>Tube amps are not designed to produce even harmonics,
Yet you say they do produce even harmonics, even if it isn't intentional. And as other tube-lovers here have said, this is why they like their tube amps. So the answer is simple: Design solid state amps to sound like tube amps.
>Speaking of which - tube amplification is naturally very flat. This is not true of solid-state amplification.
Agreed. That's why there's circuits to compensate...
>solid-state amps require a much higher number of sub-circuits which are used as feedback to adjust the ultimate flatness over the frequency range of the amp. Tube amps don't need this kind of coersive adjustment to the signal, and so are much simpler circuits.
This doesn't necessarialy lead to a better sound, and since solid state components are so much more cheaper than tube components its like comparing the cost of soil to gold, I don't see where you're going with this.
Also, with DSPs (there's that word again!) you can avoid this hodge-podge of separate circuits and build most of it into a few ICs and some output transistors.
>So, there are really no technical arguements against tube amps.
I don't necessarialy disagree. I am saying that solid state is:
- More reliable
- More consistent
- Cheaper
- Easier to mass produce
The first couple of points are actually technical points, so perhaps I do disagree.
Are tubes more reliable than transistors? Is the quality they provide more consistent?
If not, then, if solid state can reproduce the effects of a tube amp, then solid state is better.
>Some get more listener fatigue when listening to odd harmonics, and thus prefer tube amps. Why should you care about that?
Well, partly because this is slashdot where stuff gets discussed, and partly because I like to find out why people want to spend more on tube amps. I can believe that a tube amp provides distortion that improves the sound to the ear, but I'm still unconvinced that the distortion cannot be accurately reproduced by solid state circuits.
If it can, I'd just like to know why people with tube amps prefer their amps over the solid state equivalent. Its perplexing. Other than the visual aspect I can't see the benefit.
>It's a lot easier to design a bad solid-state amp.
This is sort-of true. While yes, the original designs are very hard to come up with, once these have been integrated you'd be surprised how easy it is to build an amp.
The 4 pin LM12 comes to mind. Complex on the inside, dead easy outside.
>There exist some really good solid-state amps. There also exist some really good tube amps. Not sure why you insist on investing your ego in arguing against that latter indisputable fact.
Its pretty simple: Because when someone says "Transistors just don't cut it when it comes to high-end equipment like that." they are wrong and need correcting.
Your comment agrees that they are wrong -- you just said there's really good solid-state amps out there.
>Let me guess, you think that diesel cars are stupid too - primarily because you own something else!
Nahh, diesel is great. The engines can work underwater! With the latest enhacenments it gives gasoline a run for its money.
I'd think diesel was stupid if the best it could do was power a 70's wagovan when gasoline can do so much more. But since it has been improved, then yeah, diesel is fine. They could do with fixing the stench most of the diesel cars round here output, though.
However, tubes have been far surpassed by solid state technology. Except for CRTs... LCDs and their equivalents are very quickly catching up, though.
>As for what tubes can do that equivalent solid states cannot? See here [stereophile.com]. Tube amplifiers of equivalent power give far greater voltage swings, and moreover, clip far more gently than solid-states.
To rebut, soft clipping was invented in the 70's and 80's for solid state, so by now the problem is well covered. Solid state can produce far more current than vaccum tubes, meaning that hooking up a car speaker to your amplifier won't destroy it. It also means that if you decide you want to add more speakers to your system you don't have to worry about it. And, with the very high current solid state can provide nowadays, clipping is a thing of the past -- it will only occur on underpowered systems.
As anyone using tube amps has noticed, the majority of speaker companies no longer produce speakers of high enough impedance to run on a tube amp very well. Your chances of finding high-impedance headphones are _nearly_ nil, even with the most respected companies. If you buy a tube amp you limit your selection so much there's little chance you can reproduce the same quality of sound a solid state amp can unless you build your own drivers.
All else being equal, the power you get from the speaker is defined by the impedance of the speaker multiplied by the current level squared. Or you can measure it by voltage squared divided by the impedance. (Yes, I'm ignoring SPL). Either way, a lower impedance driver means you get more power from a higher current system. And the other way around, too. But since I haven't seen too many (not necessarialy none) high-impedance speakers for a while, you'll find you want a high current amp. In other words, a solid state amp.
