wait, iiNet wasn't the one actually experimenting the new Australian filtering technology? This lawsuit is a HUGE win against such filtering protection... or not? Am I missing something?
Yes, it is an indicator that iiNet is opposed to internet content filtering. However, it's also an indicator to all ISP's around the world that if they do not employ filtering they risk an extremely expensive legal battle with the seven top film studios, each of which probably has more assets and prior experience in court than the ISP's.
What's strange and rather scary about this situation is that "iiNet will be participating in the trials, mostly to prove that the filters are impractical, unworkable and unwanted." [see link above] The studios are suing them not for refusing to cooperate, but for cooperating reluctantly. That's all it takes for the MAFIAA to pull the trigger it seems.
"but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what HAVE the Romans ever done for US?"
With all due respect, either help get us off the grid or stop bitching about it.
If I follow this reply, the DNA strands are in essence infused with molecules that resonate light. So they're not conduits of minimal resistance like fiber, they are more like a series of acoustic relays at a molecular level. String them together tightly enough and they form optical conduits.
There's a term for this, it's called "quality control". It used to be performed *before* distributing a product to market. The term for evaluating quality after distribution is called "damage control", and this software is akin to a nurse performing triage on patients the hospital injured.
Everyone who gives a half-damn about this thread must watch a brilliant movie about the journalists that died in the Bosnian conflict, called Harrison's Flowers. I suspect Adrien Brody will never play a better role.
I have had absolutely no trouble with 1&1, they've been my host for about 4 years. If you're dealing with a customer service rep in any industry that doesn't have the authority to do what needs to be done, then you have to ask to speak to someone who does. It's a shame you're missing out on a great service provider because you didn't make a painfully obvious request.
Not surprising. Even my dad's old Ford Taurus had an engine that was designed by Yamaha and built in Taiwan, which was also recalled for major manufacturing faults (coolant leaking into the main bearing).
There is more audible data stored in a 320kpbs MP3 than a 256, and the quality difference, though slight definitely exists.
There may be more data derived from the source audio, but it is not audible by any practical measure. Try this - take an uncompressed audio file, encode it to separate 256kbps and 320kbps MP3's, decode them back to WAV or whatever, put them in an audio editor, and invert both sides of one of them to isolate the differences between the two. Yes, the difference is audible when it is isolated, but it will be more than 32dB lower than the original audio, which is 100% completely absolutely indiscernible by human ears, except perhaps trained ones on professional monitors, the absolute last place on earth that MP3 compression could have any practical value.
The human auditory system is not a set of mics wired to an oscilloscope. Your ears are more like pianos with 20,000 keys from which your brain synthesizes sounds prioritized by their pertinence to mostly survival-related issues. The difference between 256kbps and 320kbps does not chart on that list. That is dead right, and mathematically demonstrable by the correlation of a sound tech's income and their ability to manipulate sounds so they prioritize properly on that list, a.k.a. "sit right in the mix".
Why on earth would all major VBR schemes use 320 as their cap if it didn't?
Because 320 is higher than 256, and the target market for MP3's thinks that translates to better sound. Sorry, commercial practices are no defense for audio compression using extra data to capture what we can't hear. I may be no codec developer, but I thought removing what we can't hear was the entire point.
Here is an example test where 256kbps MP3 was shown to reproduce accurate fidelity up to 16kHz with a mild drop-off beyond that, -8dB at 20kHz. Now before you say that top 4kHz is of crucial importance, the interval between 16kHz and 20kHz is three semi-tones, or three frets on a guitar. No MP3 bitrate offers those frequencies with reasonable fidelity, and three semi-tones is a minute sacrifice to pay for a 5:1 compression ratio.
Also, many people can't distinguish modern 128kps MP3 encoding in an ABX test.
Also, many people are accustomed to crap sound reproduction and computer speakers. And subjective arguments don't support an objective hypothesis very well. I speak in practical terms and industry standards.
an MP3 at 320kbps cannot sound better than a 256kbps MP3 encoded from the same source.
