacement in the groove.
The theory states that no matter how you code you cannot put more information than what the "C" gives. It does not tell how to do it so e.g. getting digital data close to "C" has been very, very hard mathematical problem.
The Shannon's theorem can be extended to non-Gaussian noise (LP is definitely non-Gaussian and even non-linear) but then the calculations get outside my capability. Using Gaussian should give fairly good approximation as LP tries to be linear and Gaussian.
It has been two decades since I studied these matters so cannot consider expert myself either - but thankfully you did not think that.
The "C" tells nothing about the quality, especially not that of latest Britney Spears album. It does not say an LP is worse or better (or of higher fidelity) or anything like that.
The "C" is a mathematical value telling the maximum information there can be in a channel (or media). It can be expressed in bits/second. The definition of "information" is such that it is impossible to have an equipment which can detect beyond the "C".
Summarum: the usual claim "LP is analog and therefore has more nyances[1]" is, frankly, bullshit.
[1] or better reproduction of square wave or more than 16bit quantisation levels or...
I have been to clubs, churches, etc. and they always differ from any listening room, "high end" or not and the difference is trivial to notice. Two point source is just not the same.
A mathematical fact: three samples per crest is more than enough for sine wave.
For any band limited media, including LP, the situation is same: you cannot distinguish sine wave from square wave near cut off frequency. No matter how good your detection equipment is - there is just no information there to make the distinction.
CD has sharp cut of at ~20kHz, LP starts its around 15kHz going up to a bit over 30kHz. Which one is better (or higher fidelity)? If you insist that the frequency response is everything then LP can be considered to be, but then you'd have to "forget" LP's frequency response is more than 10dB down at 20kHz, the noise is up at least 30dB and stereo separation is pretty much negligible. If you take any other variable into consideration LP loses, big time. Probably the worst are the various mastering tricks LP needs (or you might "kill" the master cutter) especially at the end of the LP.
Have you ever heard a CD that you would confuse with a live performance?
No. Thankfully I can play at less than ~100dBA.
I have heard LPs played on high end equipment that you would confuse with a live performance.
No, I would not. It does not have the ambience of a stadium and the feeling of over 1000 people around me.
I am so sick and tired of "LP is analog therefore better" bullshit that I strongly recommend you to calculate LP's channel capacity (according to Shannon's nice theorem). You will be surprised how much you have to fiddle with the numbers before you get higher than 1.4Mbit/s (stereo).
I disagree. DRM is not about taking control of your property: you do have the option of not using DRM and then your property is no way affected. I do not have any problem with that.
The sole reason for DRM is to make (more) profits: by enforcing you to buy music several times (car, ipod, home, after X years or when old mp3 dies, resale is impossible, virgin store closure, playsforsure,...).
It has no other design parameters. Therefore it cannot be "squeaky clean", it is designed to rip you off.
The fact that DRM must limit your HW is solely circumstantial and if it could be done any other way it would be.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the same, but then I concluded that the wifi will be REALLY secure after exposure to that. And a bit of magnesium.
The comparision might have made sense if they had tested whether the different version of the compiler used is the "culprit" or not.
NO!
Why the FUCK would I want some "Symbian" or "Windows Miniscule" or whatnot on a LAPTOP?
Bloody hell, EeePC runs NetBeans very nicely indeed.
Quite a few phones can edit documents, therefore they can edit perl scripts and their output.
It might be utterly useless for you, but not for me.
Possibilities are endless, just a few here:
1. Fixing bugs found by Coverity might give false sense of "goodness", especially as:
2. Coverity does not catch all problems, e.g. timing or parallelism related. Dual cores are now abundant.
3. A lot of hardware is flaky.
What is wrong with grep, find, Perl, etc?
Only if you consider testing "waste of time".
Instead of fixing your old device driver code to the latest whim of some uber-geek, you can write another device driver. At least I find latter more rewarding ("scratching the personal itch").
Instead of running short tests against the latest changes you could run long and hard to repeat tests as you know your code will not get obsolete next week.
Increasing performance does not mean you have to break backward compatibility all the time. The USB stack has broken (or made unstable) far too many devices far too many times during last five years.
Constant changes, i.e. lack of stable KBI (kernel binary interface) does not help.
Eventually keeping your incompatible stack is easier than keeping up-to-date with latest and "greatest", especially if you happen to test your code.
When the layoffs come, it will order of magnitude easier to fire a department/product which is not making profit than trying to find out whether Tim is better programmer than Bob.
Sure manager can hand pick one or two best, but not more.
Not that much easier for the manager, but easier for those programmers who *STAY* in the company.
Even the most competent developers do get fired. No matter what you do you can get fired.
Well, there is one thing you can do to avoid firing: become a manager. The number of managers never go down (due to Parkinson's law).