From the article:
"The unofficial consensus is that you need two to four times the transistor power to achieve the same loudness as you would using tubes. In other words, given the (subjectively) undistorted sound level a 25W (footnote 1) tube amplifier can provide, if you want the same loudness from solid-state technology you would have to replace it with at least a 50W transistor amp (footnote 2)."
This guy is way off his rocker. A 25 watt RMS amp provides 25 watts. There is no "it provides more because its a tube". This is no different from saying that bar-b-que A produces 12k BTUs and bar-b-que B produces 24k BTUs but somehow bar-b-que A is hotter. Physics says this is not possible. Of course, the tube amp could actually be rated much lower than what it provides, but that's not scientific measurement. That's simply cheating.
"So when you drive your tube amp into clipping, the occasional peaks will be compressed and rounded off--not chopped off, as would happen in a transistor amp, which is subjectively far more objectionable."
If your amp isn't powerful enough and does any clipping and you continue to play it in this mode you are a fool, playing with the life of your speakers, and the life of your amp. Tubes blow so much faster than solid state stuff it isn't funny. So you want to buy new tubes every couple of weeks to prove your set does soft clipping? This guy is either devoted, or rich.
"Siltech wanted to celebrate their new G-3 cable (gold-dotted silver), which was used in the recording."
Well, at the least the company he's working with is sensible. Silver is the best conductor.
"Holy Moses. I saw something like 30V peaks from an amp that, when driven with sinewaves and loaded with an 8 ohm resistor, never showed more than a 14V peak--more than twice the voltage technically supposed possible. You'd need a 50W transistor amp to realize the same peaks my 9W 300B launched without wincing at my speakers."
The math:
14 v peak = 20 v RMS
P = V^2 / R
P2 = 20^2 / 8 = 50 watts.
High-school electronics tells me this guy was "blinded by psuedo-science". His 9 watt amp is rated well below what it can do. In other words, his 9 watt RMS amp was a 50-60 watt RMS amp. So he got a bargain. Big deal -- transistor technology has been pumping out a clean 50 watts RMS for decades.
Do you really think a 500 w RMS FET amp with 0.5% THD will clip when it is only outputting 50 watts? Now, which is cheaper? His tube amp or the 500 w FET amp?
"but never arrived at more than 1.4 times the peak voltage observed with a steady-state sinewave near clipping"
That's because the peak of a pure sinewave is 1.4 times the RMS value. This is high-school electronics in action.
"I was disappointed and puzzled. What was happening here?"
I'm disappointed and puzzled this guy has a job writing reviews for a stereo magazine when he doesn't know what RMS means.
I'm enjoying those graphs too...
"First, I loaded a 25W transistor amp with 8 ohms resistive. It clipped at almost 17Vp (peak) on a continuous sinewave (fig.1)."
Sorry to hear your YORx clock-radio can't handle the load. Perhaps if you try a stereo that costs as much as your tube amp we'll be talking.
Fig 4. looks pretty damn harsh on the speakers. Much worse than the distortion from his clock-radio. Might sound better but bye-bye drivers.
"Pick a speaker that, impedance-wise, looks like an 8 ohm resistor (the theoretical ideal!) and your tube amp will sound restrained."
8 ohm theoretical ideal? Where does this guy get his information from?
"High sensitivity (preferably >90dB/W/m) is a necessary condition,"
Because tube amps aren't powerful like solid state.
So what he's saying is that tube amps can power through the distortion. This is OK until you realize you can get a solid state amp with enough power to make the tube amp look like a pocket radio for 1/10th the price.
I reamain unconvinced. And I won't be buying a subscription to that magazine any time soon.
I'd like to see him compare his findings with a more modern amplifier. Perhaps a 200W NAD? It would be cheaper than his tube amp and I'm sure it would handle transients better. I think you'll find the letters about the article back me up on this.
"The closest I could do was to place my Tandy (RadioShack) sound-level meter next to the measuring microphone"
Well, when you put it that way... RadioShack, you've got questions, we've got blank stares! Sorry, I couldn't resist.
I didn't really need to. You shot down your own argument (which, as far as I could see it, was that tube amps provide the best quality sound reproduction -- yet if they purposely distort the sound then they can't possibly be the best quality). I just pointed it out for the lazy.:-)
>2. Have you tried listening with a good turntable/tonearm/cartridge? Again, you avoid the main issue.
I've listened to the best: Vinyl recorded to CD in a professional studio with equipment costing more than my house _still_ has clicks and pops. Obviously I can't tell about any more high-frequency information (even if a CD could record it I'd need an oscilloscope to see that).
