No one is saying Google can't run ads to support themselves. The issue has to do with their recent decision to track users even more with cookies and the privacy implications.
This isn't about making open source games. It's about putting out free games that use other sources of revenue as funding for the development and running of the game. Here, I'll even quote the very first sentence of the summary for you:
"Is the future of gaming more or less free, perhaps funded by advertising or micropayments?
Notice no references to open source or not paying developers or any such thing?
Did you even bother to read the summary? This is about publishers going to games that are free but supported by ads or microtransactions. This has nothing to do with asking for people to work on games without pay. I know this is slashdot, but seriously you could read the first fucking sentence of the summary at least.
Okay, here are the facts. Humans can't hear anything perceivable above around 20khz. To capture all of those audible frequencies you need a sampling rate of at least twice that which would put it at 40khz. CD quality is 44.1khz which captures frequencies as high as 22.05 khz which are beyond the upper end of most human's hearing. So as I stated, unless you have superhuman hearing you are getting no benefit from 96khz or 192khz sound unless you have the eardrums of a dog or some other animal with hypersonic hearing.
Your assertion is valid provided you have infinite precision of your sound pressure measurement.
16bit precision being far from perfection, it is not possible to rule out that a better precision is discernable by human ears.
So then the more apt comparison is 24bit 44.1khz sound and 24bit 192khz sound. I was only referring to sampling rate, you are mixing up a comparison of both sampling rate and bit depth. The bit depth will make the difference when it comes to dynamic range and SNR. Sampling rate will have no benefit for you above 44.1khz because any other frequency that is captured is beyond your audible hearing range.
All I ask for is a chance to verify it.
Reality and facts rule.
And reality is that you gain nothing by a sampling rate that captures frequencies outside of a human's audible range. 44.1khz is already is beyond what any human can perceive. There is no other facts that are needed.
I'd like to be able to do a blind test on say, depeche mode 101, in 192kHz/24 vs. standard CD WAV.
The 24bit sound is going to win because of the higher bit depth because it will, if properly mastered, have a wider dynamic range. The difference will have nothing to do with the sampling rates. Sampling rates has to do with the aliasing in the sound wave and beyond 44.1khz and 48khz any aliasing is going to be in frequencies beyond anything you can hear.
Prove it to me that there is no difference between 48kHZ 16 bit and 192kHz 24bits by providing records of bands I do know very well from CD.
You seem to be confusing things. My post had to do with the sampling rate which has to do with the frequency range of the sound. You aren't going to be able to hear any difference due to those two sampling rates unless you have superhuman hearing (and even then 192khz would be overkill). Obviously on good quality speakers a higher bit depth will make for better quality sound because of the higher dynamic range that is possible to be captured and a higher SNR for the resulting audio signal.
As for video - dot crawl can be eliminated with a simple S-video connection. Ditto rainbow effects.
Not if your source went through a composite conversion at some point in the chain (which was pretty much guaranteed for almost any analog source master).
No, Secunia reported the bug to Foxit after they discovered it.
The Foxit and Adobe bugs are unrelated, however, except for the fact that they are both in the code that parses JBIG2 images, said Thomas Kristensen, chief technology officer at Secunia AsP, the Danish company that reported the flaw to Foxit.
So, no, Foxit didn't do anything like you claimed and in fact may not have even noticed the bug until a later point had Secunia not pointed it out.
That said i do understand the convenience of digital and am not a total luddite ( just partial ), but so much is lost in the translation its sad.
Actually there is nothing inherent in digital that means anything is lost. In fact, unlike analog, a digital copy can be 100% identical to the source which is impossible with analog. You seem to be equivocating "digital" with "low-quality overcompressed broadcast TV".
Prove it to me that there is no difference between 48kHZ 16 bit and 192kHz 24bits by providing records of bands I do know very well from CD.
You mean outside of the well established fact that humans can't really hear anything above around 22khz? Which when applying the Nyquist theorem means that everything in the audible range is captured at a 44.1 khz sampling rate. Please point to me what benefit you are getting from the fact that there is no aliasing for sounds in a frequency outside your own audible range?