Total rubbish! Where are you getting these things from? Do you think the LAME people put in these options just for fun?
No, I just think the people that use them are lame;) Seriously, they are included because the average consumer does not understand the concept of diminishing returns in digital audio. If you really want to get into it, jump onto the 96/192kHz sampling debate. There is absolutely no benefit to digital audio beyond 48kHz. Still, if you do a blind A/B test and ask them which sounds better, you get the exact same result as a blind A/A test. They say there's a difference, but they can't pick the higher sample rate with any consistency.
"The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal bandwidth. Audio
industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas
is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail. Whether
motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the wrong direction, are
stating the opposite of what is true."
There is no white paper on the diminishing returns of MP3's because they are toys that aren't worth that time of anyone qualified to give a definitive assessment.
MP3 is optimized for best performance at 256kbps. MPEG-4 AAC is optimized for 128kbps. Trying to determine which MP3 codec works best at 128kbps is like figuring out whether Jimi Hendrix or Jimmy Page would be better if they lost two fingers off their left hands. Similarily, MP2 is optimized for 384kbps, and beats MP3 at bitrates beyond 256, which is why it is widely used on DVD's at 384kbps.
Here's how it plays out:
Lossless codecs obviously are best when bandwidth isn't an issue
MP2 (MPEG-1 layer 2) is best from 320kbps upwards
MP3 (MPEG-1 layer 3) is best from 160 - 256 kbps
AAC (specified initialy in MPEG-2, finalized in MPEG-4 [they skipped MPEG-3 not to be confused with MP3]) best from 128kbps downwards
MP2's at 384kbps sound better than MP3's at 256kbps, which sound better than AAC at 128kbps. None of the codecs sound any better at higher-than-optimal bitrates, i.e. an MP3 at 320kbps cannot sound better than a 256kbps MP3 encoded from the same source.
Simply put, it's the codec that determines the optimal bitrate. Given a 128kbps bitrate, who cares how an inappropriate codec performs?
Great, so all we have to do is burn off all other oil sources to heat the planet up enough to melt the ice cap to get more oil.
What most don't realize is that the polar ice caps play a major role in moderating the Earth's temperature. Ice reflects light, while water (or at least its contents) absorbs it. Without the ice caps, the sunlight is absorbed into the water, raising the temperature of the oceans globally, compounding the global warming issues we're already facing.
Trust me, if that happens, the last thing we'll be worried about is finding more oil. The average year would make the last El Nino year seem like scattered showers with mild gusts.
The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history. "Shipping companies are already planning to exploit the first simultaneous opening of the routes since the beginning of the last Ice Age 125,000 years ago. The Beluga Group in Germany says it will send the first ship through the north-east passage, around Russia, next year, cutting 4,000 miles off the voyage from Germany to Japan."
Part of pricing virtually all techical work is derived on a results-orientated basis, and also supply/demand but that's not the issue here. Simply figure out how damaging it would be to the company if you failed to perform your duties. In other words, how valuable is the information you're charged with administering?
I'm in a similar situation where I am in negotiations with a group of bars to replace their house sound technician. The existing tech is due to retire, and things simply aren't getting done, but the commitment required means the tech cannot be in a touring band or in the union that services the arenas and theaters nearby, which rules out pretty much everyone. They've been paying X amount for slack work for years, so if I'm going to step in and do it right, the least I would demand would be X + 30%, based on how much more effective I'm going to be. On supply/demand terms I've got them by the short-and-curlies, so I might go for more.
This touring musician can only hang his head while folks here bicker about which method makes my work more futile.
We lose from the MAFIAA, we lose from piracy, we lose from DRM's, we lose from gas prices, but we still fucking tour. Would it kill you to get out and see a live band once in a while? The only indie bands that still tour are for the mostpart really fucking good.
I also house tech (meaning I mix bands that tour through my venue), so I hope you'll give this post some thought. Live music right now is endangered, meanwhile the touring talent is on average the best I've ever seen.