>As for (B), since you are such an authority,
Not an authority, just not incompetent.:)
I'll read those references, and if they have anything that changes my mind I'll let ya know.
However, if it is just the high-frequency information that needs to be played, a new digital format could offer it if it extended the frequency spectrum to include the extra frequencies that vinyl has. So, while if these papers do convince me, I still think digital can beat vinyl. Just maybe not CDs anymore.
>We agree here, I think. I was referring to analog equalizers (which seems to be what your original post was citing).
Yes and no... I'm talking about any equalizing mechanism. Computer/DSP/analog/rain barrel:) whatever. If it can change the sound to equal that of a tube amp at a lower cost with more functionality, then that's what I'm talking about.
>My remark was hardly ad hominem (think about it)
Isn't that the fun of writing over speech? You can say something with one thing in mind and the other party can get insulted about it.
If you didn't mean to do that, please accept my apology for flaming you so hard. I just found the remark insulting to me -- but it seems you didn't mean it that way after all.
>Tube amplifiers produce Even-Order harmonic distortion. Psycoacoustics show humans are far less sensitive to even-order harmonic distortion than odd-order, meaning that a higher percentage is 'permissable' before becoming audible.
These can be reproduced without tubes more reliably, consistently, and cheaper.
>Vinyl has frequency content out to 30+ kHz. Have the graphs to prove it.
And you are a pregnant teenage mother with a history of ear infections _and_ asthma?
If not, you can't hear that waste of audio spectrum. Your dog might appreciate it, however.
Don't take that personally, this is just a simple truth. If you can hear past 20 khz you are very special. And all the tests in the world (that I've seen) show that you can generate all the frequencies above 20 khz you want without any affect on the perception of sound. Well, I guess you could try to damage the eardrum, but that wouldn't make sense.
>equalizers introduce jitter. Jitter leads to distortion.
Ehhh? Wuh? Jitter? You mean like overlapping of sectors when ripping CDs by quite a few ms? That's one really weird DSP. Considering DSPs are used in _really_ high-frequency stuff (satellite communications come to mind) and your jitter argument would limit them to the field of traffic and strobe light regulation I find this highly unlikely.
>your 'appeal to authority' argument (I am an EE, I work at a radio station, etc.) is just that -- a logical fallacy.
You are right. Of course, the parent poster to your post asked for the proof, so I thought I'd give it. As you can see by looking at the logs, I had no intention of mentioning it until my competency of speaking on this topic was directly called into question.
Oh, and BTW, they also used ad hominem attacks ("There is something wrong with pretending you're not and promulgating untruths."), so I guess we're even. Not that it makes it right, but WTH.
>Enjoy!
MMmmm, the sweet smell of being correct on slashdot. There is simply nothing you can tell me that tube amps or records can do that solid state electronics haven't already mastered. If you can, then I'm wrong. Feel free to prove that there's something either of these provide (other than asthetical/personal value) that solid state electrioncs can't and I'll say I'm wrong.
* Myth 1. Tube amplifiers are the best way to listen to music.
Facts. Tube amplifiers tend to give a more realistic presentation of vocals and soundstaging--especially depth. If, due to your preferred music, that is what you most care about, then tube amps give great value for money.
Fact: Tube amplifiers distort the sound. The distortion may be pleasing to the ears, but they do. You admit so. This pleasing distortion can be applied in much cheaper, more effictive, higher quality, and much more consistent ways -- You could try parametric/graphic equalizers, for example. For some reason audiophiles have problems with this (dunno why -- they say they want to hear the source, but they put a tube amp in the mix). The beloved tube amp is nothing but an overglorified sound pre-processor, if you ask me.
* Myth 2. Vinyl records are the best because they are analog while digital sampling ruins the sound.
Facts. Simply listen on a good turntable: use your ears, and you will prefer vinyl. I have never met anyone who disagreed after actually listening. There are various theories as to why. (A) Vinyl has a greater dynamic range (you can hear ~20 dB into the hiss, which is ignored). (B) Vinyl allows much faster transients (the human ear detects up to 30 kHz, even though pure tones are inaudible above about 20 kHz). (C) Things related to Shun Mook and PWB (which seem to work, though I don't understand why). (D) etc.
(A) DVD replaces vinyl for dynamic range.
