The OSI model puts TCP at layer 4 (session), not layer 3 (addressing, AKA IP). In any case you're making the massive leap to assume that TCP would be used for low latency audio; its entirely possible that it uses UDP, because in real-time audio retransmitted packets get there far to late to be of use. Or that they use RJ45 for the physical layer but dont use ethernet / IP at all.
The problem is that in their haste to jump on the "ridicule the dumb product" bandwagon, a lot of people are exposing their ignorance of how networking works.
Someone down below seems to think that switches do retransmits. The way I was raised, if I dont know what Im talking about I keep my mouth shut.
same idea here. the rj45 patch cable for i2s use (which to almost anyone, would look like an ethernet cable) has to have each wire the same length. and so, you cannot use regular old rj45 patch cables.
Your switching gear should be able to pick up on Ethernet re-transmits. Even the oldest managed switches can do that.
Theres no such thing as an ethernet re-transmit, and switches dont do them. There are TCP retransmits, which would be done by the endpoint, assuming it were using TCP; the problem is retransmits take (if memory serves) 2x timeout period to be sent, which is useless in the context of audio. Hence, UDP is used, which doesnt do retransmits; you just hear a blip in the audio stream.
Obviously this depends on what you're doing. If you're on pandora.com, I believe they stream the music into a buffer by TCP, so that any retransmits happen well before your playback reaches that part of the buffer.
There is some very very slight logic to the ethernet cable, in that silver IS the best conductor, and technically noise COULD possibly have an impact on playback. The reality however is that there are a million other things which will cause noise before the type of metal, its purity, or anything else like that has an impact; and in reality a normal 10ft ethernet cable is going to have 0.00001% errors under normal circumstances. for 99.9999% of the time you would be unable to tell a difference between the two.
How long did it take for the death toll from Bangqiao dam to get tallied, or the devastated landscape to recover?
Im not sure exactly what the aftermath of a dam that size breaking is, but Im quite certain its more concrete than some hypothetical cancer risk statistics like we have for Fukushima, Have we even passed 100 predicted deaths for that accident, compared to the ~25,000 dead from the tsunami?
The fearmongering here is insane. Nuclear has one of the lowest deaths-to-GWh produced with the possible exception of solar (unless people are falling off roofs installing them), and yet its treated like the most dangerous.
How many people have died so far from nuclear incidents, in the last 50 years?
Now look at Bangqiao Dam, ~200,000 deaths from that one accident, trumping all past and predicted future deaths from all incidents (including Chernobyl) by a factor of 3 or more. Heres the million dollar question: why does noone EVER mention safety when a renewable like hydro is brought up? Why does it get a pass, and nuclear is the bogey man?
"a life with priorities ordered as I want them to be"?
General consensus for folks with actual drug addictions seems to be that it stops being "life prioritized as you want" and more "how do I feed this uncontrollable addiction and feel OK". Not sure if you've ever dealt with someone who has alcohol issues, but its not about "having fun". It ends up being feeding a growing problem and generally ruining your life (losing your job, your license, going to jail).
I am well aware of the whole "drugs are fine and enjoyable" meme, but applying that to opioids is ridiculous. Someone in the throes of heroin addictive isnt living a life thats "normal" in any sense of the word except perhaps that its predictable.
So someone who made a lot of easy money in an illegal way is claiming to have been a helpless victim of someone else the prosecutor really wants convicted, all under a legal system notorious for extortion.
I get the feeling you didnt read the articles on his testimony. The picture painted is that the guy had a good job in IT making solid money, got hooked on painkillers, and ended up spending thousands of dollars a week just trying to avoid withdrawal because his habit spiralled out of control. I dont think you will hear him wanting to go back to it.
Before long, Duch was using 30 bags a day. When he stopped using, he'd get sick within a few hours. "Sweating, vomiting, diarrhea—extreme flu-like symptoms," he explained.....
Despite those difficulties, Duch got clean in 2009. But in 2012, he relapsed—again starting with prescription pain-killers, again finding them too insufficient and too expensive, and turning to heroin. He was spending $200 to $300 a day on the drug. He burned through his own salary, then his savings. He shoplifted from a Target, but got caught. And then he went to Silk Road.
Yea, a guy who got clean on his own and then quickly relapsed and went from IT consulting to shoplifting at target-- clearly he has it all under control.
proving the drug war rethoric is bollocks - after all, every single customer was functional enough to operate rather complex technological systems.
Thats pretty strange logic; you can be sufficiently addicted to heroin to jump through whatever hoops you need to to get a fix. That doesnt mean that heroin doesnt impair your ability to live a normal life.
