Video decoding at such a low resolution is effortlessly handled by even low-end graphics chips. Why is your (presumably modern and hence containing such a GPA) machine pegging a whole 2GHz core for this?
What I mean is that vinyl playback adds considerable distortions to the sound which are most evident in, and tend to accentuate, the midrange giving a 'blarey' sound. The distortions can be particularly pleasing to the ear (in my subjective opinion).
AAC+'s 'invention' certainly isn't random since it derives the harmonics from frequencies actually in the music, but neither is it accurate (but does sound nice) and I think reinforces my assertion that HF is really not so important. Wiki has a nice quote on this:
"The SBR idea is based on the principle that the psychoacoustic part of the human brain tends to analyse higher frequencies with less accuracy, thus harmonic phenomena associated with the spectral band replication process needs only be accurate in a perceptual sense and not technically or mathematically exact."
High frequency response is overrated - that's how AAC+ can get away with essentially inventing the greater than 8KHz band and still sound very acceptable to most people.
The great sound of vinyl is down the the midrange euphonic distortions (accurate it ain't) and this can be captured perfectly by recording it digitally.
By 'sufficient RAM', I mean 16GB and above depending on your requirements (we routinely run both Linux and Windows with 32GB). I am talking about servers here because that's what we run and we have observed the the problem in TFA.
You can disable swapping in Windows if you have sufficient RAM. The poster raises a very good point, but it's actually more important in servers than clients (isn't Linux anyway dead on the desktop...?).
This is actually one of the very reasons (the other being multithreaded performance) why many of us use Windows Server 2003/2008 sometimes in preference to Linux.
All you needed was a good turntable and some clean vinyl. Nobody said it was easy, but the gorgeous sound of a Linn Sondek with freshly-cleaned vinyl pisses on anything else (24/96 digital included). And I speak as somebody who's business is digital audio.
There is a difference in stability - XP is far better. I've run XP (both 32 and 64-bit) for years and find it absolutely stable. This is no suprise, since it's just a cutdown Windows Server 2003 (my favourite desktop OS).
I'v had Windows 7 on a work machine for two weeks and it's already blue screened. Absolutely shocking in 2010.
kinetic energy = 0.5 * mass * (velocity ^ 2). At the differential velocity of an asteroid, you'll need one heck of a lot of mass in your shield. Far better to move it small amounts over a long time period (i.e. early detection).
Been there, done that. I was writing huge J2EE apps 8 years ago. It's a great framework if you want to keep a few hundred offshore programmers employed, but some of us have moved beyond that.
I now write massively distributed Java server apps which include automatic deployment and load-balancing, abstracted distributed file systems and distibuted scalable DBs. We use a 'servlet-style' web application framework - but not servlets. We have something tighter, faster and far more scaleable (took a couple of weekends to put that together).
No smart companies are using J2EE (do you think Google use it?) - only old-fashioned banks and sundry other MBA containers.
'The Last One' all over again. If you were a developer in the UK in the 80s, you know what I mean, otherwise google it.
And J2EE.. is anyone still using that heap of shite? (and I speak as someone who writes boatloads of Java code).
'Fastest' has got nothing to do with clock speed and hasn't had for years. 'Fastest' == how quickly can my program finish?
The previous-generation (Penryn) Xeon E7450 running at 2.4GHz sitting in my employer's rack absolutely smokes my desktop i7-950 (3 GHz) running the sort of highly-concurrent Java programs I develop. Why? Because it's got 24 cores compared to 4. (The real answer is 1.9 billion transistors compared to 0.7 billion).
I'm using multiple servers right now (and have been for the past year) with 24 cores (4 x 6 cores running Debian Linux and Windows Server 2008). No performance problems at the moment but thanks for the heads-up.
If it's correctly written, it will be random. Any header required by the implementation should just be encrypted with the plaintext. There may be an initialization vector at the beginning (16 bytes with AES), but this will also be a pure random number.
well anyway encryption useless if, someone was scanning when the connection started
Do you have any understanding of how this kind of encryption works? Here's a quick lesson for you: scanning is useless at any stage in the connection unless you have a way of factoring a thousand-digit number in milliseconds. If that is indeed the case: there's a Fields medal and a lot of fame and fortune waiting for you.