(B) I'd like to see proof of that -- No pregnant teenage mothers with ear infections, please.
(C) Dunno, I'm not that much into it all. This is coming from an electronics standpoint... What are their points?
(D) Click. Pop. Hissssssssssss. Wobble. loUDer to SOftER. Too fast! Too slow!
Vynil introduces defects such as clicks and pops and sub-audible noise (which, without proper filtering, will ruin even the best speakers). They also wear much more quickly than most other media. Why do people want to hear this?
Beats me. Probably because most of the stuff people hear on vinyl isn't BSB, or Britney Spears (sp?). Maybe they just enjoy a break from the usual?:-)
Personally, I prefer CD. Nice and clean. No hiss. Hiss drives me nuts.
* Myth 3. CD doesn't have a low enough signal to noise ratio. The new DVD super audio is a huge improvement.
Facts. This is really the same as above: CD has to throw away a lot of the information, especially getting rid of fast transients. The CD standard compresses music much more than DVD-A: so much so that the difference is audible (though "huge" might be exaggerated).
CD samples at 16 bits, 44.1 khz. CD may lose resolution, but fast transients? WTF are you talking about?
The only thing CD might miss would be a VERY small change in the input level. Enough that the ADC doesn't pick it up. It would have to be less than 1/65535 the dynamic range of the CD. A very small detail indeed.
A fast transient, AFAIK from EE, is a sharp spike/dip in the signal. It would have to last less than 4.5 x 10^-5 seconds to be missed by a CD. Period. This is physics and Nyquists law here and they aren't to be disobeyed, not even if you are an audiophile.:-)
* Myth 4. Equalizers are bad.
Facts. Anything in the signal path will cause some unwanted distortion, and so should generally be avoided. This is truly obvious.
No, you are so very wrong on this point. Use a DSP. If you go all digital you will not get unwanted distortion unless you are an incompetent designer, or an unknowledgeable user.
Besides, the entire goal of vinyl and tube amps is to change the input audio. Otherwise, whats the point?
So all the arguments against using a graphic equalizer, noise machine, and a fader that dulls the music over time to produce the identical effects of a record, or a tube amp, rest on this. That more stuff in the signal path is bad... This was true until a decade or two ago. Now we can use electronics to do it all real time, real well.
Better, if I might say so, than media that (especially over time) warps, dulls, scratches (permanently), reacts badly to a wide variety of cleaners, is impossible to accurately duplicate, and is bulkier than a digital player and media itself.
In fact, digital electronics do it longer, faster, easier, cheaper, consistently, and, might I say so, with more dynamic range than a tube amp. Sure you usually want something analog to power the speakers, but thats because PWM just doesn't cut it. Transistors and FETs are great for class A/AB/B/D amps. They cover the entire range of well known methods of high power music reproduction.
>There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. There is something wrong with pretending you're not and promulgating untruths.
How rude. But, to refute your questioning of my ability to comment in these areas:
How many years of EE did you take? 2 myself.
How long have you been a DJ? Getting close to a year for me. On Canada's biggest independent radio station. Listen to me on 88.3 CJIQ FM, in the KW area of Ontario, Canada between 7 and 9 pm on Thursdays. We share the same signal output as the CBC does round here.
Ever built your own speakers? I've built 7. All of which my friends were amazed at (a few want me to make some for them).
On a board of directors of a radio station? I am.
I don't usually say that flat out... but seriously, trying to attack my credibility without providing any yourself? Is that enough proof I'm right?
I'd like to introduce you to www.r3mix.net. Specifically, click on the link labelled "Myths".
If you don't like listening to the true, unadulterated source, well, I guess tubes are for ya! Me, I like to hear what the musician played, so I buy transistor/fet based equipment.
>Because this means that when asked, you must *prove* that you did not pirate the software, else, you are considered guilty.
I don't think it really works that way.
Think about exploding money dye packs at the bank.
You steal one of these, along with a load of other money, from a bank. Upon exiting the bank the pack promptly explodes all over your clothes, hands, etc. You drop the bags of money and get the hell out of there.
The cops find you covered in ink 5 miles away. They arrest you and you're dragged in court.
Now the prosecution explains about the dye packs and presents pictures of you covered in dye pack ink to the jury. You were innocent and proven guilty. Now you _can_ try to worm out of it, but its your job to show the evidence is poor at best (thereby casting doubt on the case).
