I'm thinking the difference was your setup, not the music. Good speakers make a difference (to a limit), and higher bit rates make a difference (also to a limit). Depending on the source, a 128-160 kbps VBR MP3 or a 192 kbps CBR MP3 will hit the point where the quality no longer matters (particularly on most people's crappy speakers). I suspect AAC files use a better compression algorithm, so they probably get the same quality with lower bit rates. But no set of ear buds (or even headphones) can carry the full bass of the music (or the feeling of the bass passing through your bones), and common desktop and TV speakers are often similarly underpowered. As long as the bit rate is above a certain threshold (and most stores sell it at that level now), speakers are the limiting factor.
People use need to mean want. I don't know where the cutoff is for 720p vs. 1080p, but I know that above roughly the 40" mark (higher for DLP sets that have a bit of blur to them) the blockiness of 480p becomes very noticeable. I chose a 40" 720p set a couple years ago for precisely that reason; I see no need for BluRay, and I'd rather my less graphically capable systems (e.g. the Wii) don't look completely horrible. I expect around 60"-70" or so 1080p becomes "necessary" in the same way; if you go with a lower resolution it looks like crap, so to make your investment worth anything, you need video of sufficient quality.
I acknowledged my error on streaming video, but BitTorrent (and other file sharing programs) are still big TCP users.
While DHT is UDP based, the file transfer is still TCP based, and no client I know of allocates more than 10% of its bandwidth to DHT use (usually much less). Beyond the protocol compatibility issues, why waste a download of an up to 4 MB block when you could have TCP fix the error much earlier? TCP has a rough error interval of one bit in every trillion bits (that's from memory, but it's within an order of magnitude, might be every trillion bytes). UDP has whatever you code for it, and most of the time that means a hell of a lot less reliability (or more overhead than TCP requires; it was designed quite well for some things).
"Pushing the pipe until it's full" actually is a problem for UDP, when congestion gets out of hand performance degrades drastically as packets go missing more and more often. You need some level of congestion control or you will sabotage yourself.
Yeah, on looking around, it looks like the streaming protocols are UDP based. That still doesn't give it a flat majority of traffic; BitTorrent, along with the dedicated file sharing programs, are huge bandwidth consumers (the customers that are maxing out their connections aren't actively streaming video 24 hours a day), so if overusers of congestion unfriendly UDP are the problem, dropping the users of the highest bandwidth won't solve the problem (because they're using the relatively network friendly TCP most of the time).
I should point out that this sort of thing, while true, is often overstated because of poor local network configuration. When I first set up my new Vista machine a couple years back, I noticed that torrents on it would frequently interfere with internet connectivity on other networked devices in the house. I hadn't had this problem before and was curious as to the cause. I initially tried setting the bandwidth priorities by machine IP and by port, setting the desktop and specifically uTorrent's port to the lowest priority for traffic (similar to what ISPs do when they try to limit by protocol, but more accurate and without an explicit cap), but that actually made the situation worse; the torrents ran slower, and the other machines behaved even worse.
Turned out the problem was caused by the OS. Vista's TCP settings had QoS disabled, so when the router sent messages saying to slow down on the traffic, or just dropped the packets, the machine just ignored it and resent immediately, swamping the router's CPU resources used to filter and prioritize packets. The moment I turned on QoS the problem disappeared. The only network using device in my house that still has a problem is the VOIP modem, largely because QoS doesn't work quickly enough for the latency requirements of the phone, but it's not dropping calls or dropping voice anymore, it's just laggy (and capping the upload on uTorrent fixes it completely; the download doesn't need capping).
Because they're worried that if they don't, they'll have to pay for equipment upgrades to handle the extra load, and I doubt they don't have the monitoring in place to figure out whether a "hog" is actually impairing the experience of other customers (after all, you'd need to analyze a whole lot of factors at each link in the chain where connections join, and that costs money too). Their paranoid belief is that half the customers will up and leave because there connection is one step shy of perfect, so they decide to sacrifice a few users to "save" the remaining base.
Why do you think they are using UDP? Most of the bandwidth being used at this point, to my knowledge, is for streaming video (read: porn) and BitTorrent (read: porn). Both of them use TCP for the majority of their bandwidth usage (Some BitTorrent clients support UDP communication with the tracker, but the file is still transferred by TCP). Getting built-in error-checking, congestion control and streaming functionality in TCP makes much more sense than a UDP based protocol where you have to reimplement that yourself. I'm sure a few multiplayer games use UDP for latency reasons, but the data transferred for a multiplayer game is negligible and frequently loss-tolerant (if you missed where a player was one second ago, it doesn't matter once you get the new update).
