wrong. Netflix pays for their bandwidth. I pay for mine. Now Verizon, AT&T and others want to get paid a third time.
Well, so this is hard to answer... Of course they want to get paid 2 or 3 or 4 times for the same product. They are greedy companies. But they didn't go out and try to do that. Netlfix refused to deliver their content in a responsible manner. They tried a few different ways to make Netflixes poor business practices "cost" netflix money... Netflix fought and won... then they tried charging for peering... and it stuck. Then the ISPs thought... hey, this is a new business model! I, personally, fully support net neutrality but even if it were codified into law, something would have to be done about Netflix and its irresponsible behavior. They are effectively DDOSing the ISPs network every Friday/Saturday evening. You can whine and complain that everyone should have fiber and 1gig connections and point at other countries... but you live HERE, and someone has to pay for that upgrade. If you want everyone to be able to use full bandwidth at the same time 24/7 then either your bills going up but a factor of 10 (i.e. pay for a commercial line), or your speeds going down to dialup speeds.
" Netflix doesn't give a damned about Net Neutrality," And AT&T, doesn't? Verizon? Google?
No they don't. What's your point? If YOU care about Net Neutrality, fix Netflix... then the ISPs wont have as much of an incentive to pursue this. Netflix really is hurting the ISPs... I see the data every day. It's huge problem for them.
IF they can't handles it, then they need to get the fuck out of the kitchen.
Trust me, they will. I work for an ISP and watch rural exchanges get given away for free to other ISPs to relive themselves of the financial burden. Sometimes they just walk away from the city all together. I can't really get into where... that stuff is under NDA. But it does happen. I even saw a cable company PAY another company to take an exchange because they were under franchise agreement. It costs a lot of money to keep up a copper network in a 30k person city. Then you get local governments threatening to install fiber only in the business park (the only profitable part of town)? Hell no...
I agree with some of the earlier post that net neutrality is not well understood by the public, or the legislators. But it's not the whole picture. There's a gut-level understanding of net neutrality that people like but have difficulty expressing.
To me, the fundamental issue is that company X, when it is operating as a network provider, can not favor its own services and media or that of its friends in preference to company Y's services and media. That is Comcast should never make Netflix (or Hulu, or Youtube, or AT&T U-verse media) have lower performance than other equivalent services from Comcast (except of course in cases where the Comcast media is stored relatively local and thus can be provided more efficiently for technical reasons). So an internet service provider side of the business must be kept independent of the rest of the business, or else be split off.
On the other hand, Comcast should not be required to provide all traffic for no cost. If some new company or paradigm comes along that doubles their bandwidth then the cost shouldn't be born by Comcast, but by the new providers AND by the customers who want that bandwidth. A problem here is the single price model that is not really charging end users for what they're actually using but which was naively assuming every user has similar usage patterns (there are multiple prices of course but they are usually based on speed and not quantity of data).
You're right, as far as I'm concerned net neutrality should be a given. The problem is, the netflix issue doesn't have to be about that. There are other ways to solve that problem but Netflix has steered the argument into a corner. Fix NETFLIX, don't torpedo the internet to do it.
Then how do you explain the Level 3 data? The major ISPs got caught red-handed throttling Netflix traffic until the extortion was paid (Comcast in this case). Days later everything was running smooth as a baby's ass. So how can you seriously make an argument that all the blame lies on Netflix' shoulders when the ISP's customers are paying for the bandwidth to receive the content?
Let's say there was a burden. If the ISPs aren't willing to upgrade their networks then their business model is the problem, not how the internet works. And according to the data it looks like the ISPs infrastructure isn't that bad off anyway, they were simple messing with the traffic to extort payments from content providers.
Are you seriously suggesting that congested ports -> Netflix pays for their own direct interconnects -> uncongested ports somehow proves that Netflix was being throttled? Because, frankly, it suggests the opposite to me (i.e. moving lots of traffic to a different interconnect freed up capacity on the original). Your own link shows the general congestion: see this graph.
You can, quite easily, make the argument that Comcast (or Verizon, or whoever the peer in question is) let that situation fester until it resulted in their "winning" a new customer (Netflix) from level3, but certainly not that their traffic was being treated differently from anyone else's.