As my ears are very well accustomed to those, I will truely be able to notice if I can detect differences or not.
You may notice the difference because of the bit depth on good quality speakers, but you aren't going to notice anything between those two sampling rates. You're lying to yourself if you think you can.
My terratec PC sound card, ROTEL amp and B&W speakers are waiting. Go ahead.
Until then, I will continue to ask artists for releasing High Definition audio versions of their works.
Let me guess. Hooked up with Monster audio cables? LOL.
Maybe I'm unfairly biased and it's just past performance (both relayed by others and experienced by myself), but I don't trust MySQL for anything more complex than a backend for a simple website.
Less than the the "Loudness wars" or listening on a underground train?
It's not an either/or thing, but, no I never made any such claim.
Please.
Please what?
Most people won't be able to tell the difference with a proper blind test.
Most people at one point also said they didn't see the difference between VHS and DVDs. Doesn't make those people any less dumb and wrong.
I have done with a number of people who think they need FLAC for there portable players.
Well that is ridiculous thing since the low quality of the headphones that comes with most portable players will pretty much murder any quality gains you get from FLAC.
Yes, let's go back to the glorious days of dot crawls, rainbowing, and analog noise. Oh wait, let's not because those analog artifacts were horrible looking.
Because 192khz sampling rate is completely pointless outside of the processing studio? Anyone who claims they can hear a difference between 48khz and 96khz (let alone 192khz) is full of shit unless they have dog ears.
Slashdot Mirror
Sup, dawg! I herd you liek searchin' your records so I put a record in yo record so you can search while you searchin'!
No reference to The Unfinished Swan or World of Goo? Or how about The Maw (which is a bit boring after a while, but in a really cute way)?
Probably because this is a review of games that came out LAST MONTH not LAST YEAR.
I wasn't passing any judgment on what they were doing, I was just pointing out what they were protesting against.
Leave that Starbucks and go to the Starbucks across the street that isn't run by the Mafia?
So does this work with laptop keyboards as well?
Gee, I don't know...
the the Ecole Polytechnique team was able to pick up keystrokes from virtually any keyboard, including laptops
No one is saying Google can't run ads to support themselves. The issue has to do with their recent decision to track users even more with cookies and the privacy implications.
How much power saving are we talking about here?
Probably not too much since the Geode uses about .8 watts according to the specs.
*Embrace* , extend, extinguish? Stranger things have happened, and the IE engine dies with IE8.
And being replaced by another of their own products.
"Is the future of gaming more or less free, perhaps funded by advertising or micropayments?
Notice no references to open source or not paying developers or any such thing?
Did you even bother to read the summary? This is about publishers going to games that are free but supported by ads or microtransactions. This has nothing to do with asking for people to work on games without pay. I know this is slashdot, but seriously you could read the first fucking sentence of the summary at least.
How exactly does "polish" in any way mean "flashy, pop-culture references and glitzy, trendy looking artwork"? Go beat your strawman elsewhere.
But At least your article is likeley to be duped within a day or two.
fix'd!
Reality and facts rule.
Okay, here are the facts. Humans can't hear anything perceivable above around 20khz. To capture all of those audible frequencies you need a sampling rate of at least twice that which would put it at 40khz. CD quality is 44.1khz which captures frequencies as high as 22.05 khz which are beyond the upper end of most human's hearing. So as I stated, unless you have superhuman hearing you are getting no benefit from 96khz or 192khz sound unless you have the eardrums of a dog or some other animal with hypersonic hearing.
Your assertion is valid provided you have infinite precision of your sound pressure measurement. 16bit precision being far from perfection, it is not possible to rule out that a better precision is discernable by human ears.
So then the more apt comparison is 24bit 44.1khz sound and 24bit 192khz sound. I was only referring to sampling rate, you are mixing up a comparison of both sampling rate and bit depth. The bit depth will make the difference when it comes to dynamic range and SNR. Sampling rate will have no benefit for you above 44.1khz because any other frequency that is captured is beyond your audible hearing range.
All I ask for is a chance to verify it.
