Also remember that there is no such thing as a brick walled perfectly flat filter that doesnt have an infinite delay, either analog or digital.
If you go for the brick wall, you get ripples in the pass-band..
If you avoid the ripples, your brick wall becomes a slow roll-off.
The real solution is not to play this game. If you dont have frequencies you dont want then you dont have to filter them.... but thats hard when you've got a PSU and other electronics throwing noise out all over the spectrum.
The PC best audio experience I have had so far over the decades has been with a Logitec USB headset. If there is a source of noise in either direction, it has escaped me... I simply cannot hear it (nor is any mic noise visible in audacity.)
Requiring an open codec is a double-edged sword. On the one hand we all win because its open and free, but on the other we all lose because better codecs that arent open (and this isnt just about H.264) become a non-option and there are plenty of devices that simply don't do VP8 well (no hardware support.)
It could be argued that VP8 is almost as good as H.264 in terms of quality per bit, but H.264 is *also* yesterdays technology so thats actually arguing about things that shouldnt even be on our radar.
Tomorrows technology (HEVC aka H.265) is just around the corner and is significantly better than either VP8 or H.264, and its really a shame that any standard could be considered that rules out the use of either it or other next-generation codecs. I dont know what the folks at the W3C are doing.. I really don't. Its insane politicking that hurts us all. Just allow any codec, for christ sakes! This isnt a hard decision unless you have ulterior motives.
So every text file in the universe should each have 1 more byte than necessary... just because some lazy programmers can't test for EOF in their readline()?
Yes, your most often accessed files are supposed to be on there, no, according to reviewers, it's not happening.
This is the wrong metric to be using anyways, so that its not happening is probably not an issue. Just because something is more frequently accessed than something else that does not mean that the benefit of having it on the L2 is also larger.
The goal is supposed to be to maximize the time that there are no outstanding I/O requests at all, not simply to minimize the latency of the most frequent I/O requests.
Frequency of Access is just a blunt heuristic that poorly approximates the goal. Its like trying to find the global minima without even using the local gradients.
Even personally encoded files may leave enough differences from one run and one machine to the next that even with the default settings they produce different files.
You had me until you said this. No. Just no. Converting from digital to digital is a deterministic process. Maybe you should stick to subjects you do know something about, rather that repeating what I said ('cept this bullshit) in your reply to me.
There hae been at least 7 releases of Stairway to Heaven on CD. If I have the one from 1985, can I be assured that I won't be getting the remaster from 1994, or vice versa?
Note that the 1985 one probably has high dynamic range while the 1994 remastered is probably an overly compressed wall of sound.
There isn't much unique about MP3's encoded from CD's.. sure they can probably distinguish between the encoder (and parameters) used to rip the track, but pretty much everyone that rips tracks off of CD's does so with one of the top 3 programs that only expose one or two encoding parameters and those from drop-down lists...
So we are at a dozen or two unique files at this point...
Then that MP3 gets inserted into the users music library, managed by one of the top 3 programs again, which fills in the files metadata with information from a small group of online music metadata databases..
So now we are at maybe 60 unique versions of the file where none of them contains evidence of any pirating... that I could in fact generate the bit-for-bit exact same MP3 file as you did by simply using the same tools that you did...
There are no "this is pirated" bits in these files..
Now, every song sold through iTunes could have unique-to-the-purchaser information encoded into the MP3. Those files could certainly be detectable, but the only way for Amazon to be sure that you are a pirate is to be in cahoots with Apple.. to have the inside information necessary to determine that you arent the owner. Not likely..
Then there are the files seeded into file sharing services by the MPAA themselves.. guess what.. those arent illegal.. they owners gave them to you.
Many proponents of NoScript are often conflating Flash specific issues with JavaScript... and they dont even know it (they know just enough to falsely think that they know what they are talking about.)
Was it foreseeable that your software might be used in coffee makers? Was the risk of fire due to your faulty algorithm also foreseeable?
Then you were negligent in that you did not follow due diligence to prevent it from happening. The legal question is essentially "Did you do enough to avoid the loss of life?"
If you are sitting is court and you say "I didnt expect the algorithm to be used in coffee makers" then you are admitting that you were not at all diligent, in fact completely negligent, and instead claiming it was not foreseeable for it to be used in coffee makers. Good luck flipping that coin.
I mean people who would violate the spirit and intent of the shared software that I and others have developed, by closing it and making it unavailable.