"Invade" was a simplification for the purpose of the post. I'm not going to make every reference to every military engagement a history lesson. If you resent me calling the attack on Pearl Harbour invasive, I'm afraid I'm not entirely sympathetic, especially considering your tone.
My point was that Japan needed more land, they were willing to go to war over it. China is now in that exact same position. Is there any reason to expect a different result?
I would mention how China has demonstrated the willingness to invade and conquer neighboring countries in the modern era, even more recently than WWII, for example Tibet, but I'd hate to get any facts wrong...
or just raise education levels. Japan has negative population growth, and it's not due to government intervention.
The cost of living in Japan is prohibitive to having children. Ever hear the one about laying down a $1000 bill in Tokyo, and the area under the bill is worth more than the bill? That was said in the late 80's. It's only gotten worse.
Why do you think the Japanese were so motivated to invade the US in WWII? Now China is anticipating the need for more land, and economically they've got the US over a barrel. Give that a few thinks.
Re:I haven't followed the whole Android business,
on
T-Mobile G1 Rooted
·
· Score: 1
I prefer the Australian interpretation of "rooting". Apparently the Canadian olympic team caused something of a stir at the Syndey games, since their uniforms bore the logo of their sponsor clothing chain "Roots". Might have well read "fucks" or "cocks"
movie with a good explosion, preferably involving a Death Star
wallet stacked with fake cash
Find a parking spot with a good place to hide nearby where you can still see the car within range of the remote control. You connect the DVD player to the stereo, position it where it can be remote controlled from outside, cue the movie to the explosion and pause it, crank the stereo. Place the wallet on the dashboard with the cash in plain view, leave the windows open, wait for a sucker to take a closer look.
Slashdot Mirror
wait, iiNet wasn't the one actually experimenting the new Australian filtering technology? This lawsuit is a HUGE win against such filtering protection... or not? Am I missing something?
Yes, it is an indicator that iiNet is opposed to internet content filtering. However, it's also an indicator to all ISP's around the world that if they do not employ filtering they risk an extremely expensive legal battle with the seven top film studios, each of which probably has more assets and prior experience in court than the ISP's.
What's strange and rather scary about this situation is that "iiNet will be participating in the trials, mostly to prove that the filters are impractical, unworkable and unwanted." [see link above] The studios are suing them not for refusing to cooperate, but for cooperating reluctantly. That's all it takes for the MAFIAA to pull the trigger it seems.
"but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what HAVE the Romans ever done for US?"
With all due respect, either help get us off the grid or stop bitching about it.
"We don't know how hard daily life was back there and if there was any space for love"
"there are big holes in their heads"
Hell yeah. Mod me nasty, but you're feelin it.
Grissom is digging out his divining rod as we speak.
If I follow this reply, the DNA strands are in essence infused with molecules that resonate light. So they're not conduits of minimal resistance like fiber, they are more like a series of acoustic relays at a molecular level. String them together tightly enough and they form optical conduits.
There's a term for this, it's called "quality control". It used to be performed *before* distributing a product to market. The term for evaluating quality after distribution is called "damage control", and this software is akin to a nurse performing triage on patients the hospital injured.
Everyone who gives a half-damn about this thread must watch a brilliant movie about the journalists that died in the Bosnian conflict, called Harrison's Flowers. I suspect Adrien Brody will never play a better role.
A republican vote.
I have had absolutely no trouble with 1&1, they've been my host for about 4 years. If you're dealing with a customer service rep in any industry that doesn't have the authority to do what needs to be done, then you have to ask to speak to someone who does. It's a shame you're missing out on a great service provider because you didn't make a painfully obvious request.
Not surprising. Even my dad's old Ford Taurus had an engine that was designed by Yamaha and built in Taiwan, which was also recalled for major manufacturing faults (coolant leaking into the main bearing).
Can't really argue with that, either!
Just because they can't, doesn't mean they won't. It works for Microsoft every day.
At the same time, if there were suddenly 10,000 search requests for genital wart remedies in your area, wouldn't you like to know?
There is more audible data stored in a 320kpbs MP3 than a 256, and the quality difference, though slight definitely exists.