This isn't actually off-topic, though it's not all that funny either. While I haven't seen the Spongebob movie, the other two both focus on high technology that integrates with the brain and is used for bad purposes. I assume the Spongebob movie has a similar plot device, though I suppose it's possible that the inventors have small children that watch the damn thing way too often and therefore hate it for other reasons.;-)
It didn't need to be killed (rendering the rules of slaughter irrelevant)
It never had hooves, or any other body part that would be evaluated by the rules given in the Torah
It's an odd scenario, and I suspect it would go different ways depending on the rabbi you ask. I suspect many rabbis would still forbid meat cloned from trafe animals, but I suspect vat-beef would be acceptable. But IANAR (I am not a rabbi) so I can't say for sure.
Because they have better things to do than reinvent the wheel? SELinux works just fine for them, and it required a fraction of the effort of implementing an OS from the ground up.
Sigh. Roughly half (and that's very rough, but it's not laughably off) the staff at NSA are IA types. I knew several co-op program participants who worked on both sides of the aisle. Information Assurance (defined as protecting the integrity of the U.S. government's computers and networks) is a huge part of what the NSA does.
So you don't do online shopping of any kind? Brilliant. Enjoy paying 20% more for everything.
Of course, you could get a card which you pay off in full every month, and make sure not to sign up for suspicious looking reward programs, but that would require self-control and common sense. If you check your statements occasionally, you can note and contest suspicious charges; the time spent checking is less than the time spent fiddling with cash over the course of a month.
You know, just because they make it easy doesn't mean it's not hacking. Is it not breaking and entering if a homeowner uses a flimsy lock? (don't get cute and try and say this is no lock at all; it's just a very bad one) If he intentionally exploited this flaw to register fake transactions, then yes, it would be a crime, and for good reason. This isn't some abuse of the hacking law, like trying to nail people for violating the ToS of a site and calling it hacking, this is basically the definition of the term (in the real world; I know some pedants want to call it cracking instead of hacking, but to the non-geek world, it's hacking).
This is a free tool to transfer Windows 7 to a different installation medium. Even if this was infringement (and I'm skeptical on that point, the functions "infringed" look pretty standard and trivial to reimplement), they still aren't making a profit on this "theft." The OS is sold as is, they're just providing an additional tool to work with it for free, and separately.
You misunderstand copyright. Copyright protects a particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself. You're thinking of patents, which are completely different. The GPL is copyright based, not patent based. A perfectly valid way to bypass the GPL is to, source unseen, re-implement the function to mimic the behavior of the desired GPL function. So no, if Microsoft happened to write the exact same function from scratch without reference to GPL source code, it's not infringement.
That approach can be costly. There is something to be said for the act of actually writing or transcribing the notes in some way that the information has to, at least briefly, pass through your brain. I took oodles of notes in college, and while I only studied from them once or twice in four years, the mere act of taking the notes in the first place help fix the information in my mind. If I didn't take the notes, my understanding would suffer.
I recognize that learning styles differ drastically, but for a lot of people the process of taking notes is at least as important as the end result. A camera just isn't the same.
Everything I've seen lately indicates that for GPGPU purposes (one of the somewhat useful ways to compare GPUs), nVidia is winning. There are strengths and weaknesses in each design, but the overall performance favors nVidia. Now I'm not saying this is necessarily because nVidia has better hardware; much of their advantage seems to be down to better compilers. But it's not as cut and dry for ATI as you think, and if they can't write a decent optimizing compiler, any hardware advantage they may have is moot.
Real sales tax in WA is always in the 9-10% range, because *every* locality boosts it. No one actually pays just 6.5%. Also, Washington has a relatively unique business tax assessed against revenue (rather than profit), which is where a large amount of its tax revenue comes from. Which is why they are now pissed at MS for finding a way around it. The property and gas taxes are also unusually high relative to other states.