This is standard in these contract negotiations. I work with them from time to time. "Pay up or we're shutting you off!" well... we're working on some stuff... *throttle to 20%* woaaaa there guys, we were just kidding, where do we sign?
You might not like it, but that's HOW it's done in the industry. The ISPs treat each other in the same way. I'd agree that the FCC should regulate this market better. Software vendors do the same sort of things.
Look at their rules governing use of those peers. You can't use them to deliver content outside of their immediate geographical area. Which are only in major cities (NewYork, Chicago, etc...) which are not where congestion problems are. Congestion problems are in rural Tennessee... Kansas, etc...
On top of that, the majority of the problem is NOT at the peer. Where the ISPs are really getting screwed is in the last mile. Upgrading that is insanely expensive. We're talking millions... If there are hundreds of people off that remote... fine, that's doable. But many remotes at that distance only have a few dozen people on them tops. If you've got 50 people paying $30/month are you going to spend millions of dollars to upgrade that device? No, of course not. But that doesn't matter, most people don't all get on the internet all at the same time and pegging their bandwidth... and along comes Netflix...
If Netflixed alloed local caching, with their own software... problem solved. The codes already out there, they could patch it over night. But they refuse.
One thing I can think of is running wires through tight spaces. Put a small, snake-like "robot" made of this stuff with a camera on one end on a wire and use it to guide the wire through a small hole in the wall or ceiling. Make it deformable to go around corners, and rigid to go up walls. If it's cheap enough, there's plenty of electricians and cable installers who would probably buy one.
Dude, it's paraffin wax. It's "rigid" state is about as strong as... well... wax...
Careful what you wish for. If the administration succeeds you'll quickly see the mass exodus of pretty much the entire tech sector of this country that's capable of leaving.
makes a decision based on an online poll, page count, or anything to do with YouTube deserves what they get.
You simply don't understand how marketing works. I do it for a living (on the database/reporting/IT side of things)
Give me the power to do what GCHQ claims to be able to do and I could get the person of your choice elected president of the united states. You have no idea how powerful being able to manipulate page ranks would be. It would be staggering, unfathomable power. They could get any law passed, any person shunned, any insane conspiracy accepted as fact. Your control of the press would be unprecedented in human history. You could tank the world economy in days, that would actually be childs play.
I've read that and its total hosrseshit written by a guy that knows nothing of how enterprise networking operates. I know he's saying stuff that you want to believe is true and accurate but the fact of the matter is, he doesn't even know what the real problem is!
Netflix IS a real problem. Something needs to be done, but Netflix has successfully turned this into a "Net Neutrality" debate... and unfortunately for us all, LOST. There are a dozen different ways of fixing the Netflix problem... most of which would cost Netflix money, so they oppose them. Keep in mind, Netflix doesn't give a damned about Net Neutrality, they care about money, just like any other corporation on earth. They could change their business model tomorrow to one that wasn't crushing the ISP's infrastructure but they have time and again refused to do so.
um... ok, so its silicone rubber coated in wax. Heat the wax and the silicone can flex because the wax is fluid. Let it cool and the wax hardens. That doesn't sound even remotely durable to me. How is this useful?
Of course, we still can't make anything out of carbon nanotubes.
Your Slashdot id is apparently a lie...:-) Carbon nanotubes have been used to make tons of things. The problem with them isn't finding uses for them, it's how expensive they are to make. Keep in mind that aluminum used to be one of the most expensive materials on earth due to its difficulty to smelt.
The latencys is entirely based on the chip. Most are designed for live applications so it's not really an issue. The thing with DSP chips is they don't really need to be all that powerful because they were designed for the specific application you're using them for. If I were you I'd look at the Arduino DSP shields that are out now. I can't really speak for them because I've not used them.
This ones a bit better, but still not that great. Seems like it would be easier to code for, but it's adding a LOT of noise to the signal. http://www.electrosmash.com/pe...
Again, I've found some rudimentary projects like the above out there... but nothing I'd want to use in front of people that paid to get in.
Apple failed to mention the bit about, if a US government agency had contacted them and requested information or for a backdoor to be put into their device, they'd be required by federal law to lie about it or face charges of treason. In fact, given how unrestrained the NSA is at this time, this press release may have even been written at the request of a national security letter. It's terrifying that this is where we're at... but here we are none the less.
