Airplane Contest
on
A Tour of Pixar
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
There's a great easter egg on the Monsters, Inc. DVD.
Second disc, Humans Only, Pixar studio tour, highlight the logo at the bottom, press left (a black circle should appear around the airplane). I think then you click on the airplane.
It's a short film of a paper-airplane contest they held in the atrium, with lots of crazy contraptions either flying the distance, curling into the sides, or plummeting straight down. All set to an appropriate classical soundtrack.
Why is it that all the really cool places to work are on the left coast? (Pixar, Google, etc.) All we've got out here are the CIA and the Pentagon, and those sort of lose their luster after a bit....
Alright, I think I'm figuring this out. Lack of documentation is something of a hinderance here... It really boils down to there not being any kind of initial configuration system on the server side, so you do all the keygen and profile creation on windows and copy stuff back and forth. Ugly. But, I guess it *is* alpha (though maybe it should be 0.1 rather than 1.0...)
It's compiled (I just made the changes shown elsewhere in this thread). Start up the windows version, create a private/public key pair (using a *server* passphrase, as this will be moved to the server). Oh, also copy the profile (default.pr0) from the windows box to the wastesrv folder, modifying and deleting stuff as appropriate within the file (like I deleted my nickname, etc.)
Export the private key to a file. Move that file to "default.pr4" in the wasteserv folder. Copy the public key to the clipboard, paste that into a file called "default.pr3" in the wasteserv folder (I changed the nick on that line to "server").
Go back to your windows client, and create a *new* private/public key pair, then copy that public key, via the clipboard, to the default.pr3 file, leaving your nick intact.
Copy the public key for the server to the windows client, importing it via the preferences panel. (this was the public half of the first key pair you created, which is now the server key).
Hit the network button, enter your server's IP in the drop-down field at the top, hit connect, and, maybe, it'll work. Maybe.
'course, I'm the only person on my server, so I'm not seeing anything. Gotta get someone else to try this too.
Now the funny thing is I can still get a proper 20oz pint of beer at the pub!
Damned canucks... It's bad enough that you've got some British measurements there, but they're some weird non-standard British measurements! Geez!:)
You have: pint
You want: floz
* 16
/ 0.0625 You have: imperial pint You want: floz
* 19.215199
/ 0.052042137
Actually, I've wondered why the soft drink industry has taken so long to get to half-liter bottles. We've had 1, 2, and even 3-liter bottles for years now, but only in the last year or so did we start getting halfs, which was close enough to the 16oz bottles we used to be accustomed to that nobody noticed the difference.
And I've seen a few (very few, and only in Florida) 8-oz soda cans that should probably have been measured at 250ml.
At any rate, I'd figure that the soda industry, being pretty darned global at this time, would really benefit from converting completely to metric -- thus providing a sneaky way for us backwards Americans to get used to it. Of course, someone'll first have to convince Starbucks to start using English.
For that matter, I wonder how long it'll take for the oil industry to start pushing for liter measurements for gasoline -- just because people will be lulled into a false sense of savings seeing "0.429" on the board rather than "1.60."
they buy peripherals and upgrade their box with more memory, etc.. I liken this to if consumers were to attempt replacing their own transmission in the car, especially with non-mfg parts..
Yeah, but the operating system is designed to allow this. The hardware is designed to accept new cards. Why don't all cards have standardized APIs (thus not requiring specialized drivers?) That alone would solve a LOT of problems.
I'd say that adding peripherals to a computer isn't so much like changing the transmission, but like changing the radio. Certainly, you wouldn't expect an aftermarket CD player to cause your windshield wipers to not work. But we seem to accept that adding a Soundblaster Live! card will stop your Zip drive from working.
I still say it comes down to the industry, as a whole, not being forced by the consumer to design their products properly, and that no amount of theoretical improvements in design or engineering methods will matter a damn if they aren't pressured by the marketplace to implement those improvements.
Face it -- if our cars broke down as frequently as Windows (or Linux or whatever), we'd be suing the auto industry out of business.
If our VCRs ate every tenth tape and only played tapes from the same manufacturer as the VCR with any quality, they'd all be returned to Circuit City.
But for software, we grit our teeth and say, well, I just don't understand computers, and reach for the power switch.
Until we, as consumers, start fighting for software that works without crashing, we'll continue to get the lowest possible quality -- just as we have for years. Once the customer starts demanding a quality product, the quality (and whatever software development practices, languages, testing procedures, etc., are needed) will follow.
Bottom line -- there's no real incentive. Microsoft makes billions with buggy software, the increase in profit for selling non-buggy software is pretty small.
Remember that these aren't just popups -- they're pop-up inters...intestin....er, pop-up intermediate pages between where you clicked and where you were going.
A simple pop-up blocker that blocks ALL pop-ups won't help, cause you'll click on the link and nothing will happen. A pop-up blocker that blocks unrequested pop-ups but allows those you "asked for" with a click won't stop them, they'll show up ('cause they appeared as a result of a click).