You are forming a circular argument, that GPL protects you from "exploiters" where "exploiters" is loosely and liberally defined as "stuff that violates the GPL" which is exactly equal to "your world view" rather than any traditional definition of "exploiters."
There is nothing wrong with having this "pay it forward" world view. The GPL does not "protect you from exploiters".. the GPL "protects the 'pay it forward' concept."
When I take some BSD licensed code and make a derivative but closed work, I do not make the BSD licensed code "unavailable" as you are desperately claiming. If you didn't mean that, then why did you say it? Another veil of dishonesty on your part. You want the fruits of my labor just because I used the fruits of someone else's (not yours) labor. Thats far closer to exploitation than anything happening with BSD code.
I agree that the Surface "tablet" looks like very nice hardware. I put "tablet" in quotes because it isnt really a tablet, is it? Its designed to have a keyboard and trackpad always being there with it. If anything its a hybrid between an ultrabook and a tablet.
And at $20.00 for all of your computers, Apple will make billions... (or, maybe, at least cover some of their costs).
..unless your mac is 4+ year old hardware.. in which case Mountain Lion will refuse to install on the grounds that your GPU isnt compatible. Seriously...
This is the Mountain Lion compatibility list:
- iMac (Mid 2007 or newer)
- MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer)
- MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer)
- MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer)
- Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)
- Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)
- Xserve (Early 2009)
Ultimately you can always single step through each instruction and the program simply won't have a chance to wipe debugger information because you'll see it about to do it before it happens and can break at that point.
It is fairly trivial to write code that cannot be single-stepped, so trivial is the technique that it can literally be placed every other instruction. Have fun using your "break at that point" technique thousands of times just to get through the decryption, let alone the thousands of times its also used in the encrypted payload.
The technique has been valid since the 80386, and will not be fixed because the consequences of fixing it is effectively the removal of the instruction pipeline and all of its tremendous performance advantages.
Next you will ask if all 60 utensils in my kitchen drawer are different kinds. Well there are knives, forks, spoons, and surely 57 other types.. right?
I bet you have fallen for movies such as 'Loose Change' and all those Michael Moore movies, because they are full of questions you also can't answer.
Lets try this question asking thing...
Will ceoyoyo (59147) ever come out of the closet?
Will ceoyoyo (59147) ever find a respectable job?
Will ceoyoyo (59147) ever apologize to his mother for saying very nasty things about her?
Will ceoyoyo (59147) ever realize that the act of asking questions doesnt actually make a point?
No, people are not watching 1800 hours per year of new content, dumbass.
I cannot believe that you folks even consider $0.99/movie for older stuff to be reasonable.
Yes, $2.99 is outrageous.. but so is your suggesting $0.99. I watch 4 to 5 movies a week on Netflix, which would cost ~$20/month with your silly suggested pricing model. Instead I pay them $8/month.
Hold your arm out in front of you for 20 minutes and tell me how great that touchscreen interface is.
This isnt really a valid argument. The touch screen interface does not replace the mouse, just like the mouse did not replace the keyboard. Its an additional interface. Do you always type on the keyboard with one hand while the other is always on your mouse?
Maybe Win8 is not a good example of Keyboard+Mouse+Touch, but you are arguing that Touch should never be included with any desktop interface, which is just a silly blanket generalizations.
I remember the days when a good half of computer users spoke vehemently against GUI's. The very same sort of arguments that you are using would come up.. "I'll be moving my hand from mouse to keyboard to mouse to keyboard." I was one of those holdouts, not really starting to use a GUI OS until Windows 98. Now I dont want to ever go back to just keyboard.
Wait, not only are you saying that Mac's now have more than one mouse button, but they also have a Control key?
Is that between the Option and Command keys?
Ah, so it's okay to put racial slurs in source code?
What does it mean to be "okay?"
Are we talking as a matter of legality? (then it depends on your jurisdiction, eh?)
Are we are talking about expectations of negative or positive consequences? (then it depends on the audience, eh?)
Are we talking about expectations to offend? (sorry, circular arguments are not acceptable)
Slashdot Mirror
Also remember that there is no such thing as a brick walled perfectly flat filter that doesnt have an infinite delay, either analog or digital.
If you go for the brick wall, you get ripples in the pass-band..
If you avoid the ripples, your brick wall becomes a slow roll-off.
The real solution is not to play this game. If you dont have frequencies you dont want then you dont have to filter them.... but thats hard when you've got a PSU and other electronics throwing noise out all over the spectrum.