Next up, the NSA releases a statement: "Edward Snowden is a traitor and a jerk! Look how he's hurting nice companies like Apple!"
Slashdot questions here: Has anyone on slashdot made an effects processor yet?
I've been toying with the idea of making a RPi based Effects processor. I primarily play guitar but am not going to differentiate between it and any other sound application. I've looked around and found 2 projects, one was "Guitar extended" http://guitarextended.wordpres... Which, I'm afraid, is a bit too "We're going to change guitar forever!" for me. I don't want to make yet another crazy sounding thing that no-one wants to listen to, that requires an insane peddle board to control. After I get some decent DSP reverb, gates etc... going, then I'll worry about foot controllers. The fact of the matter is, in most applications I don't need to mess with effects on the fly. I'd even argue that's a bad idea in general.
My main problem with retail effects is the size. Getting a decent processor usually means it's a double rack space unit. But if you open them up they could have easily fit into a half rack space. I'm guessing this is an appeal to the same part of the brain that likes SUVs. I build my own combo amps, so I'd like to throw in a half rack effects module and maybe something else. But all I've found is the Roland Vf1 which isn't that great, isn't in production anymore and sells for $200+ used. Also, hey I built the amp... why not the processor as well?
I've not really dove into it yet, I dont like to start these projects myself. It's way easier to let someone else make all of the mistakes and solve the problems for me:-) Also, it seems the RPi has audio latency issues like just about every non-firewire based computer out there. You can fix it, but it's a nightmare of driver and hardware tweaking. I've got a guide: http://wiki.linuxaudio.org/wik... But that sounds like the typical thing you have to do. That level of complexity is terrifying when you're trying to do a live situation. If you haven't ever played in front of people... God hates live performances... anything that can go wrong, will. I've had retail, $1000+ processors fail live and leave me to just pull the damn plug in the end and go raw.
I've seen some Arduino projects that use a DSP chip and the arduino swaps out code from the chip to change effects... but that sounds insanely error prone to me. I could pull it off, but I would never really trust it.
So if anyone has any experience in this area, or links to articles they've found on the topic, I'd love to see them.
Only at low amplitudes, for waves in water. At higher amplitudes non-linear effects become significent. The same applies to sound, and electromagnetic radiation in any medium other than vacuum. You don't see it much because the required amplitudes for that to happen in air are at the retina-scorching level.
Consider the time axis, from minus infinity to plus infinity. Somewhere along this axis the universe comes into existence. Call this point t0.
Now why is t0 exactly t0? Shouldn't there be another universe, exactly equal to this one, with time t1 (!= t0).
Now even if time is created as part of a "big bang", there should be a "meta-time" for which this holds.
No. Time is a part of this universe. There is no "meta" time, other universes do not necessarily have time. There is no t Minus infinity. We know exactly when time started (ok, to within a few trillionths of a second) You can no more go back further in time than that, than you can make a square circle.
It's something that's hard to talk about because our language is so wrapped up in the idea that time is endless, but it's not.
The universe is expanding like others said... but it's still an incorrect statement. All of our measurements so far suggest that the universe is flat, and extends in all directions infinitely. It has no size, it's unending. Even more mind boggling is that if the many worlds theory is true, then there are also an infinite number of other universe that are equally as vast. Long story short? There really are Ewoks somewhere.
It's not clear you understand the difference between a tariff and a subsidy. Are you posting drunk?
There is no effective difference.
You own a mall You make your money by charging people admission to the mall. There are 2 stores in the mall. One sells apples The other sells oranges The apple seller charges $2 per apple. The orange seller charges $1 per orange. The apple seller has to lower his prices to $1 to attract customers.
After a while the apple seller comes to you and says "I can't make a profit! The Orange guy is stealing all my customers unfairly! It's too cheep to grow oranges!" You start charging the orange seller a $1 per orange fee to operate in the mall. The price of Oranges goes up to $2 and shortly thereafter so does the price of Apples.
You've subsidized the Apple sellers with your customers money. The difference between a direct subsidy and a tariff? In a subsidy, you collect money from the customer as they enter the mall and give it to the apple store directly. The price at the door increases (taxes) but the price at the register does not. With a tariff, the price at the door (taxes) will remain the same. But everything at the register goes up. Even things that weren't taxed directly due to lack of competition. The long and short of it is, as far as the customers concerned it's the same thing. They still pay more. It's just a matter of when.