Finally, something that recognizes, even for "requested" pop-ups, that it's a fiendish full-screen hijacker pop-up, won't help too much if it simply resizes the window, shoves it into your current tab, etc. It'll still have to dig into the pop-up data to figure out what link to go to next (which might not be obvious, could be randomly obfuscated, etc.) Plus, they could put a bunch of links into the pop-up, for more information, to get on a mailing list, etc., and only one of them (which one??) would continue you through to the original link.
Basically, you can turn 'em off, but you can't get to the content w/out living with it. And there are LOTS of ways they can prevent you from getting there, automatically, without seeing their ad.
(at least, this is what I'd expect, as I haven't seen any of these yet. but I haven't yet seen anyone come up with a way to skip the interstitials (there's that word again!) on, say, salon.com.)
I think one of the first slashdot effects was for a webserver in Purdue, with a professor's home page about lighting charcoal fires using liquid oxygen. It was mentioned in a Dave Barry column, and the server melted down quickly.
I can't find a date, as his site has been changed to "The people in charge have requested this web site be removed. 2/6/2003 --ghg". Sad. It was really cool, with lots of pictures, movies, etc.
Anyway, I think it was like '92 or '94 or somewhere around there.
Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?
on
AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
·
· Score: 1
If I were you I would just stick with one format change if possible. Go from AAC to OGG or AAC to MP3.
Oh, I definitely agree. I was primarily interested in seeing (hearing?) whether there were significant audible problems, ignoring for the time being the expected loss of fidelity.
Generally, I rip everything to q7 Ogg Vorbis, which is "pretty damned good" from all accounts (and serves as my "Master Copy," allowing me to keep all my CDs in cardboard boxes in the basement). Because the Rio Receiver can't decode that high a bitstream (yet), I have a second folder of automatically-downgraded MP3 files, at 160+ kbps, and those are certainly good enough for low-end MP3 players (and on-computer listening). I further degrade (from the master.ogg file, not from the aforementioned.mp3) to about 128k or so for car use (factory car radio/speakers, road noise, etc., not to mention the lousy cassette adaptor, and the 20G limit of my Riot make this an acceptable compromise for me).
I left out one stage, anyway, from the post-iTunes chain: WAV (original) -> AAC -> WAV (burned to CD) -> OGG -> MP3. In theory, one would hope the intermediate WAV step between AAC and OGG wouldn't cause trouble, but you never know.
It's a tradeoff -- always a tradeoff. But my master copies are, at least, as good as I'm likely to get (I wasn't going to go the FLAC route for 350+ CDs!), though the AAC step reduces even that a little. The plus side is that most tracks I'd be likely to buy via iTunes are one-off hits from the radio, etc., and so I'm probably not as concerned with fidelity on those, either. Albums I really care about I'd just buy as CDs.
Of course, once I find a cheap region-free NTSC SACD/DVD-A receiver, my opinions may change.:)
Re:Anyone seen real specs for Apple's format?
on
AAC vs. OGG vs. MP3
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I burned a couple of Music Store tracks to CD, then re-ripped them
A coworker recorded a few songs to CD last night. This morning, I ripped them to q7 Ogg Vorbis, and downconverted those Ogg files to MP3 (VBR, 160 to 256 kbps).
Listening to them (on decent speakers, but still computer speakers nonetheless, and also through headphones), they all sound pretty good. I'm listening mostly for "bad artifacts" -- pumping, popping, clicking, phasing/flanging, stereo movement, etc. I can't hear anything of the sort, even on the MP3.
So, we've got WAV -> 128 AAC -> q7 Ogg -> 160+ MP3, and it's still quite listenable. Certainly, it's not studio quality, but for listening at home, on a typical system with typical speakers, it's pretty good, to my ears.
I'm still sort of annoyed, philosophically, at not being able to get a full-bandwidth.WAV file. I mean, you're paying for the track, you should get the exact same data as you can when you purchase the CD outright. But as a "best of evils," this is very good. And, truthfully, I'm not convinced that other similar services (like Listen.com's Rhapsody) don't do essentially the same thing.
Can anyone suggest a good 'test pattern' file? Something with lots of dynamic range, easy-to-identify instruments (especially with lots of layers of detail), variations in note types / waveforms, etc.? Basically, an Indian Head for audio. Because it'd be great to be able to say "download this.wav, and as you decrease the bitrate listen for the flutes at 0:35 to start sounding weird" or somesuch. Just a thought.
Anyway, I'm satisfied with the quality, at least on the minimal sample set I've heard.
Let's pretend that this is a stunningly great idea to have 39 "standard" configurations of which maybe 5 would sell. [....] What are the chances that everyone else is crazy, and you're the only sane one with this great idea?
Judging from past experience, the chances I'm the crazy one are pretty good.
However, I still wonder if there isn't a possibility here. I mean, Palm's selling, what, 5 different color models, right now. And people are already complaining about many of the feature exclusions -- want this, get that, want both, sorry.
Is this really so different from what Dell or Apple do? How many different ways (CPUs, memory, video hardware, hard drive space, etc.) can you configure a Mac G4? I'd bet many more than 39.