Same with the CDs. Prosecution says your CD had no logo and all MS CDs do. Now you must prove that evidence is unreliable. To do this you'll need to get an MS employee to say "We did make a batch that looked like his". Which you probably wouldn't be able to do.
Poof! You've been found out and you got your innocent till proven guilty day in court.
>It's almost like MS doesn't want people paying for Windows.
Now you're catching on.
Took everyone long enough.
First it was MS-DOS floppies that didn't copy.
Then it was Chicago that phoned home.
Now its XP that breaks upon contact with new hardware.
And just look at that, after each and every scare MS "fixed" their software just in time for the pirates to get it.
Why?
Because MS knows pirates aren't buyers. They are users. Users create buyers. Remember the old saying "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?". Well, a pirate running windows is worth two not doing so.
>Anyway i hope this gives you a little more respect for the engineers who actually do this.
I'm not the original poster, but I still agree with him. And I have respect for the engineers, as you'll soon see.:-)
>The manager will assign the bug to a tester who will try to reproduce it. That is after he has worked on all the other items in his queue that have a higher priority.
There's the weak link right there. Get rid of the manager. If it is a security bug send it directly to the people who handle it.
My lack of respect is for the manager that's so lazy they can't take 1 minute out of their lunch break to email the security bug of the day. And if you are getting more than 1 security bug a day from "tested" software I'd suggest you fire yourself for hiring incompetent engineers and testers!
At least you can still publish "ideas" on the net.
Bill C-36 will make it a thought crime to write terrorist thoughts on the net, among much other sweeping restructuring of freedoms. This is actually the least of my worries. For quite some time our prime minister wanted this to be permanent legislation. At least now we only have 5 years of authoritarianism at hand. At that point hopefully the Canadian people won't be so blinded by their anger at people on the other side of the earth that we will help care for our own freedom, rather than trading it to Afganistan.
Read it and weep Canada. The Taliban may be defeated soon but they shall win posthumously, even though they've never struck our homeland. They will take what they truly seek: Our freedom. This is a truly international victory for the enemy.
Nothing much makes me happy anymore, except that a few wartorn cities in Afganistan have a semblance of freedom now. I feel sad about the lost souls at the WTC, the children in Afganistan who've never seen freedom, those there who lost their freedom for so long. And now I feel sad that writing this, with words like "WTC", "Taliban", and "authoritarianism" I may soon be flagged as a possible Taliban supporter along with the many others who have carefully suppressed their rage at the Taliban in the pursuit of a logical end to all the fighting.
I submitted this story (with more links and a better writeup with less opinion) to slashdot a long time ago but I guess they have better things to do than help defend the liberties of countries outside America nowadays (ahh, I pine for the days when slashdot reported on stuff like our CD-R piracy taxes and such).
Fortunately, I've already had experience with this. I went to school in the WCBE of Ontario, Canada, where it's against the rules to view nintendo.com when you're doing an essay on which console is the best (this was in high school too...). IIRC, I used a different solution then though (can't remember what now).
It seems like its think inside the box day (why is it I've said this for the first two times of my life today?)...
"You can distribute your patches for other people to use."
"You may distribute a precompiled package if installing your package produces exactly the same files, in exactly the same locations, that a user would obtain by installing one of my packages listed above"
"You may distribute exact copies of any of the following packages"
It seems DJB is A-OK with the raw source or raw binaries being on the CD. He's also OK with patches and patch distribution.
So here's how to "get around" his license if you are a distributor (which isn't all that bad except for distributors, who generally have better things to deal with than "attitude" -- which it appears DJB has against software distributors, and is why his software is doomed to fail in the market, even if it won't fail in the computer):
- djbdns
[ ] Install virgin djbdns binary
[ ] Install virgin djbdns source
- patches
[ ] Install binary patch for djbdns for correct operation with your platform
[ ] Install source patch for djbdns for correct operation with your platform
Problem solved. He's happy, you're happy, I'm happy. We're all a happy family. Well, maybe DJB isn't happy, but then again maybe he should get back to coding more good software rather than writing software licenses (which it appears he isn't particularly good at... I'm no legal expert and I saw that gaping hole a mile away).
Can't we just all get along?:-) Other than his dislike for distributors (does he roll his own?) DJB seems like a cool guy.
[IANAL. If you wanted legal advice, you looked at the wrong post.]