Terrifs and Subsidies are only marginally different. If you believe in managed economies (I don't) then you can use either depending on what you're trying to do. If you really want to hurt the industry in question, then tariffs are the way to go. They hurt that industry directly. If, however, you're just trying to help an ailing industry but don't want to directly hurt the one that's supplanting it, then you can subsidies it. This also gives you the option of getting the taxes from whichever source you really do want to hurt. i.e. Rich poeple, gas and oil, etc...
I was 18. There was no Internet to find out what a good deal even was at the time. This was the only shop that sold guitars within 50miles of me, much less where I could get a loan for one from.
So yes, when he told me it was fair I believed him. At best it was a $1000 lesson in personal finances. $3000 if you count all the interest and fees when I was done.
I often find it funny how people that have grown up in the internet age can't fathom how dumb we were prior to it existing. We had no way to find this stuff out... at all. I had no way to find other guitar stores even! I could look in the phonebook maybe... but how would I get a phone book that had every guitar store within 100 miles of me? I only had my local phone book! It was a dark time my friend.
You might think this is getting to be epidemic in China or somebody over there takes advantage of gullible westerners ?
ok, I'd like to argue your point. You seem to think online gaming addiction isn't a "Thing" First you'll have to accept that "Gambling addiction" is real and causes people do these same sorts of things. If you don't that's a different argument.
Then I, of course, am going to say that Online Gaming addiction is one and the same as Gambling addiction. And not that they are similar to or trigger similar things in the brain... no, it's that online gaming has turned into true gambling.
It's not the only one like this, but it's a good example of what I mean. They've taken strategies strait out of casinos and applied them to an MMO.
First, they have so many currencies that are so confusing you can never keep track of what you have. There are dozens, if not over 100 of them: http://neverwinter.gamepedia.c...
Then you can turn around any buy a whole host of items with this Zen in the game. But, those items are expensive. But, you can buy "Keys" that open magic boxes that drop like rain in the game. Those boxes have completely undisclosed "odds" that can change at random.
This is where it gets interesting...
You can then sell the items that you got in those boxes at a profit in their online auction house. Then use the money you get from the sales to buy more keys Open more boxes You're getting the idea...
On occasion you'll get a "winner" and get some fantastic item that sells for a lot. Often you'll lose a "small" amount and on occasion a LOT To get back into the game you have to buy more Zen...
and it goes on like this. This is clearly gambling in my eyes. People are being used an manipulated. The fact that they hide the odds should be a red flag, but it's still going on. And before you argue that this isn't gambling because you don't get real world cash out of it... you can. There are plenty of people that will buy your currency for real money if you're selling cheaper than the game is. They make no attempt at all to stop it. There are a lot of people that make their entire living in markets like this. Ironically, most of them in China.
So yes, I think it could get as crazy as these articles suggest. I don't propose banning it or anything. But more disclosure on odds... less pretend bullshit that this is anything less than what it is: Gambling... would do us all some good.
Interviewer: So what can you do for this company... Interviewee: There's this dude down the street with Magic beans! Interviewer: You're hired! Now go get them beans! Interviewee: You really bought that? er... ok... you realize that was an interview and much like televisions commercials I'm expected to exaggerate right? Interviewer: You promised me beans give me some beans! Interviewee: ooook... here ya go... *2yrs later* Interviewer: These beans aren't growing!... lets just sue that bean salesman, clearly these beans were defective.. Interviewee: I really need to find a new job but I don't want to go through another interview like that last one...
Slashdot Mirror
wrong.
Netflix pays for their bandwidth. I pay for mine. Now Verizon, AT&T and others want to get paid a third time.
Well, so this is hard to answer... Of course they want to get paid 2 or 3 or 4 times for the same product. They are greedy companies.