No, I still think there's merit. I'm sure the beancounters and smart people at Palm, Sony, and Handspring would agree, but that the merit doesn't yet outweigh the costs, and that's why nobody's done it so far.
Also, it wasn't until about the last 12 months that we had so many things we wanted *in* our Palms -- how long have we had 802.11, BlueTooth, cameras, GSM phones integrated? (Oh, I can't believe I forgot this one -- GPS.) We're only now reaching the point that there are more desireable options than can fit in one box, and so we're only now seeing mutually exclusive featuresets in different products.
Speaking of multiple chip architectures, has anyone managed to get PalmOS hacked into any PocketPC box? I know there's been a port of coPilot (or something like it) to PocketPC, but I mean has anyone actually hacked basic IO drivers together and gotten a PalmOS image to run directly (or even within a micro-emulation shell) on PocketPC Hardware?
I'd like to know who's going to be the first to market with a "Build your Own PDA" system. It seems that a lot of the discussion today is centered around why this or that feature is or isn't included. Ultimately, it probably comes down to some combination of price / power / volume.
So why can't Palm (or someone else? Handspring, are you listening?) build a fairly modular inner chassis, slap on different plastic shells, and allow people to select which features they want?
For example:
Size:
* Regular (1.7 cm thick) [$200]
* Thin (1 cm thick) [$300]
Display:
* Traditional - 320x320 (with grafitti area)
* QVGA - 320x480 (virtual grafitti area)
* No Grafitti - 320x320 (with thumb keyboard)
Standard options (any or all can be removed):
* IR
* BlueTooth
* SD/MMC slot
Major Expansion (not avail on thin model) [+ $150]
+ 802.11
+ GSM
+ CDMA
+ CF
+ Camera
Minor expansion: [+ $50]
* 2nd SD slot
* mini-SD
* XD
* Audio chip (for music playback)
To do this, they'd need:
* 3 CPU cores (corresponding to display options)
* Four cases (thick and thin models, with and without thumb keyboard) with knockouts for different options
* Internal "expansion card" space for WAN wireless, Camera (like the old memory card space was)
* Second internal expansion space for additional SD, mini-SD, XD, or audio playback
* Removable internal daughterboards for IR, BT, and the main SD slot
I really don't think this is so impossible. You'd have 39 (27 regular and 12 thin) standard configurations, and I'd bet only 5 or so would be really popular (and can be mass-produced in advance and sold at retail). Drop XD, mini-SD, and maybe CDMA, and you're down to only 24 configurations (18 and 6).
Including removal of standard options obviously increases the number, but very few customers will be likely to take that route (think "Palms used in a classified environment"). Include a grayscale option and double the count, but realistically, you can keep a separate, non-modular, grayscale model for $100 as a stocking-stuffer target).
Finally, you could even sell some of these as after-market items, so people could buy the basic model today, and then add the camera later with just a little screwdriver and some patience.
There are of course downsides to this technique (what if the spacecraft drifts off the beam)
From a great special-issue Scientific American a few years back, I think I have an answer for this.
Some of the "heated air" approaches (using microwaves or lasers) depend on a convex reflective surface under the spacecraft, which focuses the energy just below it. If the spacecraft tilts, or drifts to the side, the light from the laser, hitting the underside, gets reflected in a slightly different place. In fact, the simple geometry of the craft's underbelly guarantees that the focal point shifts just enough, in the same direction as the drift, that the next energy burst will nudge the spacecraft back onto the beam.
So it's sort of self-correcting.
And, remember, All Things Serve The Beam. (sorry, couldn't resist).
I have it loaded and in my browser, but I'm unsure on how to extract the video segment so I can torrent it up:)
It's a short (18k) flash file that then loads another flash file (called 300k.swf) that's about 4.1 meg. So, if you can figure out where your 300k.swf file is in the cache, you should be in business.
(I used flasm (http://flasm.sourceforge.net/) to disassemble the original.swf file to figure this out, btw...)
Whatever happened to those of us with acess to TMF being able to submit notice for pending dupes? I tried, but there's no easy way to figure out how to send a note to the editors. I still like the idea (naturally, since I brought it up) of a little form on TMF stories with the ability to submit dupe notification right then and there.
I've got 5 Rio products -- 4 Rio Receivers and one Rio Riot. I love 'em all. They've still got the best features I've seen (the Riot's interface is still far beyond that of the iPod or any other HD portable I've seen). And the Receivers are finally selling at what I think is the ideal price point ($75-100, on eBay).
Unfortunately, SonicBlue never really supported any of these products. They bought a fantastic HD-based car MP3 player (empeg), and promptly killed it off -- even as major manufacturers were starting to integrate MP3 playback into cd players (and now, finally, cd-changers).
They started selling the Rio Receiver, but at too high a price point, and they never updated the software. And now, there are at least three other commercial MP3 receivers from "big companies" (onkyo, phillips, and motorola), but all of 'em are (get this) even MORE expensive than the Rio Reciever was. SonicBlue could have undercut the competition, released some software upgrades (there's a great open source movement on that front that they could have tapped into), and kicked major ass.