Maybe you have other, more valid objections to the war on drugs but thats a pretty strange one. One of the key witnesses was a guy who ended up ruining his life by getting hooked on heroin and became a dealer on silk road. If you're looking for evidence that drugs dont ruin your life this isnt it.
He also lives on charity at this point AFAIK, which does something to damage his credibility. Not all of us have the luxury of living rent free on Berkeley; we must actually work to make a living.
Trying to control these factors is very important.
They beg the question by implying that economics / income are responsible for the better outcome, and then work backwards to try to eliminate the disparity; in reality among homeschoolers (from what I've read) income does very little to change outcome.
What if, for instance, those who are more responsible in general tend to have better jobs, higher incomes, and higher social status, AND raise their kids better, AND tend to be more proactive in their children's education? You would expect such a child to have better scores, and its entirely reasonable to attribute some of that success to homeschooling (as it is a greater involvement of the parent). But studies applying these arbitrary controls will remove a lot (but not all) of that benefit.
Find me a study-- ANY study-- that indicates homeschoolers doing worse in any measurement-- scores, graduation, cost, ANYTHING.
Since I became aware of home schooling and since the first time I've looked into the issue I have NEVER seen such a study. The closest I've seen is studies that try to control for various factors in an arbitrary manner and show very slight differences, which still favor homeschooling.
None of the positive measurements are because of home-schooling itself. It's largely because of parental care and feedback on a child's education that homeschoolers provide.
We're both speculating here, but I'd hazard that the premise that throwing money and technology at students is a recipe for success is deeply flawed and what matters is parental involvement.
Of course Im sure other things-- like the ability to better match the pace of the student, less disruptions, and better matching the learning style of the student-- have an impact too.
Then find me a study disproving me. I have found NO studies anywhere, ever, that support what you are claiming. Why do I need to do all of the work here? Ive already spent a good amount of time googling things like "student outcomes public private home" and these studies are all I get.
You really think that government approved curriculum thought by teachers that cannot be fired is going to be better than a carefully selected set of things thought by people that really care about you?
You forget that this is slashdot, where all things government approved are worshipped.
This is true for the homeschooled children that do pursue a collage career. However, those who do fail so bad that they don't even apply for college aren't counted. This skews the numbers pretty badly.
The mid line got screwed up by slashcode. Should be, In fact I have yet to see any study that contradicts the well known heirarchy, public--->private-->catholic-->homeschool. Incidentally, that same heriarchy could be used for cost per pupil (4/5th of the way down).
Mum and/or Dad are not teachers. We're not qualified to be, and re-assurances from the homeschooling organisation are vacuous. Don't kid yourself about this. Being a teacher is a career choice, and there are very specific skillsets involved.
In fact I have yet to see any study that contradicts the well known heirarchy, public used for cost per pupil (4/5th of the way down).
Incidentally, I didnt attempt to bias-check the numbers too heavily, because two of them are government provided and all of them claim to use gov't data; I've also never seen anything to contradict this despite googling several times. However, if you take particular issue with a source, I would love to see a counter-study -- preferably one that does not introduce its own bias by "attempting to control for socio-economic factors" in an arbitrary way.
Somehow homeschooled kids score across the board higher than public education. Five areas of academic pursuit were measured. In reading, the average home-schooler scored at the 89th percentile; language, 84th percentile; math, 84th percentile; science, 86th percentile; and social studies, 84th percentile. In the core studies (reading, language and math), the average home-schooler scored at the 88th percentile.
Slashdot Mirror
The OSI model puts TCP at layer 4 (session), not layer 3 (addressing, AKA IP). In any case you're making the massive leap to assume that TCP would be used for low latency audio; its entirely possible that it uses UDP, because in real-time audio retransmitted packets get there far to late to be of use. Or that they use RJ45 for the physical layer but dont use ethernet / IP at all.
Gold is a worse conductor than copper and silver. Its only benefit is that it does not corrode. Silver is superior to copper in just about every way.
The ultimate conductor (if you wanted to pretend that errors come from resistance, rather than RFI) would be gold-coated-silver, I believe.
The problem is that in their haste to jump on the "ridicule the dumb product" bandwagon, a lot of people are exposing their ignorance of how networking works.
Someone down below seems to think that switches do retransmits. The way I was raised, if I dont know what Im talking about I keep my mouth shut.
same idea here. the rj45 patch cable for i2s use (which to almost anyone, would look like an ethernet cable) has to have each wire the same length. and so, you cannot use regular old rj45 patch cables.