But they didn't go out and try to do that. Netlfix refused to deliver their content in a responsible manner. They tried a few different ways to make Netflixes poor business practices "cost" netflix money... Netflix fought and won... then they tried charging for peering... and it stuck. Then the ISPs thought... hey, this is a new business model! I, personally, fully support net neutrality but even if it were codified into law, something would have to be done about Netflix and its irresponsible behavior. They are effectively DDOSing the ISPs network every Friday/Saturday evening. You can whine and complain that everyone should have fiber and 1gig connections and point at other countries... but you live HERE, and someone has to pay for that upgrade. If you want everyone to be able to use full bandwidth at the same time 24/7 then either your bills going up but a factor of 10 (i.e. pay for a commercial line), or your speeds going down to dialup speeds.
" Netflix doesn't give a damned about Net Neutrality,"
And AT&T, doesn't? Verizon? Google?
No they don't. What's your point? If YOU care about Net Neutrality, fix Netflix... then the ISPs wont have as much of an incentive to pursue this. Netflix really is hurting the ISPs... I see the data every day. It's huge problem for them.
IF they can't handles it, then they need to get the fuck out of the kitchen.
Trust me, they will. I work for an ISP and watch rural exchanges get given away for free to other ISPs to relive themselves of the financial burden. Sometimes they just walk away from the city all together. I can't really get into where... that stuff is under NDA. But it does happen. I even saw a cable company PAY another company to take an exchange because they were under franchise agreement. It costs a lot of money to keep up a copper network in a 30k person city. Then you get local governments threatening to install fiber only in the business park (the only profitable part of town)? Hell no...
Right, all the cable channels flow in one set band... internets on another. Entirely different services.
I agree with some of the earlier post that net neutrality is not well understood by the public, or the legislators. But it's not the whole picture. There's a gut-level understanding of net neutrality that people like but have difficulty expressing.
To me, the fundamental issue is that company X, when it is operating as a network provider, can not favor its own services and media or that of its friends in preference to company Y's services and media. That is Comcast should never make Netflix (or Hulu, or Youtube, or AT&T U-verse media) have lower performance than other equivalent services from Comcast (except of course in cases where the Comcast media is stored relatively local and thus can be provided more efficiently for technical reasons). So an internet service provider side of the business must be kept independent of the rest of the business, or else be split off.
On the other hand, Comcast should not be required to provide all traffic for no cost. If some new company or paradigm comes along that doubles their bandwidth then the cost shouldn't be born by Comcast, but by the new providers AND by the customers who want that bandwidth. A problem here is the single price model that is not really charging end users for what they're actually using but which was naively assuming every user has similar usage patterns (there are multiple prices of course but they are usually based on speed and not quantity of data).
You're right, as far as I'm concerned net neutrality should be a given. The problem is, the netflix issue doesn't have to be about that. There are other ways to solve that problem but Netflix has steered the argument into a corner. Fix NETFLIX, don't torpedo the internet to do it.
Then how do you explain the Level 3 data? The major ISPs got caught red-handed throttling Netflix traffic until the extortion was paid (Comcast in this case). Days later everything was running smooth as a baby's ass. So how can you seriously make an argument that all the blame lies on Netflix' shoulders when the ISP's customers are paying for the bandwidth to receive the content?
Let's say there was a burden. If the ISPs aren't willing to upgrade their networks then their business model is the problem, not how the internet works. And according to the data it looks like the ISPs infrastructure isn't that bad off anyway, they were simple messing with the traffic to extort payments from content providers.
TL;DR: WTF are you talking about?
http://blog.level3.com/global-...
Are you seriously suggesting that congested ports -> Netflix pays for their own direct interconnects -> uncongested ports somehow proves that Netflix was being throttled? Because, frankly, it suggests the opposite to me (i.e. moving lots of traffic to a different interconnect freed up capacity on the original). Your own link shows the general congestion: see this graph.
You can, quite easily, make the argument that Comcast (or Verizon, or whoever the peer in question is) let that situation fester until it resulted in their "winning" a new customer (Netflix) from level3, but certainly not that their traffic was being treated differently from anyone else's.
This is standard in these contract negotiations. I work with them from time to time.
"Pay up or we're shutting you off!"
well... we're working on some stuff...
*throttle to 20%*
woaaaa there guys, we were just kidding, where do we sign?
You might not like it, but that's HOW it's done in the industry. The ISPs treat each other in the same way. I'd agree that the FCC should regulate this market better. Software vendors do the same sort of things.
I see you're falling for netflix's marketing.