All in all, it's been a disappointing ride for customers like me. I'm really glad that the Receiver is so open (people have re-written just about every part of it except the HomePNA kernel module). At this point, I think the best thing that could happen would be for the original empeg/receiver engineers to buy the car and home receivers back and open-source the hardware. Get a flourescent screen, better CPU (for high-rate Ogg decoding), and even cooler open-source client/server software.
But probably some other company will buy the rights and bury them.:(
Because they continue to post some real stories, too.
which version of/. were you brought up on? must have been before the ipv4 changes; slightly after gentoo migrated to rpm...
Assuming for the moment that you weren't being sarcastic (it's late in the day for me so my detector isn't operating at full capacity), some stories posted today that appear to be legit:
* Humor in Times of War * Can You Trust Microsoft on Security? * Apple 12" Powerbook Review * Peter Jackson Remaking King Kong
Some of the off-the-wall Ask Slashdot entries are obviously posted as jokes, but make interesting discussion anyway:
* CD-R Scents (I've always wondered this myself) * "Corporation" loophole to music sharing * Negative Skeptics * Eyes as Cameras * Possessed Technology (who hasn't had some?)
The "hoaxes," themselves, are pretty poor this year. None of them, really, pass the first glance test, and half the fun of being taken in is getting halfway down an RFC or something before you realize you've been had. The stories today (BSD distros merging, Enlightenment 1.0, etc.) are so far off as to not even invite gullibility.
Since you know it happens - why not just take a day off of Slashdot?
Because they continue to post some real stories, too.
The novelty of April Fool's jokes (a fun RFC, an explanation of pigeon-ranking technology, etc.) wears really thin when there are a dozen of them in a row. Especially so when you have to figure out which stories are real in the middle of the other junk.
Slashdot is in a strange position with regards to these hoaxes. It's not, generally, a creator of jokes, but instead publicizes others' jokes for fun and comments. So, by definition, we see a whole lot more of them here simply because/. is an aggregator of other stories, by definition.
What was suggested last year was that there be one or two April Fools' "quickies" with links to a bunch of funny jokes, rather than trying to pass each and every stupid hoax off as a real story. Obviously, that's not happening this time.
On the other hand, I have to admit grudging satisfaction with the IP RFC evil-bit bit, since the joke is no longer the RFC story, but the fact that it keeps coming up.
I also think the slew of really off-the-wall Ask Slashdot stories is pretty good. They're crazy enough that you can recognize them right off as April Fool's jokes, but reasonable enough that they're actually generating some fun discussion.
But, really, the "post a different hoax every hour" model was broken last year, and it's just as broken this year.
Skeptics don't really disprove anything (I'm generalizing here). They simply prove that a proponent of an extraordinary claim are not able to prove that claims.
It's a "put up or shut up" argument. Are there dead cows on the side of the road? Sure, I suppose occasionally a cow dies here or there. And occasionally teenagers go out and kill a bunch on a lark (I'm guessing).
Are there cows with no blood, cauterized wounds (why cauterize them if the blood has been drained?), and that no longer appear appetizing to vultures? Hm. That's interesting. Where are these? How many? And, most importantly, have they been independently verified?
Skeptics are, as a rule, willing to believe. But nobody who's come forward with an incredible claim has been able to show that they were what was claimed in the first place. It's easy to say that you've been abducted by aliens. Anyone can do it. It's difficult to prove that you've been abducted, and without some kind of proof, skepticism is the only proper response.
It's been said by many (and I've already seen it mentioned here) that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That's what it comes down to.
If you can document, with careful undoctored photographs of dead cows, medical examinations of their drained bodies and cauterized wounds, surveilance of un-vultured corpses (with additional surveilance of other dead animals in the region at the same time to be sure it's not just a vulture holiday), and bring all that, properly reported and analyzed, then a skeptic might be willing to say that something weird's going on.
But bring them all that information, and then say "see, aliens did it!", then not only will you have an unprovable claim, but you're likely to cast a shadow on otherwise proper research. (good tip -- if you're trying to be an authority on cattle mutiliations, don't pose for a photo in a crop circle.) And don't forget, no matter how well-performed your research, it's still possible you introduced an unintentional bias in the methods or results, and the report that the deaths are "weird" might itself not even be valid.
I might also mention that the vast amount of bad science in the field of paranormal studies strongly discourages real scientists from getting into the field, so the posssibility of real, controlled, precice research into any of these is only hampered by the wackos complaining that nobody's listening to them.
So, no, skeptics aren't a "negative" bunch. To paraphrase Fox Mulder, many "want to believe." But to be comfortable in that belief, they need something more than badly-designed web pages and the Weekly World News.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a great easter egg on the Monsters, Inc. DVD.
Second disc, Humans Only, Pixar studio tour, highlight the logo at the bottom, press left (a black circle should appear around the airplane). I think then you click on the airplane.