Just outside of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Just ever so slightly in the countryside. That should give you an idea. Granted, my area is a little different than many, but after living where I live I figure I can speak for quite a few people living outside of a big city.
If you're anywhere near there you'll know that the streets outside the big malls 'round here virtually turn into parking lots right before christmas. Most of that's due to poor city planning (the 'main drag' of shopping area is also the main drag transport trucks use to get on the highways). I don't look forward to winter driving...:-/ I can just imagine what it's like even further north.
I do, and the marketplace has determined this a big hit. The RIM Blackberry being it.
Its a PITA having to log in all the time to check email. That and email being paged to me is better in so many ways than a cellphone (I'll list them if you care to ask...:-)
>surf the web on my phone.
Used to do that on my Blackberry, but the cost is just too high right now. My Blackberry's just a tad smaller than most cellphones so I'd say it counts.
>have my personal documents on somebody else's computer.
Millions of ssh users would disagree.:-)
>do anything in virtual reality.
Yes, most VR stuff on the market is lame. However, at one time 3D shooters were almost considered "VR" and they're pretty popular. I'd probably want to do that in VR if the price were right.
>and I'm never going to bug groceries, clothes or pets over the web, or install linux on my grandmother's computer
I'd buy groceries on the web. Nearest store is almost 20 mins away and I'm lazy. Don't think they ship pets over the web (seems like a logistical nightmare considering how UPS handles non-living packages). I buy christmas presents over the web since with christmas traffic makes getting to the store a 1 to 2 hour escapade of sliding around broken down cars in -15 deg C snowstorm weather at 1.5 mph (ahhh, that quality city planning at work).
I wouldn't install windows on Grandma's computer because she wouldn't pay $300 for windows XP, and doesn't want something out of date. Doesn't leave much. However, since I still consider linux moderately difficult to configure, I'd probably get her one of those webterminal deals.
>If nobody wants to buy what you're selling........
Then you just don't know what they want.
It's all in the implementation. A phone is not a web device. A RIM pager is. idrive is an inconvenient way to access your files across the 'net. ssh isn't (the windows and linux clients easily fit on a disk). VR is badly implemented. I think when someone can finally get it under $200, make it high enough res and refresh you're not sick 5 minutes after using it, and actually get popular games to run on it it would be HOT.
Getting groceries on the net is moronically implemented. It is marketed (and only availiable to) downtown city folk who have a supermarket in walking distance. Uhhh, hello McFly? There's millions of us out in the counrty who are used to paying premiums to get what we want (eg. I pay $150/mo for high speed internet) and would be willing to do that for the groceries.
Shipping pets from a website or a real paper catalog is probably a great way to get sued.
Getting christmas presents on the web is actually good, if you can find a store that doesn't have sucky stock. Maybe again, city folk find it useless. But in the country it's great!
All those web ideas would have failed in the real world too, IMHO.
Time for people to realize selling stuff on the web is identical to selling it from a catalog. And, surprise, surprise, a lot of catalog business comes from people "out of the way".
[Oh, and wireless access is another thing. Idiots who market it seem to think the best way to make money on it is to put their towers in big cities. Why? These people already have cheap ways to get on the net and you can't compete. Go where there's less competition, and where there's people willing to pay more. Go outside of the city. Think outside of the box (literally)].
>Who the fuck feels they have the right to complain when they use software they downloaded FOR FREE to download music/software/videos, FOR FREE, while the developers spend their own time to write this software and distribute it FOR FREE????
(Ahem... Clearing throat... Need to speak LOUDLY because we're in a SHOUTING match)
Maybe the reason why people feel they have the right to complain about free stuff is because (in most free countries) you have the right to:
- Sue for false advertising
- Sue for wasted computing resources
- Sue for privacy invasion
- And many, many, many more rights
No matter what fee a company charges.
If you got a box of corn flakes in the mail (FOR FREE) and they turned out to contain, oh I dunno, a secret spy camera that tracked your every move, would you not feel entitled to a LARGE CASH SETTLEMENT?
Spyware is no more acceptable if it is free or not.
And you should know better than that by now. The whole idea that the level of your ethics depends on the price you pay for something is damn low.
BTW: I just sent you a free copy of Windows XP. Included (secretly) is every single piece of spyware ever made, all wrapped up (secretly) on the CD in a tight little package. When you install it (FOR FREE!) don't be a whiny asshole ("LIKE THEM!").