There may be more data derived from the source audio, but it is not audible by any practical measure. Try this - take an uncompressed audio file, encode it to separate 256kbps and 320kbps MP3's, decode them back to WAV or whatever, put them in an audio editor, and invert both sides of one of them to isolate the differences between the two. Yes, the difference is audible when it is isolated, but it will be more than 32dB lower than the original audio, which is 100% completely absolutely indiscernible by human ears, except perhaps trained ones on professional monitors, the absolute last place on earth that MP3 compression could have any practical value.
The human auditory system is not a set of mics wired to an oscilloscope. Your ears are more like pianos with 20,000 keys from which your brain synthesizes sounds prioritized by their pertinence to mostly survival-related issues. The difference between 256kbps and 320kbps does not chart on that list. That is dead right, and mathematically demonstrable by the correlation of a sound tech's income and their ability to manipulate sounds so they prioritize properly on that list, a.k.a. "sit right in the mix".
Why on earth would all major VBR schemes use 320 as their cap if it didn't?
Because 320 is higher than 256, and the target market for MP3's thinks that translates to better sound. Sorry, commercial practices are no defense for audio compression using extra data to capture what we can't hear. I may be no codec developer, but I thought removing what we can't hear was the entire point.
MP3 is optimized for best performance at 256kbps.
You claim. Where is here any evidence of this?
Here is an example test where 256kbps MP3 was shown to reproduce accurate fidelity up to 16kHz with a mild drop-off beyond that, -8dB at 20kHz. Now before you say that top 4kHz is of crucial importance, the interval between 16kHz and 20kHz is three semi-tones, or three frets on a guitar. No MP3 bitrate offers those frequencies with reasonable fidelity, and three semi-tones is a minute sacrifice to pay for a 5:1 compression ratio.
Also, many people can't distinguish modern 128kps MP3 encoding in an ABX test.
Also, many people are accustomed to crap sound reproduction and computer speakers. And subjective arguments don't support an objective hypothesis very well. I speak in practical terms and industry standards.
an MP3 at 320kbps cannot sound better than a 256kbps MP3 encoded from the same source.
Total rubbish! Where are you getting these things from? Do you think the LAME people put in these options just for fun?
No, I just think the people that use them are lame ;) Seriously, they are included because the average consumer does not understand the concept of diminishing returns in digital audio. If you really want to get into it, jump onto the 96/192kHz sampling debate. There is absolutely no benefit to digital audio beyond 48kHz. Still, if you do a blind A/B test and ask them which sounds better, you get the exact same result as a blind A/A test. They say there's a difference, but they can't pick the higher sample rate with any consistency.
Here is a white paper on the subject written by Dan Lavry, the developer of many the world's best digital audio converters.
"The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal bandwidth. Audio industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail. Whether motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the wrong direction, are stating the opposite of what is true."
There is no white paper on the diminishing returns of MP3's because they are toys that aren't worth that time of anyone qualified to give a definitive assessment.
MP3 is optimized for best performance at 256kbps. MPEG-4 AAC is optimized for 128kbps. Trying to determine which MP3 codec works best at 128kbps is like figuring out whether Jimi Hendrix or Jimmy Page would be better if they lost two fingers off their left hands. Similarily, MP2 is optimized for 384kbps, and beats MP3 at bitrates beyond 256, which is why it is widely used on DVD's at 384kbps.
Here's how it plays out:
Lossless codecs obviously are best when bandwidth isn't an issue
MP2 (MPEG-1 layer 2) is best from 320kbps upwards
MP3 (MPEG-1 layer 3) is best from 160 - 256 kbps
AAC (specified initialy in MPEG-2, finalized in MPEG-4 [they skipped MPEG-3 not to be confused with MP3]) best from 128kbps downwards
MP2's at 384kbps sound better than MP3's at 256kbps, which sound better than AAC at 128kbps. None of the codecs sound any better at higher-than-optimal bitrates, i.e. an MP3 at 320kbps cannot sound better than a 256kbps MP3 encoded from the same source.