It's a short film of a paper-airplane contest they held in the atrium, with lots of crazy contraptions either flying the distance, curling into the sides, or plummeting straight down. All set to an appropriate classical soundtrack.
Why is it that all the really cool places to work are on the left coast? (Pixar, Google, etc.) All we've got out here are the CIA and the Pentagon, and those sort of lose their luster after a bit....
Alright, I think I'm figuring this out. Lack of documentation is something of a hinderance here... It really boils down to there not being any kind of initial configuration system on the server side, so you do all the keygen and profile creation on windows and copy stuff back and forth. Ugly. But, I guess it *is* alpha (though maybe it should be 0.1 rather than 1.0...)
It's compiled (I just made the changes shown elsewhere in this thread). Start up the windows version, create a private/public key pair (using a *server* passphrase, as this will be moved to the server). Oh, also copy the profile (default.pr0) from the windows box to the wastesrv folder, modifying and deleting stuff as appropriate within the file (like I deleted my nickname, etc.)
Export the private key to a file. Move that file to "default.pr4" in the wasteserv folder. Copy the public key to the clipboard, paste that into a file called "default.pr3" in the wasteserv folder (I changed the nick on that line to "server").
Go back to your windows client, and create a *new* private/public key pair, then copy that public key, via the clipboard, to the default.pr3 file, leaving your nick intact.
Copy the public key for the server to the windows client, importing it via the preferences panel. (this was the public half of the first key pair you created, which is now the server key).
Hit the network button, enter your server's IP in the drop-down field at the top, hit connect, and, maybe, it'll work. Maybe.
'course, I'm the only person on my server, so I'm not seeing anything. Gotta get someone else to try this too.
Hope this helps....
Okay, I've got it compiled, but I can't get it to actually listen at all. Anyone else playing with this?
Damned canucks... It's bad enough that you've got some British measurements there, but they're some weird non-standard British measurements! Geez!
Actually, I've wondered why the soft drink industry has taken so long to get to half-liter bottles. We've had 1, 2, and even 3-liter bottles for years now, but only in the last year or so did we start getting halfs, which was close enough to the 16oz bottles we used to be accustomed to that nobody noticed the difference.
And I've seen a few (very few, and only in Florida) 8-oz soda cans that should probably have been measured at 250ml.
At any rate, I'd figure that the soda industry, being pretty darned global at this time, would really benefit from converting completely to metric -- thus providing a sneaky way for us backwards Americans to get used to it. Of course, someone'll first have to convince Starbucks to start using English.
For that matter, I wonder how long it'll take for the oil industry to start pushing for liter measurements for gasoline -- just because people will be lulled into a false sense of savings seeing "0.429" on the board rather than "1.60."
they buy peripherals and upgrade their box with more memory, etc.. I liken this to if consumers were to attempt replacing their own transmission in the car, especially with non-mfg parts..
Yeah, but the operating system is designed to allow this. The hardware is designed to accept new cards. Why don't all cards have standardized APIs (thus not requiring specialized drivers?) That alone would solve a LOT of problems.
I'd say that adding peripherals to a computer isn't so much like changing the transmission, but like changing the radio. Certainly, you wouldn't expect an aftermarket CD player to cause your windshield wipers to not work. But we seem to accept that adding a Soundblaster Live! card will stop your Zip drive from working.
I still say it comes down to the industry, as a whole, not being forced by the consumer to design their products properly, and that no amount of theoretical improvements in design or engineering methods will matter a damn if they aren't pressured by the marketplace to implement those improvements.
Face it -- if our cars broke down as frequently as Windows (or Linux or whatever), we'd be suing the auto industry out of business.
If our VCRs ate every tenth tape and only played tapes from the same manufacturer as the VCR with any quality, they'd all be returned to Circuit City.
But for software, we grit our teeth and say, well, I just don't understand computers, and reach for the power switch.
Until we, as consumers, start fighting for software that works without crashing, we'll continue to get the lowest possible quality -- just as we have for years. Once the customer starts demanding a quality product, the quality (and whatever software development practices, languages, testing procedures, etc., are needed) will follow.
Bottom line -- there's no real incentive. Microsoft makes billions with buggy software, the increase in profit for selling non-buggy software is pretty small.
Remember that these aren't just popups -- they're pop-up inters...intestin....er, pop-up intermediate pages between where you clicked and where you were going.
A simple pop-up blocker that blocks ALL pop-ups won't help, cause you'll click on the link and nothing will happen. A pop-up blocker that blocks unrequested pop-ups but allows those you "asked for" with a click won't stop them, they'll show up ('cause they appeared as a result of a click).
Finally, something that recognizes, even for "requested" pop-ups, that it's a fiendish full-screen hijacker pop-up, won't help too much if it simply resizes the window, shoves it into your current tab, etc. It'll still have to dig into the pop-up data to figure out what link to go to next (which might not be obvious, could be randomly obfuscated, etc.) Plus, they could put a bunch of links into the pop-up, for more information, to get on a mailing list, etc., and only one of them (which one??) would continue you through to the original link.