Look at their rules governing use of those peers. You can't use them to deliver content outside of their immediate geographical area. Which are only in major cities (NewYork, Chicago, etc...) which are not where congestion problems are. Congestion problems are in rural Tennessee... Kansas, etc...
On top of that, the majority of the problem is NOT at the peer. Where the ISPs are really getting screwed is in the last mile. Upgrading that is insanely expensive. We're talking millions... If there are hundreds of people off that remote... fine, that's doable. But many remotes at that distance only have a few dozen people on them tops. If you've got 50 people paying $30/month are you going to spend millions of dollars to upgrade that device? No, of course not. But that doesn't matter, most people don't all get on the internet all at the same time and pegging their bandwidth... and along comes Netflix...
If Netflixed alloed local caching, with their own software... problem solved. The codes already out there, they could patch it over night. But they refuse.
One thing I can think of is running wires through tight spaces. Put a small, snake-like "robot" made of this stuff with a camera on one end on a wire and use it to guide the wire through a small hole in the wall or ceiling. Make it deformable to go around corners, and rigid to go up walls. If it's cheap enough, there's plenty of electricians and cable installers who would probably buy one.
Dude, it's paraffin wax. It's "rigid" state is about as strong as... well... wax...
What your describing has already been solved by this device:
http://www.delcity.net/store/C...
They work fantastically well. I have 2! :-)
A $3500 video card is news? wtf...
Other than some crazy very specific applications this cards worthless.
Careful what you wish for. If the administration succeeds you'll quickly see the mass exodus of pretty much the entire tech sector of this country that's capable of leaving.
makes a decision based on an online poll, page count, or anything to do with YouTube deserves what they get.
You simply don't understand how marketing works. I do it for a living (on the database/reporting/IT side of things)
Give me the power to do what GCHQ claims to be able to do and I could get the person of your choice elected president of the united states. You have no idea how powerful being able to manipulate page ranks would be. It would be staggering, unfathomable power. They could get any law passed, any person shunned, any insane conspiracy accepted as fact. Your control of the press would be unprecedented in human history. You could tank the world economy in days, that would actually be childs play.
Lets start a sloshdot poll to see how often people believe in these so called polls!
I've read that and its total hosrseshit written by a guy that knows nothing of how enterprise networking operates. I know he's saying stuff that you want to believe is true and accurate but the fact of the matter is, he doesn't even know what the real problem is!
Netflix IS a real problem. Something needs to be done, but Netflix has successfully turned this into a "Net Neutrality" debate... and unfortunately for us all, LOST. There are a dozen different ways of fixing the Netflix problem... most of which would cost Netflix money, so they oppose them. Keep in mind, Netflix doesn't give a damned about Net Neutrality, they care about money, just like any other corporation on earth. They could change their business model tomorrow to one that wasn't crushing the ISP's infrastructure but they have time and again refused to do so.
um... ok, so its silicone rubber coated in wax. Heat the wax and the silicone can flex because the wax is fluid. Let it cool and the wax hardens. That doesn't sound even remotely durable to me. How is this useful?
Of course, we still can't make anything out of carbon nanotubes.
Your Slashdot id is apparently a lie... :-)
Carbon nanotubes have been used to make tons of things. The problem with them isn't finding uses for them, it's how expensive they are to make. Keep in mind that aluminum used to be one of the most expensive materials on earth due to its difficulty to smelt.
The latencys is entirely based on the chip. Most are designed for live applications so it's not really an issue. The thing with DSP chips is they don't really need to be all that powerful because they were designed for the specific application you're using them for. If I were you I'd look at the Arduino DSP shields that are out now. I can't really speak for them because I've not used them.
Here's an older one:
http://www.amandaghassaei.com/...
Sounds awful though...
This ones a bit better, but still not that great. Seems like it would be easier to code for, but it's adding a LOT of noise to the signal.
http://www.electrosmash.com/pe...
Again, I've found some rudimentary projects like the above out there... but nothing I'd want to use in front of people that paid to get in.
Apple failed to mention the bit about, if a US government agency had contacted them and requested information or for a backdoor to be put into their device, they'd be required by federal law to lie about it or face charges of treason. In fact, given how unrestrained the NSA is at this time, this press release may have even been written at the request of a national security letter. It's terrifying that this is where we're at... but here we are none the less.