The PC best audio experience I have had so far over the decades has been with a Logitec USB headset. If there is a source of noise in either direction, it has escaped me... I simply cannot hear it (nor is any mic noise visible in audacity.)
Indeed.
Requiring an open codec is a double-edged sword. On the one hand we all win because its open and free, but on the other we all lose because better codecs that arent open (and this isnt just about H.264) become a non-option and there are plenty of devices that simply don't do VP8 well (no hardware support.)
It could be argued that VP8 is almost as good as H.264 in terms of quality per bit, but H.264 is *also* yesterdays technology so thats actually arguing about things that shouldnt even be on our radar.
Tomorrows technology (HEVC aka H.265) is just around the corner and is significantly better than either VP8 or H.264, and its really a shame that any standard could be considered that rules out the use of either it or other next-generation codecs. I dont know what the folks at the W3C are doing.. I really don't. Its insane politicking that hurts us all. Just allow any codec, for christ sakes! This isnt a hard decision unless you have ulterior motives.
So every text file in the universe should each have 1 more byte than necessary... just because some lazy programmers can't test for EOF in their readline()?
Have you heard of the Grace L. Ferguson Airline and Storm Door Company?
Yes, your most often accessed files are supposed to be on there, no, according to reviewers, it's not happening.
This is the wrong metric to be using anyways, so that its not happening is probably not an issue. Just because something is more frequently accessed than something else that does not mean that the benefit of having it on the L2 is also larger.
The goal is supposed to be to maximize the time that there are no outstanding I/O requests at all, not simply to minimize the latency of the most frequent I/O requests.
Frequency of Access is just a blunt heuristic that poorly approximates the goal. Its like trying to find the global minima without even using the local gradients.
Isnt this how Netscape died?
The $200 plays because if it didnt, he could use this tactic to gain information without any risk.
Even personally encoded files may leave enough differences from one run and one machine to the next that even with the default settings they produce different files.
You had me until you said this. No. Just no. Converting from digital to digital is a deterministic process. Maybe you should stick to subjects you do know something about, rather that repeating what I said ('cept this bullshit) in your reply to me.
There hae been at least 7 releases of Stairway to Heaven on CD. If I have the one from 1985, can I be assured that I won't be getting the remaster from 1994, or vice versa?
Note that the 1985 one probably has high dynamic range while the 1994 remastered is probably an overly compressed wall of sound.
My copy is. I own it as much as I own the little plastic disc it came on.
That file on Amazons servers isnt your copy. Its their copy. You still have your copy, unless you deleted it.
I dont buy this argument..
There isn't much unique about MP3's encoded from CD's.. sure they can probably distinguish between the encoder (and parameters) used to rip the track, but pretty much everyone that rips tracks off of CD's does so with one of the top 3 programs that only expose one or two encoding parameters and those from drop-down lists...
So we are at a dozen or two unique files at this point...
Then that MP3 gets inserted into the users music library, managed by one of the top 3 programs again, which fills in the files metadata with information from a small group of online music metadata databases..
So now we are at maybe 60 unique versions of the file where none of them contains evidence of any pirating... that I could in fact generate the bit-for-bit exact same MP3 file as you did by simply using the same tools that you did...
There are no "this is pirated" bits in these files..
Now, every song sold through iTunes could have unique-to-the-purchaser information encoded into the MP3. Those files could certainly be detectable, but the only way for Amazon to be sure that you are a pirate is to be in cahoots with Apple.. to have the inside information necessary to determine that you arent the owner. Not likely..
Then there are the files seeded into file sharing services by the MPAA themselves.. guess what.. those arent illegal.. they owners gave them to you.
Many proponents of NoScript are often conflating Flash specific issues with JavaScript... and they dont even know it (they know just enough to falsely think that they know what they are talking about.)
Manslaughter through Gross Negligence.
Was it foreseeable that your software might be used in coffee makers? Was the risk of fire due to your faulty algorithm also foreseeable?
Then you were negligent in that you did not follow due diligence to prevent it from happening. The legal question is essentially "Did you do enough to avoid the loss of life?"
If you are sitting is court and you say "I didnt expect the algorithm to be used in coffee makers" then you are admitting that you were not at all diligent, in fact completely negligent, and instead claiming it was not foreseeable for it to be used in coffee makers. Good luck flipping that coin.
I mean people who would violate the spirit and intent of the shared software that I and others have developed, by closing it and making it unavailable.