Basically, you can turn 'em off, but you can't get to the content w/out living with it. And there are LOTS of ways they can prevent you from getting there, automatically, without seeing their ad.
(at least, this is what I'd expect, as I haven't seen any of these yet. but I haven't yet seen anyone come up with a way to skip the interstitials (there's that word again!) on, say, salon.com.)
I think one of the first slashdot effects was for a webserver in Purdue, with a professor's home page about lighting charcoal fires using liquid oxygen. It was mentioned in a Dave Barry column, and the server melted down quickly.
I can't find a date, as his site has been changed to "The people in charge have requested this web site be removed. 2/6/2003 --ghg". Sad. It was really cool, with lots of pictures, movies, etc.
Anyway, I think it was like '92 or '94 or somewhere around there.
If I were you I would just stick with one format change if possible. Go from AAC to OGG or AAC to MP3.
.ogg file, not from the aforementioned .mp3) to about 128k or so for car use (factory car radio/speakers, road noise, etc., not to mention the lousy cassette adaptor, and the 20G limit of my Riot make this an acceptable compromise for me).
:)
Oh, I definitely agree. I was primarily interested in seeing (hearing?) whether there were significant audible problems, ignoring for the time being the expected loss of fidelity.
Generally, I rip everything to q7 Ogg Vorbis, which is "pretty damned good" from all accounts (and serves as my "Master Copy," allowing me to keep all my CDs in cardboard boxes in the basement). Because the Rio Receiver can't decode that high a bitstream (yet), I have a second folder of automatically-downgraded MP3 files, at 160+ kbps, and those are certainly good enough for low-end MP3 players (and on-computer listening). I further degrade (from the master
I left out one stage, anyway, from the post-iTunes chain: WAV (original) -> AAC -> WAV (burned to CD) -> OGG -> MP3. In theory, one would hope the intermediate WAV step between AAC and OGG wouldn't cause trouble, but you never know.
It's a tradeoff -- always a tradeoff. But my master copies are, at least, as good as I'm likely to get (I wasn't going to go the FLAC route for 350+ CDs!), though the AAC step reduces even that a little. The plus side is that most tracks I'd be likely to buy via iTunes are one-off hits from the radio, etc., and so I'm probably not as concerned with fidelity on those, either. Albums I really care about I'd just buy as CDs.
Of course, once I find a cheap region-free NTSC SACD/DVD-A receiver, my opinions may change.
I burned a couple of Music Store tracks to CD, then re-ripped them
.WAV file. I mean, you're paying for the track, you should get the exact same data as you can when you purchase the CD outright. But as a "best of evils," this is very good. And, truthfully, I'm not convinced that other similar services (like Listen.com's Rhapsody) don't do essentially the same thing.
.wav, and as you decrease the bitrate listen for the flutes at 0:35 to start sounding weird" or somesuch. Just a thought.
A coworker recorded a few songs to CD last night. This morning, I ripped them to q7 Ogg Vorbis, and downconverted those Ogg files to MP3 (VBR, 160 to 256 kbps).
Listening to them (on decent speakers, but still computer speakers nonetheless, and also through headphones), they all sound pretty good. I'm listening mostly for "bad artifacts" -- pumping, popping, clicking, phasing/flanging, stereo movement, etc. I can't hear anything of the sort, even on the MP3.
So, we've got WAV -> 128 AAC -> q7 Ogg -> 160+ MP3, and it's still quite listenable. Certainly, it's not studio quality, but for listening at home, on a typical system with typical speakers, it's pretty good, to my ears.
I'm still sort of annoyed, philosophically, at not being able to get a full-bandwidth
Can anyone suggest a good 'test pattern' file? Something with lots of dynamic range, easy-to-identify instruments (especially with lots of layers of detail), variations in note types / waveforms, etc.? Basically, an Indian Head for audio. Because it'd be great to be able to say "download this
Anyway, I'm satisfied with the quality, at least on the minimal sample set I've heard.
Let's pretend that this is a stunningly great idea to have 39 "standard" configurations of which maybe 5 would sell. [....] What are the chances that everyone else is crazy, and you're the only sane one with this great idea?
Judging from past experience, the chances I'm the crazy one are pretty good.
However, I still wonder if there isn't a possibility here. I mean, Palm's selling, what, 5 different color models, right now. And people are already complaining about many of the feature exclusions -- want this, get that, want both, sorry.
Is this really so different from what Dell or Apple do? How many different ways (CPUs, memory, video hardware, hard drive space, etc.) can you configure a Mac G4? I'd bet many more than 39.
No, I still think there's merit. I'm sure the beancounters and smart people at Palm, Sony, and Handspring would agree, but that the merit doesn't yet outweigh the costs, and that's why nobody's done it so far.
Also, it wasn't until about the last 12 months that we had so many things we wanted *in* our Palms -- how long have we had 802.11, BlueTooth, cameras, GSM phones integrated? (Oh, I can't believe I forgot this one -- GPS.) We're only now reaching the point that there are more desireable options than can fit in one box, and so we're only now seeing mutually exclusive featuresets in different products.