Yea, and I don't see Cobol vanishing either (we used to joke about this in the 80s for god's sake).
You really don't have a clue about Java and where it's used. You've got kind of a 90s mindset stuck in the marketing speak of 'Java taking over the desktop' and 'write once run anywhere'.
Well, it didn't take over the desktop; but it did take over the server. Java is huge in corporate environments (not rinky-dinky mom-and-pop stuff php stuff) and is essentially de rigueur in any banking, media or business information back-ends or middleware.
It actually does fulfill the 'write once, run anywhere' promise perfectly, as long as we're talking about the two dominant OSes in current business environments: Linux and Windows Server 2003/2008 (the only two that matter, surely). Due to the excellent JVM, it regularly hits C-like speeds (although I must admit memory usage can somewhat larger than C).
Currently I'm writing Java software which handles hundreds of separate disk partitions to synthesize a file system totalling several hundred TB. It also issues parallel programming jobs onto hundred of servers. The nuances of jsp/struts/spring/jsf (does anyone still use that stuff?) don't really seem so important.
Give me a break. It's nice to shout at the 80s and everything, but 90% of what C was used then for has being replaced by a language which does treat that as an error - Java. For the other 10%, modern C++ compilers will surely give a warning in this case.
I haven't seen the Enigma movie (did Tom Cruise have a good English accent?), so I don't know if it covered this, but the Allies deliberately didn't use the information gathered by Enigma in direct tactical responses because they didn't want the Nazis to know that they'd cracked the code.
At the moment, nothing would temp me away from a Nexus One as my main smartphone - and I've also got a (company-supplied) iPhone 4 and 3GS (sadly sitting in a drawer). I know the Nexus has some flaws (occasional touch screen glitches in my experience) but the general speed and responsiveness (particularly in the browser) and the ability to run my own and other people's software as I choose simply blows other phones away.
Slashdot Mirror
Video decoding at such a low resolution is effortlessly handled by even low-end graphics chips. Why is your (presumably modern and hence containing such a GPA) machine pegging a whole 2GHz core for this?
>> Not a clue what that means.
What I mean is that vinyl playback adds considerable distortions to the sound which are most evident in, and tend to accentuate, the midrange giving a 'blarey' sound. The distortions can be particularly pleasing to the ear (in my subjective opinion).
AAC+'s 'invention' certainly isn't random since it derives the harmonics from frequencies actually in the music, but neither is it accurate (but does sound nice) and I think reinforces my assertion that HF is really not so important. Wiki has a nice quote on this:
"The SBR idea is based on the principle that the psychoacoustic part of the human brain tends to analyse higher frequencies with less accuracy, thus harmonic phenomena associated with the spectral band replication process needs only be accurate in a perceptual sense and not technically or mathematically exact."
Read up on Antony Flew. It might broaden your education somewhat.
High frequency response is overrated - that's how AAC+ can get away with essentially inventing the greater than 8KHz band and still sound very acceptable to most people.
The great sound of vinyl is down the the midrange euphonic distortions (accurate it ain't) and this can be captured perfectly by recording it digitally.
It's extremely relevant since Linux has far more importance as a server platform than a desktop one and the OS used in either is essentially the same.
On the exact same hardware, I see the problem on Linux but not Windows 2008. I don't think it's down to disk queueing.
By 'sufficient RAM', I mean 16GB and above depending on your requirements (we routinely run both Linux and Windows with 32GB). I am talking about servers here because that's what we run and we have observed the the problem in TFA.
Sorry, I can only comment on server solutions that we wrote. I'm sure that some flaky desktop programs have problems.
You can disable swapping in Windows if you have sufficient RAM. The poster raises a very good point, but it's actually more important in servers than clients (isn't Linux anyway dead on the desktop...?).
This is actually one of the very reasons (the other being multithreaded performance) why many of us use Windows Server 2003/2008 sometimes in preference to Linux.
All you needed was a good turntable and some clean vinyl. Nobody said it was easy, but the gorgeous sound of a Linn Sondek with freshly-cleaned vinyl pisses on anything else (24/96 digital included). And I speak as somebody who's business is digital audio.
Do you seriously think they ran two absolutely separate codebases for these OSes? The similarities are glaring.