Sounds like you shouldnt be using rj45.
Your switching gear should be able to pick up on Ethernet re-transmits. Even the oldest managed switches can do that.
Theres no such thing as an ethernet re-transmit, and switches dont do them. There are TCP retransmits, which would be done by the endpoint, assuming it were using TCP; the problem is retransmits take (if memory serves) 2x timeout period to be sent, which is useless in the context of audio. Hence, UDP is used, which doesnt do retransmits; you just hear a blip in the audio stream.
Obviously this depends on what you're doing. If you're on pandora.com, I believe they stream the music into a buffer by TCP, so that any retransmits happen well before your playback reaches that part of the buffer.
There is some very very slight logic to the ethernet cable, in that silver IS the best conductor, and technically noise COULD possibly have an impact on playback. The reality however is that there are a million other things which will cause noise before the type of metal, its purity, or anything else like that has an impact; and in reality a normal 10ft ethernet cable is going to have 0.00001% errors under normal circumstances. for 99.9999% of the time you would be unable to tell a difference between the two.
Uranium is (AFAIK) pretty common, and it doesnt take much of the stuff to generate a very large amount of power.
Meanwhile, solar uses some pretty exotic materials itself which requires mining, and the manufacturing isnt super clean either from what I've heard.
All energy forms have their problems. Nuclears is that everyone has an irrational phobia around it.
How long did it take for the death toll from Bangqiao dam to get tallied, or the devastated landscape to recover?
Im not sure exactly what the aftermath of a dam that size breaking is, but Im quite certain its more concrete than some hypothetical cancer risk statistics like we have for Fukushima, Have we even passed 100 predicted deaths for that accident, compared to the ~25,000 dead from the tsunami?
The fearmongering here is insane. Nuclear has one of the lowest deaths-to-GWh produced with the possible exception of solar (unless people are falling off roofs installing them), and yet its treated like the most dangerous.
How many people have died so far from nuclear incidents, in the last 50 years?
Now look at Bangqiao Dam, ~200,000 deaths from that one accident, trumping all past and predicted future deaths from all incidents (including Chernobyl) by a factor of 3 or more. Heres the million dollar question: why does noone EVER mention safety when a renewable like hydro is brought up? Why does it get a pass, and nuclear is the bogey man?
"a life with priorities ordered as I want them to be"?
General consensus for folks with actual drug addictions seems to be that it stops being "life prioritized as you want" and more "how do I feed this uncontrollable addiction and feel OK". Not sure if you've ever dealt with someone who has alcohol issues, but its not about "having fun". It ends up being feeding a growing problem and generally ruining your life (losing your job, your license, going to jail).
I am well aware of the whole "drugs are fine and enjoyable" meme, but applying that to opioids is ridiculous. Someone in the throes of heroin addictive isnt living a life thats "normal" in any sense of the word except perhaps that its predictable.
So someone who made a lot of easy money in an illegal way is claiming to have been a helpless victim of someone else the prosecutor really wants convicted, all under a legal system notorious for extortion.
I get the feeling you didnt read the articles on his testimony. The picture painted is that the guy had a good job in IT making solid money, got hooked on painkillers, and ended up spending thousands of dollars a week just trying to avoid withdrawal because his habit spiralled out of control. I dont think you will hear him wanting to go back to it.
Before long, Duch was using 30 bags a day. When he stopped using, he'd get sick within a few hours. "Sweating, vomiting, diarrhea—extreme flu-like symptoms," he explained.....
Despite those difficulties, Duch got clean in 2009. But in 2012, he relapsed—again starting with prescription pain-killers, again finding them too insufficient and too expensive, and turning to heroin. He was spending $200 to $300 a day on the drug. He burned through his own salary, then his savings. He shoplifted from a Target, but got caught. And then he went to Silk Road.
Yea, a guy who got clean on his own and then quickly relapsed and went from IT consulting to shoplifting at target-- clearly he has it all under control.
You've never signed paperwork at a dealer? You know their attorneys will have this air-tight.
Paperwork signed at a dealership can never be air-tight. Look up Contracts of adhesion.
proving the drug war rethoric is bollocks - after all, every single customer was functional enough to operate rather complex technological systems.
Thats pretty strange logic; you can be sufficiently addicted to heroin to jump through whatever hoops you need to to get a fix. That doesnt mean that heroin doesnt impair your ability to live a normal life.
Maybe you have other, more valid objections to the war on drugs but thats a pretty strange one. One of the key witnesses was a guy who ended up ruining his life by getting hooked on heroin and became a dealer on silk road. If you're looking for evidence that drugs dont ruin your life this isnt it.