[Ok, so I didn't really do the above, but think about it for a tiny little moment]
>So what do you do when the only option is to receive another copy of the CD in question? That's the return policy in 99% of the stores I have bought CDs from.
Buy from a store that's on your way to work. Return the CD daily until the store figures out that they either shouldn't sell to you, or should sell you better product.
Cost to you: Minimal.
Cost to the store: $20 a day.
[Please note, this is just an opinion piece. These really aren't translations.]
Q. Is a Service required to access all of the features of the ZapStation?
A. Currently no ZapMedia service or subscription is required to access all of the features of the ZapStation.
T. We will ream you for service charges once we run out of venture capital.
Q. Do I need an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to use the ZapStation?
A. To experience all of the features of the ZapStation you will need to have an ISP. Broadband service is strongly encouraged. However, the ZapStation will work with a dial-up connection through a home network.
T. Our device is almost useless to many people in our target market
Q. Will my ZapStation be updated with new releases?
A. Yes, your ZapStation will receive software updates via the Internet.
T. We have designed our device to update itself with anti-consumer code whenever the RIAA/MPAA says "jump".
Q. Can I record my CDs and DVDs on the ZapStation?
A. You can record your CDs but not DVDs.
T. The MPAA already told us not to do this.
Q. What audio streaming formats will the ZapStation support?
A. The ZapStation currently supports MP3 and Windows Media formats.
T. Our product doesn't support the most popular streaming format, RealMedia, because, well... we don't know why. We suck.
Q. Can I transfer MP3s and WMA files from my PC to the ZapStation?
A. Yes, the ZapStation supports transferring MP3, WMA, WMV, and MPEG files.
T. We didn't want to mention if you can transfer them off the ZapStation(tm) because if someone does that the RIAA will be... angry.
Q. Can I create a "music jukebox" with the ZapStation?
A. Yes, you can build audio playlists comprised of songs you have recorded onto the ZapStation from CDs along with songs you have downloaded from the Internet or transferred from your PC to the ZapStation. You can also build video playlists with video files you have downloaded from the ZapMedia portal, the ZapZone, or from the Internet.
T. We want to portalize the internet because look at what it did for excite@home!
Q. How many songs can I record on the ZapStation?
A. Approximately 10,000 songs can be recorded on the ZapStation depending on the recording quality selected and the length of the songs.
T. Our margin wasn't high enough so we put in a tiny 30 Gb HDD and recorded everything at 128 kbps.
Q. Can I record TV programs onto the ZapStation?
A. Currently, the ZapStation does not support recording TV shows.
T. We'll do this when the MPAA says it will let us.
Q. Can I load applications on the ZapStation?
A. No, the ZapStation is a closed system.
T. The ZapStation is about as well supported as a Timex Sinclair is right now.
Advanced Networking -- Fast connection through DSL, Cable, or T1 access
T. We threw in an RTL8139 because it only cost $2. It's advanced because it was made this decade.
110V/220V Power Supply
T. We're one stupid company. We only sell to America, but think that home theater afficandos hook up their equipment to their Dryers.
Pardon me for being cynical, but at $1500 I can buy a laptop with the same features that doesn't come with RIAA/MPAA baggage.
>Can you imagine what would happen if a lot of people started to bring their own popcorn and drinks to the show and quit purchasing it from the concession? The sound of a door being locked....
I already do this. Look for the guy with the crinkly stomach.
On that note, I've been to a lot of theaters where I hear "psssh..." (the sound of a can opening) over and over again before the show starts.
If you don't make any money on the ticket, I'm sorry to hear that. The tickets are usually well overpriced (IMHO as your customer) at $10 a pop to begin with, even if you aren't making any money. That's the reason why I won't chuck in another $5 - $10 for food. For $20 I can get a _lot_ more value than watching a movie at a theater. [In Canada, the movies come out for FREE on DirecTV a few months later anyways].
Of course, I quit going to the theater more than once a year when ticket prices went over $5 so maybe you don't have to worry about me. Or, if you're a prudent businessman, you will.
If you can get the ticket + food price to under $8 I'll see you monthly. $7 and I might be there weekly.
Your choice. As a consumer I'm just exercising my right to boycott your high prices (oh, and if you catch me coming in with outside food and kick me out, no big loss. You'll be refunding my ticket anyhow, and then I'll never come back no matter what your price is. Ever).
>Theft is still theft, even if its easy and there is no chance of getting caught.