There is a difference in stability - XP is far better. I've run XP (both 32 and 64-bit) for years and find it absolutely stable. This is no suprise, since it's just a cutdown Windows Server 2003 (my favourite desktop OS). I'v had Windows 7 on a work machine for two weeks and it's already blue screened. Absolutely shocking in 2010.
kinetic energy = 0.5 * mass * (velocity ^ 2). At the differential velocity of an asteroid, you'll need one heck of a lot of mass in your shield. Far better to move it small amounts over a long time period (i.e. early detection).
Been there, done that. I was writing huge J2EE apps 8 years ago. It's a great framework if you want to keep a few hundred offshore programmers employed, but some of us have moved beyond that.
I now write massively distributed Java server apps which include automatic deployment and load-balancing, abstracted distributed file systems and distibuted scalable DBs. We use a 'servlet-style' web application framework - but not servlets. We have something tighter, faster and far more scaleable (took a couple of weekends to put that together).
No smart companies are using J2EE (do you think Google use it?) - only old-fashioned banks and sundry other MBA containers.
'The Last One' all over again. If you were a developer in the UK in the 80s, you know what I mean, otherwise google it. And J2EE.. is anyone still using that heap of shite? (and I speak as someone who writes boatloads of Java code).
'Fastest' has got nothing to do with clock speed and hasn't had for years. 'Fastest' == how quickly can my program finish?
The previous-generation (Penryn) Xeon E7450 running at 2.4GHz sitting in my employer's rack absolutely smokes my desktop i7-950 (3 GHz) running the sort of highly-concurrent Java programs I develop. Why? Because it's got 24 cores compared to 4. (The real answer is 1.9 billion transistors compared to 0.7 billion).
There are still good profits to be made for the individual investor possessing a couple of racks of servers and good programming chops.
I'm using multiple servers right now (and have been for the past year) with 24 cores (4 x 6 cores running Debian Linux and Windows Server 2008). No performance problems at the moment but thanks for the heads-up.
If it's correctly written, it will be random. Any header required by the implementation should just be encrypted with the plaintext. There may be an initialization vector at the beginning (16 bytes with AES), but this will also be a pure random number.
well anyway encryption useless if, someone was scanning when the connection started
Do you have any understanding of how this kind of encryption works? Here's a quick lesson for you: scanning is useless at any stage in the connection unless you have a way of factoring a thousand-digit number in milliseconds. If that is indeed the case: there's a Fields medal and a lot of fame and fortune waiting for you.
Banks. They need it not for speed but for volume and reliability.
You really don't have a clue about Java and where it's used. You've got kind of a 90s mindset stuck in the marketing speak of 'Java taking over the desktop' and 'write once run anywhere'.
Well, it didn't take over the desktop; but it did take over the server. Java is huge in corporate environments (not rinky-dinky mom-and-pop stuff php stuff) and is essentially de rigueur in any banking, media or business information back-ends or middleware.
It actually does fulfill the 'write once, run anywhere' promise perfectly, as long as we're talking about the two dominant OSes in current business environments: Linux and Windows Server 2003/2008 (the only two that matter, surely). Due to the excellent JVM, it regularly hits C-like speeds (although I must admit memory usage can somewhat larger than C).
Currently I'm writing Java software which handles hundreds of separate disk partitions to synthesize a file system totalling several hundred TB. It also issues parallel programming jobs onto hundred of servers. The nuances of jsp/struts/spring/jsf (does anyone still use that stuff?) don't really seem so important.
Give me a break. It's nice to shout at the 80s and everything, but 90% of what C was used then for has being replaced by a language which does treat that as an error - Java. For the other 10%, modern C++ compilers will surely give a warning in this case.
I haven't seen the Enigma movie (did Tom Cruise have a good English accent?), so I don't know if it covered this, but the Allies deliberately didn't use the information gathered by Enigma in direct tactical responses because they didn't want the Nazis to know that they'd cracked the code.
At the moment, nothing would temp me away from a Nexus One as my main smartphone - and I've also got a (company-supplied) iPhone 4 and 3GS (sadly sitting in a drawer). I know the Nexus has some flaws (occasional touch screen glitches in my experience) but the general speed and responsiveness (particularly in the browser) and the ability to run my own and other people's software as I choose simply blows other phones away.