Speaking of multiple chip architectures, has anyone managed to get PalmOS hacked into any PocketPC box? I know there's been a port of coPilot (or something like it) to PocketPC, but I mean has anyone actually hacked basic IO drivers together and gotten a PalmOS image to run directly (or even within a micro-emulation shell) on PocketPC Hardware?
I'd like to know who's going to be the first to market with a "Build your Own PDA" system. It seems that a lot of the discussion today is centered around why this or that feature is or isn't included. Ultimately, it probably comes down to some combination of price / power / volume.
So why can't Palm (or someone else? Handspring, are you listening?) build a fairly modular inner chassis, slap on different plastic shells, and allow people to select which features they want?
For example:
Size:
* Regular (1.7 cm thick) [$200]
* Thin (1 cm thick) [$300]
Display:
* Traditional - 320x320 (with grafitti area)
* QVGA - 320x480 (virtual grafitti area)
* No Grafitti - 320x320 (with thumb keyboard)
Standard options (any or all can be removed):
* IR
* BlueTooth
* SD/MMC slot
Major Expansion (not avail on thin model) [+ $150]
+ 802.11
+ GSM
+ CDMA
+ CF
+ Camera
Minor expansion: [+ $50]
* 2nd SD slot
* mini-SD
* XD
* Audio chip (for music playback)
To do this, they'd need:
* 3 CPU cores (corresponding to display options)
* Four cases (thick and thin models, with and without thumb keyboard) with knockouts for different options
* Internal "expansion card" space for WAN wireless, Camera (like the old memory card space was)
* Second internal expansion space for additional SD, mini-SD, XD, or audio playback
* Removable internal daughterboards for IR, BT, and the main SD slot
I really don't think this is so impossible. You'd have 39 (27 regular and 12 thin) standard configurations, and I'd bet only 5 or so would be really popular (and can be mass-produced in advance and sold at retail). Drop XD, mini-SD, and maybe CDMA, and you're down to only 24 configurations (18 and 6).
Including removal of standard options obviously increases the number, but very few customers will be likely to take that route (think "Palms used in a classified environment"). Include a grayscale option and double the count, but realistically, you can keep a separate, non-modular, grayscale model for $100 as a stocking-stuffer target).
Finally, you could even sell some of these as after-market items, so people could buy the basic model today, and then add the camera later with just a little screwdriver and some patience.
Is this so crazy?
Anyone know how Jobs pronounces "Panther"?
Concave surfaces. Convex mirrors won't focus
D'oh!
Thanks. Obviously, that was posted before I finished my morning cola.
There are of course downsides to this technique (what if the spacecraft drifts off the beam)
From a great special-issue Scientific American a few years back, I think I have an answer for this.
Some of the "heated air" approaches (using microwaves or lasers) depend on a convex reflective surface under the spacecraft, which focuses the energy just below it. If the spacecraft tilts, or drifts to the side, the light from the laser, hitting the underside, gets reflected in a slightly different place. In fact, the simple geometry of the craft's underbelly guarantees that the focal point shifts just enough, in the same direction as the drift, that the next energy burst will nudge the spacecraft back onto the beam.
So it's sort of self-correcting.
And, remember, All Things Serve The Beam. (sorry, couldn't resist).
I have it loaded and in my browser, but I'm unsure on how to extract the video segment so I can torrent it up :)
.swf file to figure this out, btw...)
It's a short (18k) flash file that then loads another flash file (called 300k.swf) that's about 4.1 meg. So, if you can figure out where your 300k.swf file is in the cache, you should be in business.
(I used flasm (http://flasm.sourceforge.net/) to disassemble the original
...suitable for mirroring: http://www.honda.co.uk/newcars/300k.swf (4.1 meg or so)
('course, it's slashdotted now.)
Here
:)
Whatever happened to those of us with acess to TMF being able to submit notice for pending dupes? I tried, but there's no easy way to figure out how to send a note to the editors. I still like the idea (naturally, since I brought it up) of a little form on TMF stories with the ability to submit dupe notification right then and there.
Of course, if I'm wrong, then, fine.
in preparation for an April 26 launch of TMA-2
They found a SECOND Tycho Magnetic Anomaly?
I've got 5 Rio products -- 4 Rio Receivers and one Rio Riot. I love 'em all. They've still got the best features I've seen (the Riot's interface is still far beyond that of the iPod or any other HD portable I've seen). And the Receivers are finally selling at what I think is the ideal price point ($75-100, on eBay).
:(
Unfortunately, SonicBlue never really supported any of these products. They bought a fantastic HD-based car MP3 player (empeg), and promptly killed it off -- even as major manufacturers were starting to integrate MP3 playback into cd players (and now, finally, cd-changers).
They started selling the Rio Receiver, but at too high a price point, and they never updated the software. And now, there are at least three other commercial MP3 receivers from "big companies" (onkyo, phillips, and motorola), but all of 'em are (get this) even MORE expensive than the Rio Reciever was. SonicBlue could have undercut the competition, released some software upgrades (there's a great open source movement on that front that they could have tapped into), and kicked major ass.