He also lives on charity at this point AFAIK, which does something to damage his credibility. Not all of us have the luxury of living rent free on Berkeley; we must actually work to make a living.
Trying to control these factors is very important.
They beg the question by implying that economics / income are responsible for the better outcome, and then work backwards to try to eliminate the disparity; in reality among homeschoolers (from what I've read) income does very little to change outcome.
What if, for instance, those who are more responsible in general tend to have better jobs, higher incomes, and higher social status, AND raise their kids better, AND tend to be more proactive in their children's education? You would expect such a child to have better scores, and its entirely reasonable to attribute some of that success to homeschooling (as it is a greater involvement of the parent). But studies applying these arbitrary controls will remove a lot (but not all) of that benefit.
Find me a study-- ANY study-- that indicates homeschoolers doing worse in any measurement-- scores, graduation, cost, ANYTHING.
Since I became aware of home schooling and since the first time I've looked into the issue I have NEVER seen such a study. The closest I've seen is studies that try to control for various factors in an arbitrary manner and show very slight differences, which still favor homeschooling.
None of the positive measurements are because of home-schooling itself. It's largely because of parental care and feedback on a child's education that homeschoolers provide.
We're both speculating here, but I'd hazard that the premise that throwing money and technology at students is a recipe for success is deeply flawed and what matters is parental involvement.
Of course Im sure other things-- like the ability to better match the pace of the student, less disruptions, and better matching the learning style of the student-- have an impact too.
The average costs, so far as I have found, run something like...
Public: $9k/pupil
Private: $8k / pupil
Catholic: $6k / pupil
Home: $4k / pupil
$14k is on the high-end of things-- thats close to the highest costs in the country.
Then find me a study disproving me. I have found NO studies anywhere, ever, that support what you are claiming. Why do I need to do all of the work here? Ive already spent a good amount of time googling things like "student outcomes public private home" and these studies are all I get.
Put up or shut up.
You really think that government approved curriculum thought by teachers that cannot be fired is going to be better than a carefully selected set of things thought by people that really care about you?
You forget that this is slashdot, where all things government approved are worshipped.
This is true for the homeschooled children that do pursue a collage career. However, those who do fail so bad that they don't even apply for college aren't counted. This skews the numbers pretty badly.
Try again.
To summarize: .| . 3.16 .| 58.6% .. | . 3.12 .| . 3.13 .| 54.2% .| . 3.18 .| 51.5% .| . 3.46 .| 66.7%
SchoolType | 1yr GPA | 4yr GPA | 4yr graduation rate
Public . . | . 3.12
Private
Catholic . | . 3.13
Home . . . | . 3.41
Linux was never Unix, it was built from the ground up. What do you suppose Linux stands for?
They do well in every measurement I have seen where they are compared to public or private schools-- cost, scores, college GPA, graduation rates...
People seem to have a bias against it because it reeks of conservatism or something, regardless of how effective it is.
The mid line got screwed up by slashcode. Should be,
In fact I have yet to see any study that contradicts the well known heirarchy, public--->private-->catholic-->homeschool. Incidentally, that same heriarchy could be used for cost per pupil (4/5th of the way down).
Mum and/or Dad are not teachers. We're not qualified to be, and re-assurances from the homeschooling organisation are vacuous. Don't kid yourself about this. Being a teacher is a career choice, and there are very specific skillsets involved.
You're gonna have a hard time explaining why homeschooled kids score ~90th percentile across the board on standardized tests vs 50th for public schools. Or why they have a 0.25 GPA higher than public, private, or catholic after 4 years of college, and the highest graduation rates (page 23).
In fact I have yet to see any study that contradicts the well known heirarchy, public used for cost per pupil (4/5th of the way down).
Incidentally, I didnt attempt to bias-check the numbers too heavily, because two of them are government provided and all of them claim to use gov't data; I've also never seen anything to contradict this despite googling several times. However, if you take particular issue with a source, I would love to see a counter-study -- preferably one that does not introduce its own bias by "attempting to control for socio-economic factors" in an arbitrary way.
The reason colleges prefer homeschooled kids is because they score better on standardized tests across the board.
Somehow homeschooled kids score across the board higher than public education.
Five areas of academic pursuit were measured. In reading, the average home-schooler scored at the 89th percentile; language, 84th percentile; math, 84th percentile; science, 86th percentile; and social studies, 84th percentile. In the core studies (reading, language and math), the average home-schooler scored at the 88th percentile.
Foot, meet mouth.