You are forming a circular argument, that GPL protects you from "exploiters" where "exploiters" is loosely and liberally defined as "stuff that violates the GPL" which is exactly equal to "your world view" rather than any traditional definition of "exploiters."
.. the GPL "protects the 'pay it forward' concept."
There is nothing wrong with having this "pay it forward" world view. The GPL does not "protect you from exploiters"
When I take some BSD licensed code and make a derivative but closed work, I do not make the BSD licensed code "unavailable" as you are desperately claiming. If you didn't mean that, then why did you say it? Another veil of dishonesty on your part. You want the fruits of my labor just because I used the fruits of someone else's (not yours) labor. Thats far closer to exploitation than anything happening with BSD code.
I agree that the Surface "tablet" looks like very nice hardware. I put "tablet" in quotes because it isnt really a tablet, is it? Its designed to have a keyboard and trackpad always being there with it. If anything its a hybrid between an ultrabook and a tablet.
I certainly consider it a convenience.
Do not confuse highly desirable with necessity.
And at $20.00 for all of your computers, Apple will make billions... (or, maybe, at least cover some of their costs).
This is the Mountain Lion compatibility list:
- iMac (Mid 2007 or newer)
- MacBook (Late 2008 Aluminum, or Early 2009 or newer)
- MacBook Pro (Mid/Late 2007 or newer)
- MacBook Air (Late 2008 or newer)
- Mac mini (Early 2009 or newer)
- Mac Pro (Early 2008 or newer)
- Xserve (Early 2009)
Ultimately you can always single step through each instruction and the program simply won't have a chance to wipe debugger information because you'll see it about to do it before it happens and can break at that point.
It is fairly trivial to write code that cannot be single-stepped, so trivial is the technique that it can literally be placed every other instruction. Have fun using your "break at that point" technique thousands of times just to get through the decryption, let alone the thousands of times its also used in the encrypted payload.
The technique has been valid since the 80386, and will not be fixed because the consequences of fixing it is effectively the removal of the instruction pipeline and all of its tremendous performance advantages.
Next you will ask if all 60 utensils in my kitchen drawer are different kinds. Well there are knives, forks, spoons, and surely 57 other types.. right?
I bet you have fallen for movies such as 'Loose Change' and all those Michael Moore movies, because they are full of questions you also can't answer.
Lets try this question asking thing...
Will ceoyoyo (59147) ever come out of the closet?
Will ceoyoyo (59147) ever find a respectable job?
Will ceoyoyo (59147) ever apologize to his mother for saying very nasty things about her?
Will ceoyoyo (59147) ever realize that the act of asking questions doesnt actually make a point?
No, people are not watching 1800 hours per year of new content, dumbass.
Asking the question doesnt make it so.
The typical (ie, average) American watches 150+ hours per month. Thats from Nielson and includes Broadcast, Cable, and Streaming sources.
Then transportation taxes would have to go up to make up the difference, making you look stupid too.
I cannot believe that you folks even consider $0.99/movie for older stuff to be reasonable.
Yes, $2.99 is outrageous.. but so is your suggesting $0.99. I watch 4 to 5 movies a week on Netflix, which would cost ~$20/month with your silly suggested pricing model. Instead I pay them $8/month.
Hold your arm out in front of you for 20 minutes and tell me how great that touchscreen interface is.
This isnt really a valid argument. The touch screen interface does not replace the mouse, just like the mouse did not replace the keyboard. Its an additional interface. Do you always type on the keyboard with one hand while the other is always on your mouse?
Maybe Win8 is not a good example of Keyboard+Mouse+Touch, but you are arguing that Touch should never be included with any desktop interface, which is just a silly blanket generalizations.
I remember the days when a good half of computer users spoke vehemently against GUI's. The very same sort of arguments that you are using would come up.. "I'll be moving my hand from mouse to keyboard to mouse to keyboard." I was one of those holdouts, not really starting to use a GUI OS until Windows 98. Now I dont want to ever go back to just keyboard.
Wait, not only are you saying that Mac's now have more than one mouse button, but they also have a Control key?
Is that between the Option and Command keys?
Ah, so it's okay to put racial slurs in source code?
What does it mean to be "okay?"
Are we talking as a matter of legality? (then it depends on your jurisdiction, eh?)
Are we are talking about expectations of negative or positive consequences? (then it depends on the audience, eh?)
Are we talking about expectations to offend? (sorry, circular arguments are not acceptable)