Next up, the NSA releases a statement: "Edward Snowden is a traitor and a jerk! Look how he's hurting nice companies like Apple!"
Slashdot questions here: Has anyone on slashdot made an effects processor yet?
I've been toying with the idea of making a RPi based Effects processor. I primarily play guitar but am not going to differentiate between it and any other sound application. I've looked around and found 2 projects, one was "Guitar extended" http://guitarextended.wordpres... Which, I'm afraid, is a bit too "We're going to change guitar forever!" for me. I don't want to make yet another crazy sounding thing that no-one wants to listen to, that requires an insane peddle board to control. After I get some decent DSP reverb, gates etc... going, then I'll worry about foot controllers. The fact of the matter is, in most applications I don't need to mess with effects on the fly. I'd even argue that's a bad idea in general.
My main problem with retail effects is the size. Getting a decent processor usually means it's a double rack space unit. But if you open them up they could have easily fit into a half rack space. I'm guessing this is an appeal to the same part of the brain that likes SUVs. I build my own combo amps, so I'd like to throw in a half rack effects module and maybe something else. But all I've found is the Roland Vf1 which isn't that great, isn't in production anymore and sells for $200+ used. Also, hey I built the amp... why not the processor as well?
I've not really dove into it yet, I dont like to start these projects myself. It's way easier to let someone else make all of the mistakes and solve the problems for me :-) Also, it seems the RPi has audio latency issues like just about every non-firewire based computer out there. You can fix it, but it's a nightmare of driver and hardware tweaking. I've got a guide: http://wiki.linuxaudio.org/wik... But that sounds like the typical thing you have to do. That level of complexity is terrifying when you're trying to do a live situation. If you haven't ever played in front of people... God hates live performances... anything that can go wrong, will. I've had retail, $1000+ processors fail live and leave me to just pull the damn plug in the end and go raw.
I've seen some Arduino projects that use a DSP chip and the arduino swaps out code from the chip to change effects... but that sounds insanely error prone to me. I could pull it off, but I would never really trust it.
So if anyone has any experience in this area, or links to articles they've found on the topic, I'd love to see them.
Why do most people love cheap (or higher perceived quality) imported goods but balk at having the foreign workers themselves imported.
Because most people are xenophobes. It's part of being human.
Only at low amplitudes, for waves in water. At higher amplitudes non-linear effects become significent. The same applies to sound, and electromagnetic radiation in any medium other than vacuum. You don't see it much because the required amplitudes for that to happen in air are at the retina-scorching level.
You've apparently never seen Motörhead live.
Consider the time axis, from minus infinity to plus infinity.
Somewhere along this axis the universe comes into existence.
Call this point t0.
Now why is t0 exactly t0? Shouldn't there be another universe, exactly equal to this one, with time t1 (!= t0).
Now even if time is created as part of a "big bang", there should be a "meta-time" for which this holds.
No. Time is a part of this universe. There is no "meta" time, other universes do not necessarily have time. There is no t Minus infinity. We know exactly when time started (ok, to within a few trillionths of a second) You can no more go back further in time than that, than you can make a square circle.
It's something that's hard to talk about because our language is so wrapped up in the idea that time is endless, but it's not.
The universe is expanding like others said... but it's still an incorrect statement. All of our measurements so far suggest that the universe is flat, and extends in all directions infinitely. It has no size, it's unending. Even more mind boggling is that if the many worlds theory is true, then there are also an infinite number of other universe that are equally as vast. Long story short? There really are Ewoks somewhere.
And yet they don't seem to have any problem violating the fundamental rights of nearly everyone in and outside the US.
Don't even make an argument. They are liars, and criminals. Why are we even listing to them talk? To hell with the NSA, they can talk in court.
It's not clear you understand the difference between a tariff and a subsidy. Are you posting drunk?
There is no effective difference.
You own a mall
You make your money by charging people admission to the mall.
There are 2 stores in the mall.
One sells apples
The other sells oranges
The apple seller charges $2 per apple.
The orange seller charges $1 per orange.
The apple seller has to lower his prices to $1 to attract customers.
After a while the apple seller comes to you and says "I can't make a profit! The Orange guy is stealing all my customers unfairly! It's too cheep to grow oranges!"
You start charging the orange seller a $1 per orange fee to operate in the mall.