Oh, boy ... XOR is the best there is ...
(quite a few stream ciphers uses xor - for a reason: one-time-pad is XOR).
Yeah, I know what you meant.
Yeah, like trucks!
Actually I do not know if the trucks reversing are required to make "beep beep beep" in USA. Here in EU they make you wish you knew the guy who passed the law ... 15 years in prison would be about OK.
As much as on microwave ovens, etc.
I.e: not.
Actually there have been talks about lwas (think about the children).
We fubared to "beep", "whuii", etc sounds which gives headache ...
http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee104/shannonpaper.pdf
"The Transmitter: This operates on the message in some way and produces a signal suitable for transmission to the receiving point over the channel. In telephony, this operation consists of merely changing sound pressure into a proportional electrical current."
Won't change your stance that LP is inherently better than CD, but that is your problem. Just remember that almost[1] all mathematics is against that belief.
[1] High quality LP can have somewhat better frequency response.
To have information you must somehow code it. LP does have a coding in this sense: amplitude change is coded as displacement in the groove.
The theory states that no matter how you code you cannot put more information than what the "C" gives. It does not tell how to do it so e.g. getting digital data close to "C" has been very, very hard mathematical problem.
The Shannon's theorem can be extended to non-Gaussian noise (LP is definitely non-Gaussian and even non-linear) but then the calculations get outside my capability. Using Gaussian should give fairly good approximation as LP tries to be linear and Gaussian.
It has been two decades since I studied these matters so cannot consider expert myself either - but thankfully you did not think that.
You cannot (third harmonic is outside the bandwidth). Sorry if I have made you understand otherwise.
But neither can you with any analog media (with same bandwidth) and THIS is my point.
To put it very simply: the theory does not give a shit whether sampling or encoding happens or not.
Shannon's theorem is applicable to any band-limited communication channel, therefore it is applicable to LP.
I do not understand what you mean information which is not "symbol based": if there is some information you can give a symbol to it.
If you refer to sampling of the signal or like that, then Nyquist has proved quite enough for the band-limited case.
There is no need for my calculation, you can do it yourself. See the approximations in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem#Approximations.
The "C" tells nothing about the quality, especially not that of latest Britney Spears album. It does not say an LP is worse or better (or of higher fidelity) or anything like that.
The "C" is a mathematical value telling the maximum information there can be in a channel (or media). It can be expressed in bits/second. The definition of "information" is such that it is impossible to have an equipment which can detect beyond the "C".
Summarum: the usual claim "LP is analog and therefore has more nyances[1]" is, frankly, bullshit.
[1] or better reproduction of square wave or more than 16bit quantisation levels or ...
I have been to clubs, churches, etc. and they always differ from any listening room, "high end" or not and the difference is trivial to notice. Two point source is just not the same.
A mathematical fact: three samples per crest is more than enough for sine wave.
For any band limited media, including LP, the situation is same: you cannot distinguish sine wave from square wave near cut off frequency. No matter how good your detection equipment is - there is just no information there to make the distinction.
CD has sharp cut of at ~20kHz, LP starts its around 15kHz going up to a bit over 30kHz.
Which one is better (or higher fidelity)?
If you insist that the frequency response is everything then LP can be considered to be, but then you'd have to "forget" LP's frequency response is more than 10dB down at 20kHz, the noise is up at least 30dB and stereo separation is pretty much negligible.
If you take any other variable into consideration LP loses, big time. Probably the worst are the various mastering tricks LP needs (or you might "kill" the master cutter) especially at the end of the LP.
Have you ever heard a CD that you would confuse with a live performance?
No. Thankfully I can play at less than ~100dBA.
I have heard LPs played on high end equipment that you would confuse with a live performance.
No, I would not. It does not have the ambience of a stadium and the feeling of over 1000 people around me.
I am so sick and tired of "LP is analog therefore better" bullshit that I strongly recommend you to calculate LP's channel capacity (according to Shannon's nice theorem). You will be surprised how much you have to fiddle with the numbers before you get higher than 1.4Mbit/s (stereo).
I disagree. DRM is not about taking control of your property: you do have the option of not using DRM and then your property is no way affected. I do not have any problem with that.
The sole reason for DRM is to make (more) profits: by enforcing you to buy music several times (car, ipod, home, after X years or when old mp3 dies, resale is impossible, virgin store closure, playsforsure, ...).
It has no other design parameters. Therefore it cannot be "squeaky clean", it is designed to rip you off.
The fact that DRM must limit your HW is solely circumstantial and if it could be done any other way it would be.
So RadioHead and NIN are giving all their music for free, because they had such a good experience?
No?
At the moment I cannot get their music free legally. It might be a shocker to you, but for many people this does make a difference.
"Few different Linux" ... no, this will not break through.