Simply put, it's the codec that determines the optimal bitrate. Given a 128kbps bitrate, who cares how an inappropriate codec performs?
Great, so all we have to do is burn off all other oil sources to heat the planet up enough to melt the ice cap to get more oil.
What most don't realize is that the polar ice caps play a major role in moderating the Earth's temperature. Ice reflects light, while water (or at least its contents) absorbs it. Without the ice caps, the sunlight is absorbed into the water, raising the temperature of the oceans globally, compounding the global warming issues we're already facing.
Trust me, if that happens, the last thing we'll be worried about is finding more oil. The average year would make the last El Nino year seem like scattered showers with mild gusts.
The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history. "Shipping companies are already planning to exploit the first simultaneous opening of the routes since the beginning of the last Ice Age 125,000 years ago. The Beluga Group in Germany says it will send the first ship through the north-east passage, around Russia, next year, cutting 4,000 miles off the voyage from Germany to Japan."
Leave my mom outta this!
Part of pricing virtually all techical work is derived on a results-orientated basis, and also supply/demand but that's not the issue here. Simply figure out how damaging it would be to the company if you failed to perform your duties. In other words, how valuable is the information you're charged with administering?
I'm in a similar situation where I am in negotiations with a group of bars to replace their house sound technician. The existing tech is due to retire, and things simply aren't getting done, but the commitment required means the tech cannot be in a touring band or in the union that services the arenas and theaters nearby, which rules out pretty much everyone. They've been paying X amount for slack work for years, so if I'm going to step in and do it right, the least I would demand would be X + 30%, based on how much more effective I'm going to be. On supply/demand terms I've got them by the short-and-curlies, so I might go for more.
This touring musician can only hang his head while folks here bicker about which method makes my work more futile.
We lose from the MAFIAA, we lose from piracy, we lose from DRM's, we lose from gas prices, but we still fucking tour. Would it kill you to get out and see a live band once in a while? The only indie bands that still tour are for the mostpart really fucking good.
I also house tech (meaning I mix bands that tour through my venue), so I hope you'll give this post some thought. Live music right now is endangered, meanwhile the touring talent is on average the best I've ever seen.
"Invade" was a simplification for the purpose of the post. I'm not going to make every reference to every military engagement a history lesson. If you resent me calling the attack on Pearl Harbour invasive, I'm afraid I'm not entirely sympathetic, especially considering your tone.
My point was that Japan needed more land, they were willing to go to war over it. China is now in that exact same position. Is there any reason to expect a different result?
I would mention how China has demonstrated the willingness to invade and conquer neighboring countries in the modern era, even more recently than WWII, for example Tibet, but I'd hate to get any facts wrong...
"'There is not another WinHEC planned before Windows 7 is released,' Microsoft has warned them. Better hope that testing goes well."
Read: "When Windows 7 fails, we're blaming the hack 3rd party developers."
FYI Microsoft employs more lawyers than programmers.
I want to disbelieve.
Sadly, I can't.
or just raise education levels. Japan has negative population growth, and it's not due to government intervention.
The cost of living in Japan is prohibitive to having children. Ever hear the one about laying down a $1000 bill in Tokyo, and the area under the bill is worth more than the bill? That was said in the late 80's. It's only gotten worse.
Why do you think the Japanese were so motivated to invade the US in WWII? Now China is anticipating the need for more land, and economically they've got the US over a barrel. Give that a few thinks.
I prefer the Australian interpretation of "rooting". Apparently the Canadian olympic team caused something of a stir at the Syndey games, since their uniforms bore the logo of their sponsor clothing chain "Roots". Might have well read "fucks" or "cocks"
That reminds me of a great prank:
Requirements:
Find a parking spot with a good place to hide nearby where you can still see the car within range of the remote control. You connect the DVD player to the stereo, position it where it can be remote controlled from outside, cue the movie to the explosion and pause it, crank the stereo. Place the wallet on the dashboard with the cash in plain view, leave the windows open, wait for a sucker to take a closer look.
BOoOoOoOoOoOoOM!!!