The price of Oranges goes up to $2 and shortly thereafter so does the price of Apples.
You've subsidized the Apple sellers with your customers money.
The difference between a direct subsidy and a tariff?
In a subsidy, you collect money from the customer as they enter the mall and give it to the apple store directly. The price at the door increases (taxes) but the price at the register does not.
With a tariff, the price at the door (taxes) will remain the same. But everything at the register goes up. Even things that weren't taxed directly due to lack of competition. The long and short of it is, as far as the customers concerned it's the same thing. They still pay more. It's just a matter of when.
Terrifs and Subsidies are only marginally different. If you believe in managed economies (I don't) then you can use either depending on what you're trying to do. If you really want to hurt the industry in question, then tariffs are the way to go. They hurt that industry directly. If, however, you're just trying to help an ailing industry but don't want to directly hurt the one that's supplanting it, then you can subsidies it. This also gives you the option of getting the taxes from whichever source you really do want to hurt. i.e. Rich poeple, gas and oil, etc...
I was 18.
There was no Internet to find out what a good deal even was at the time.
This was the only shop that sold guitars within 50miles of me, much less where I could get a loan for one from.
So yes, when he told me it was fair I believed him.
At best it was a $1000 lesson in personal finances. $3000 if you count all the interest and fees when I was done.
I often find it funny how people that have grown up in the internet age can't fathom how dumb we were prior to it existing. We had no way to find this stuff out... at all. I had no way to find other guitar stores even! I could look in the phonebook maybe... but how would I get a phone book that had every guitar store within 100 miles of me? I only had my local phone book! It was a dark time my friend.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
From 2011
You might think this is getting to be epidemic in China or somebody over there takes advantage of gullible westerners ?
ok, I'd like to argue your point. You seem to think online gaming addiction isn't a "Thing"
First you'll have to accept that "Gambling addiction" is real and causes people do these same sorts of things. If you don't that's a different argument.
Then I, of course, am going to say that Online Gaming addiction is one and the same as Gambling addiction. And not that they are similar to or trigger similar things in the brain... no, it's that online gaming has turned into true gambling.
As an example I'm going to cite "Neverwinter Online"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
It's not the only one like this, but it's a good example of what I mean. They've taken strategies strait out of casinos and applied them to an MMO.
First, they have so many currencies that are so confusing you can never keep track of what you have. There are dozens, if not over 100 of them:
http://neverwinter.gamepedia.c...
Secondly, you can BUY one of these currencies with real money. Zen:
https://billing.arcgames.com/e...
Then you can turn around any buy a whole host of items with this Zen in the game.
But, those items are expensive. But, you can buy "Keys" that open magic boxes that drop like rain in the game.
Those boxes have completely undisclosed "odds" that can change at random.
This is where it gets interesting...
You can then sell the items that you got in those boxes at a profit in their online auction house.
Then use the money you get from the sales to buy more keys
Open more boxes
You're getting the idea...
On occasion you'll get a "winner" and get some fantastic item that sells for a lot.
Often you'll lose a "small" amount and on occasion a LOT
To get back into the game you have to buy more Zen...
and it goes on like this. This is clearly gambling in my eyes. People are being used an manipulated. The fact that they hide the odds should be a red flag, but it's still going on. And before you argue that this isn't gambling because you don't get real world cash out of it... you can. There are plenty of people that will buy your currency for real money if you're selling cheaper than the game is. They make no attempt at all to stop it. There are a lot of people that make their entire living in markets like this. Ironically, most of them in China.
So yes, I think it could get as crazy as these articles suggest. I don't propose banning it or anything. But more disclosure on odds... less pretend bullshit that this is anything less than what it is: Gambling... would do us all some good.
Interviewer: So what can you do for this company...
Interviewee: There's this dude down the street with Magic beans!
Interviewer: You're hired! Now go get them beans!
Interviewee: You really bought that? er... ok... you realize that was an interview and much like televisions commercials I'm expected to exaggerate right?
Interviewer: You promised me beans give me some beans!
Interviewee: ooook... here ya go...
*2yrs later*
Interviewer: These beans aren't growing!... lets just sue that bean salesman, clearly these beans were defective..
Interviewee: I really need to find a new job but I don't want to go through another interview like that last one...