All in all, it's been a disappointing ride for customers like me. I'm really glad that the Receiver is so open (people have re-written just about every part of it except the HomePNA kernel module). At this point, I think the best thing that could happen would be for the original empeg/receiver engineers to buy the car and home receivers back and open-source the hardware. Get a flourescent screen, better CPU (for high-rate Ogg decoding), and even cooler open-source client/server software.
But probably some other company will buy the rights and bury them.
Because they continue to post some real stories, too.
/. were you brought up on? must have been before the ipv4 changes; slightly after gentoo migrated to rpm...
which version of
Assuming for the moment that you weren't being sarcastic (it's late in the day for me so my detector isn't operating at full capacity), some stories posted today that appear to be legit:
* Humor in Times of War
* Can You Trust Microsoft on Security?
* Apple 12" Powerbook Review
* Peter Jackson Remaking King Kong
Some of the off-the-wall Ask Slashdot entries are obviously posted as jokes, but make interesting discussion anyway:
* CD-R Scents (I've always wondered this myself)
* "Corporation" loophole to music sharing
* Negative Skeptics
* Eyes as Cameras
* Possessed Technology (who hasn't had some?)
The "hoaxes," themselves, are pretty poor this year. None of them, really, pass the first glance test, and half the fun of being taken in is getting halfway down an RFC or something before you realize you've been had. The stories today (BSD distros merging, Enlightenment 1.0, etc.) are so far off as to not even invite gullibility.
Since you know it happens - why not just take a day off of Slashdot?
/. is an aggregator of other stories, by definition.
Because they continue to post some real stories, too.
The novelty of April Fool's jokes (a fun RFC, an explanation of pigeon-ranking technology, etc.) wears really thin when there are a dozen of them in a row. Especially so when you have to figure out which stories are real in the middle of the other junk.
Slashdot is in a strange position with regards to these hoaxes. It's not, generally, a creator of jokes, but instead publicizes others' jokes for fun and comments. So, by definition, we see a whole lot more of them here simply because
What was suggested last year was that there be one or two April Fools' "quickies" with links to a bunch of funny jokes, rather than trying to pass each and every stupid hoax off as a real story. Obviously, that's not happening this time.
On the other hand, I have to admit grudging satisfaction with the IP RFC evil-bit bit, since the joke is no longer the RFC story, but the fact that it keeps coming up.
I also think the slew of really off-the-wall Ask Slashdot stories is pretty good. They're crazy enough that you can recognize them right off as April Fool's jokes, but reasonable enough that they're actually generating some fun discussion.
But, really, the "post a different hoax every hour" model was broken last year, and it's just as broken this year.
Skeptics don't really disprove anything (I'm generalizing here). They simply prove that a proponent of an extraordinary claim are not able to prove that claims.
It's a "put up or shut up" argument. Are there dead cows on the side of the road? Sure, I suppose occasionally a cow dies here or there. And occasionally teenagers go out and kill a bunch on a lark (I'm guessing).
Are there cows with no blood, cauterized wounds (why cauterize them if the blood has been drained?), and that no longer appear appetizing to vultures? Hm. That's interesting. Where are these? How many? And, most importantly, have they been independently verified?
Skeptics are, as a rule, willing to believe. But nobody who's come forward with an incredible claim has been able to show that they were what was claimed in the first place. It's easy to say that you've been abducted by aliens. Anyone can do it. It's difficult to prove that you've been abducted, and without some kind of proof, skepticism is the only proper response.
It's been said by many (and I've already seen it mentioned here) that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." That's what it comes down to.
If you can document, with careful undoctored photographs of dead cows, medical examinations of their drained bodies and cauterized wounds, surveilance of un-vultured corpses (with additional surveilance of other dead animals in the region at the same time to be sure it's not just a vulture holiday), and bring all that, properly reported and analyzed, then a skeptic might be willing to say that something weird's going on.
But bring them all that information, and then say "see, aliens did it!", then not only will you have an unprovable claim, but you're likely to cast a shadow on otherwise proper research. (good tip -- if you're trying to be an authority on cattle mutiliations, don't pose for a photo in a crop circle.) And don't forget, no matter how well-performed your research, it's still possible you introduced an unintentional bias in the methods or results, and the report that the deaths are "weird" might itself not even be valid.
I might also mention that the vast amount of bad science in the field of paranormal studies strongly discourages real scientists from getting into the field, so the posssibility of real, controlled, precice research into any of these is only hampered by the wackos complaining that nobody's listening to them.
So, no, skeptics aren't a "negative" bunch. To paraphrase Fox Mulder, many "want to believe." But to be comfortable in that belief, they need something more than badly-designed web pages and the Weekly World News.
The bulk mail subsidises your 'regular' mail.
:)
I see what you're getting at. I suppose it's a valid argument.
I just choose not to believe it.
(really, though, even $0.37 is a bargain for what it's doing, compared to the cost to send something FedEx Ground...)