But you aren't paying a different price for two games priced identically in the States. So a game that costs $X in the States will cost kX in another country (where k is the constantmultiplier MS applies to the cost of points). On the PS3, the cost in another country isn't predictable based on the price in the U.S. Like they said, two games that cost $10 in the states can cost two wildly different prices elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm thinking the difference was your setup, not the music. Good speakers make a difference (to a limit), and higher bit rates make a difference (also to a limit). Depending on the source, a 128-160 kbps VBR MP3 or a 192 kbps CBR MP3 will hit the point where the quality no longer matters (particularly on most people's crappy speakers). I suspect AAC files use a better compression algorithm, so they probably get the same quality with lower bit rates. But no set of ear buds (or even headphones) can carry the full bass of the music (or the feeling of the bass passing through your bones), and common desktop and TV speakers are often similarly underpowered. As long as the bit rate is above a certain threshold (and most stores sell it at that level now), speakers are the limiting factor.
People use need to mean want. I don't know where the cutoff is for 720p vs. 1080p, but I know that above roughly the 40" mark (higher for DLP sets that have a bit of blur to them) the blockiness of 480p becomes very noticeable. I chose a 40" 720p set a couple years ago for precisely that reason; I see no need for BluRay, and I'd rather my less graphically capable systems (e.g. the Wii) don't look completely horrible. I expect around 60"-70" or so 1080p becomes "necessary" in the same way; if you go with a lower resolution it looks like crap, so to make your investment worth anything, you need video of sufficient quality.
I acknowledged my error on streaming video, but BitTorrent (and other file sharing programs) are still big TCP users.
While DHT is UDP based, the file transfer is still TCP based, and no client I know of allocates more than 10% of its bandwidth to DHT use (usually much less). Beyond the protocol compatibility issues, why waste a download of an up to 4 MB block when you could have TCP fix the error much earlier? TCP has a rough error interval of one bit in every trillion bits (that's from memory, but it's within an order of magnitude, might be every trillion bytes). UDP has whatever you code for it, and most of the time that means a hell of a lot less reliability (or more overhead than TCP requires; it was designed quite well for some things).
"Pushing the pipe until it's full" actually is a problem for UDP, when congestion gets out of hand performance degrades drastically as packets go missing more and more often. You need some level of congestion control or you will sabotage yourself.
Yeah, on looking around, it looks like the streaming protocols are UDP based. That still doesn't give it a flat majority of traffic; BitTorrent, along with the dedicated file sharing programs, are huge bandwidth consumers (the customers that are maxing out their connections aren't actively streaming video 24 hours a day), so if overusers of congestion unfriendly UDP are the problem, dropping the users of the highest bandwidth won't solve the problem (because they're using the relatively network friendly TCP most of the time).
I should point out that this sort of thing, while true, is often overstated because of poor local network configuration. When I first set up my new Vista machine a couple years back, I noticed that torrents on it would frequently interfere with internet connectivity on other networked devices in the house. I hadn't had this problem before and was curious as to the cause. I initially tried setting the bandwidth priorities by machine IP and by port, setting the desktop and specifically uTorrent's port to the lowest priority for traffic (similar to what ISPs do when they try to limit by protocol, but more accurate and without an explicit cap), but that actually made the situation worse; the torrents ran slower, and the other machines behaved even worse.
Turned out the problem was caused by the OS. Vista's TCP settings had QoS disabled, so when the router sent messages saying to slow down on the traffic, or just dropped the packets, the machine just ignored it and resent immediately, swamping the router's CPU resources used to filter and prioritize packets. The moment I turned on QoS the problem disappeared. The only network using device in my house that still has a problem is the VOIP modem, largely because QoS doesn't work quickly enough for the latency requirements of the phone, but it's not dropping calls or dropping voice anymore, it's just laggy (and capping the upload on uTorrent fixes it completely; the download doesn't need capping).
Because they're worried that if they don't, they'll have to pay for equipment upgrades to handle the extra load, and I doubt they don't have the monitoring in place to figure out whether a "hog" is actually impairing the experience of other customers (after all, you'd need to analyze a whole lot of factors at each link in the chain where connections join, and that costs money too). Their paranoid belief is that half the customers will up and leave because there connection is one step shy of perfect, so they decide to sacrifice a few users to "save" the remaining base.
Why do you think they are using UDP? Most of the bandwidth being used at this point, to my knowledge, is for streaming video (read: porn) and BitTorrent (read: porn). Both of them use TCP for the majority of their bandwidth usage (Some BitTorrent clients support UDP communication with the tracker, but the file is still transferred by TCP). Getting built-in error-checking, congestion control and streaming functionality in TCP makes much more sense than a UDP based protocol where you have to reimplement that yourself. I'm sure a few multiplayer games use UDP for latency reasons, but the data transferred for a multiplayer game is negligible and frequently loss-tolerant (if you missed where a player was one second ago, it doesn't matter once you get the new update).