Reality and facts rule.
And reality is that you gain nothing by a sampling rate that captures frequencies outside of a human's audible range. 44.1khz is already is beyond what any human can perceive. There is no other facts that are needed. I'd like to be able to do a blind test on say, depeche mode 101, in 192kHz/24 vs. standard CD WAV.
The 24bit sound is going to win because of the higher bit depth because it will, if properly mastered, have a wider dynamic range. The difference will have nothing to do with the sampling rates. Sampling rates has to do with the aliasing in the sound wave and beyond 44.1khz and 48khz any aliasing is going to be in frequencies beyond anything you can hear.
Prove it to me that there is no difference between 48kHZ 16 bit and 192kHz 24bits by providing records of bands I do know very well from CD.
You seem to be confusing things. My post had to do with the sampling rate which has to do with the frequency range of the sound. You aren't going to be able to hear any difference due to those two sampling rates unless you have superhuman hearing (and even then 192khz would be overkill). Obviously on good quality speakers a higher bit depth will make for better quality sound because of the higher dynamic range that is possible to be captured and a higher SNR for the resulting audio signal.
As for video - dot crawl can be eliminated with a simple S-video connection. Ditto rainbow effects.
Not if your source went through a composite conversion at some point in the chain (which was pretty much guaranteed for almost any analog source master).
The Foxit and Adobe bugs are unrelated, however, except for the fact that they are both in the code that parses JBIG2 images, said Thomas Kristensen, chief technology officer at Secunia AsP, the Danish company that reported the flaw to Foxit.
So, no, Foxit didn't do anything like you claimed and in fact may not have even noticed the bug until a later point had Secunia not pointed it out.
That said i do understand the convenience of digital and am not a total luddite ( just partial ), but so much is lost in the translation its sad.
Actually there is nothing inherent in digital that means anything is lost. In fact, unlike analog, a digital copy can be 100% identical to the source which is impossible with analog. You seem to be equivocating "digital" with "low-quality overcompressed broadcast TV".
Prove it to me that there is no difference between 48kHZ 16 bit and 192kHz 24bits by providing records of bands I do know very well from CD.
You mean outside of the well established fact that humans can't really hear anything above around 22khz? Which when applying the Nyquist theorem means that everything in the audible range is captured at a 44.1 khz sampling rate. Please point to me what benefit you are getting from the fact that there is no aliasing for sounds in a frequency outside your own audible range?
As my ears are very well accustomed to those, I will truely be able to notice if I can detect differences or not.
You may notice the difference because of the bit depth on good quality speakers, but you aren't going to notice anything between those two sampling rates. You're lying to yourself if you think you can.
My terratec PC sound card, ROTEL amp and B&W speakers are waiting. Go ahead.
Until then, I will continue to ask artists for releasing High Definition audio versions of their works.
Let me guess. Hooked up with Monster audio cables? LOL.
Do people even still use Acrobat Reader?
Yes.
Maybe I'm unfairly biased and it's just past performance (both relayed by others and experienced by myself), but I don't trust MySQL for anything more complex than a backend for a simple website.
Exactly, MySQL is nothing but a toy database.
Less than the the "Loudness wars" or listening on a underground train?
It's not an either/or thing, but, no I never made any such claim.
Please.
Please what?
Most people won't be able to tell the difference with a proper blind test.
Most people at one point also said they didn't see the difference between VHS and DVDs. Doesn't make those people any less dumb and wrong.
I have done with a number of people who think they need FLAC for there portable players.
Well that is ridiculous thing since the low quality of the headphones that comes with most portable players will pretty much murder any quality gains you get from FLAC.
'To my surprise, in the rock examples the MP3 at 128 was preferred.
128kbit MP3 absolutely murders the waveform.
Yes, let's go back to the glorious days of dot crawls, rainbowing, and analog noise. Oh wait, let's not because those analog artifacts were horrible looking.
Because 192khz sampling rate is completely pointless outside of the processing studio? Anyone who claims they can hear a difference between 48khz and 96khz (let alone 192khz) is full of shit unless they have dog ears.