Of course, if a block level hash for the .torrent file had been corrupted when he downloaded that, we'd be back to square one.
This isn't actually off-topic, though it's not all that funny either. While I haven't seen the Spongebob movie, the other two both focus on high technology that integrates with the brain and is used for bad purposes. I assume the Spongebob movie has a similar plot device, though I suppose it's possible that the inventors have small children that watch the damn thing way too often and therefore hate it for other reasons. ;-)
It's an odd scenario, and I suspect it would go different ways depending on the rabbi you ask. I suspect many rabbis would still forbid meat cloned from trafe animals, but I suspect vat-beef would be acceptable. But IANAR (I am not a rabbi) so I can't say for sure.
Because they have better things to do than reinvent the wheel? SELinux works just fine for them, and it required a fraction of the effort of implementing an OS from the ground up.
Windows is only legally closed source. Practically, it leaks so often that it may as well be open.
Sigh. Roughly half (and that's very rough, but it's not laughably off) the staff at NSA are IA types. I knew several co-op program participants who worked on both sides of the aisle. Information Assurance (defined as protecting the integrity of the U.S. government's computers and networks) is a huge part of what the NSA does.
So you don't do online shopping of any kind? Brilliant. Enjoy paying 20% more for everything.
Of course, you could get a card which you pay off in full every month, and make sure not to sign up for suspicious looking reward programs, but that would require self-control and common sense. If you check your statements occasionally, you can note and contest suspicious charges; the time spent checking is less than the time spent fiddling with cash over the course of a month.
*whoosh* You missed brillant. The errors were clearly intentional.
You know, just because they make it easy doesn't mean it's not hacking. Is it not breaking and entering if a homeowner uses a flimsy lock? (don't get cute and try and say this is no lock at all; it's just a very bad one) If he intentionally exploited this flaw to register fake transactions, then yes, it would be a crime, and for good reason. This isn't some abuse of the hacking law, like trying to nail people for violating the ToS of a site and calling it hacking, this is basically the definition of the term (in the real world; I know some pedants want to call it cracking instead of hacking, but to the non-geek world, it's hacking).
This is a free tool to transfer Windows 7 to a different installation medium. Even if this was infringement (and I'm skeptical on that point, the functions "infringed" look pretty standard and trivial to reimplement), they still aren't making a profit on this "theft." The OS is sold as is, they're just providing an additional tool to work with it for free, and separately.
You misunderstand copyright. Copyright protects a particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself. You're thinking of patents, which are completely different. The GPL is copyright based, not patent based. A perfectly valid way to bypass the GPL is to, source unseen, re-implement the function to mimic the behavior of the desired GPL function. So no, if Microsoft happened to write the exact same function from scratch without reference to GPL source code, it's not infringement.
That approach can be costly. There is something to be said for the act of actually writing or transcribing the notes in some way that the information has to, at least briefly, pass through your brain. I took oodles of notes in college, and while I only studied from them once or twice in four years, the mere act of taking the notes in the first place help fix the information in my mind. If I didn't take the notes, my understanding would suffer.
I recognize that learning styles differ drastically, but for a lot of people the process of taking notes is at least as important as the end result. A camera just isn't the same.
Except the screenshots are all showing success. It's not failing.
Everything I've seen lately indicates that for GPGPU purposes (one of the somewhat useful ways to compare GPUs), nVidia is winning. There are strengths and weaknesses in each design, but the overall performance favors nVidia. Now I'm not saying this is necessarily because nVidia has better hardware; much of their advantage seems to be down to better compilers. But it's not as cut and dry for ATI as you think, and if they can't write a decent optimizing compiler, any hardware advantage they may have is moot.
Real sales tax in WA is always in the 9-10% range, because *every* locality boosts it. No one actually pays just 6.5%. Also, Washington has a relatively unique business tax assessed against revenue (rather than profit), which is where a large amount of its tax revenue comes from. Which is why they are now pissed at MS for finding a way around it. The property and gas taxes are also unusually high relative to other states.
Question: Does your car have sexual organs? Then why are you giving it a gender?
Looks like you read only the second paragraph of the GP post and knee jerked. He's on your side. Read the rest of it for crying out loud.
But you aren't paying a different price for two games priced identically in the States. So a game that costs $X in the States will cost kX in another country (where k is the constantmultiplier MS applies to the cost of points). On the PS3, the cost in another country isn't predictable based on the price in the U.S. Like they said, two games that cost $10 in the states can cost two wildly different prices elsewhere.