Tough luck on that. I've never seen (decent) software in anything but a locked glass case in a store with on-duty personnel. Then again, considering what winzip sells for, maybe it isn't behind the glass case.
Or did you mean copyright violation? The dictionary very distinctly says it and theft are different things... I've never commited larceny (syn. theft) in my entire life. Ever.
However, being the imperfect being I am, I may have accidentally violatedcopyright or commited an act against software law by using winzip for longer than the trial period.
Sometimes, agreeably, the dictinary can be contrary, in which case it's probably prudent to take the base definitions and the dates into account. Older words whose base definitions have remained the same longer are, IMHO, considered more correct than "updated" definitions combining these words into a new meaning that doesn't resemble the base words whatsoever.
>I wonder how it's possible to write a "Linux Emulation Layer" without using the Linux source in a way that violates the GPL.
Same way as Compaq did it to "clone" the IBM BIOS. Poke stuff in, see what happens. Read technical manuals deviod of code. Get engineers in that haven't already written GPL code (untainted).
Running (basic) Linux binaries will be easy in comparison to hacking a copy of a BIOS without any idea of what it does -- or so I'm thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
>Tube amps are not designed to produce even harmonics,
Yet you say they do produce even harmonics, even if it isn't intentional. And as other tube-lovers here have said, this is why they like their tube amps. So the answer is simple: Design solid state amps to sound like tube amps.
>Speaking of which - tube amplification is naturally very flat. This is not true of solid-state amplification.
Agreed. That's why there's circuits to compensate...
>solid-state amps require a much higher number of sub-circuits which are used as feedback to adjust the ultimate flatness over the frequency range of the amp. Tube amps don't need this kind of coersive adjustment to the signal, and so are much simpler circuits.
This doesn't necessarialy lead to a better sound, and since solid state components are so much more cheaper than tube components its like comparing the cost of soil to gold, I don't see where you're going with this.
Also, with DSPs (there's that word again!) you can avoid this hodge-podge of separate circuits and build most of it into a few ICs and some output transistors.
>So, there are really no technical arguements against tube amps.
I don't necessarialy disagree. I am saying that solid state is:
- More reliable
- More consistent
- Cheaper
- Easier to mass produce
The first couple of points are actually technical points, so perhaps I do disagree.
Are tubes more reliable than transistors? Is the quality they provide more consistent?
If not, then, if solid state can reproduce the effects of a tube amp, then solid state is better.
>Some get more listener fatigue when listening to odd harmonics, and thus prefer tube amps. Why should you care about that?
Well, partly because this is slashdot where stuff gets discussed, and partly because I like to find out why people want to spend more on tube amps. I can believe that a tube amp provides distortion that improves the sound to the ear, but I'm still unconvinced that the distortion cannot be accurately reproduced by solid state circuits.
If it can, I'd just like to know why people with tube amps prefer their amps over the solid state equivalent. Its perplexing. Other than the visual aspect I can't see the benefit.
>It's a lot easier to design a bad solid-state amp.
This is sort-of true. While yes, the original designs are very hard to come up with, once these have been integrated you'd be surprised how easy it is to build an amp.
The 4 pin LM12 comes to mind. Complex on the inside, dead easy outside.
>There exist some really good solid-state amps. There also exist some really good tube amps. Not sure why you insist on investing your ego in arguing against that latter indisputable fact.
Its pretty simple: Because when someone says "Transistors just don't cut it when it comes to high-end equipment like that." they are wrong and need correcting.
Your comment agrees that they are wrong -- you just said there's really good solid-state amps out there.
>Let me guess, you think that diesel cars are stupid too - primarily because you own something else!
Nahh, diesel is great. The engines can work underwater! With the latest enhacenments it gives gasoline a run for its money.
I'd think diesel was stupid if the best it could do was power a 70's wagovan when gasoline can do so much more. But since it has been improved, then yeah, diesel is fine. They could do with fixing the stench most of the diesel cars round here output, though.
However, tubes have been far surpassed by solid state technology. Except for CRTs... LCDs and their equivalents are very quickly catching up, though.
>As for what tubes can do that equivalent solid states cannot? See here [stereophile.com]. Tube amplifiers of equivalent power give far greater voltage swings, and moreover, clip far more gently than solid-states.
To rebut, soft clipping was invented in the 70's and 80's for solid state, so by now the problem is well covered. Solid state can produce far more current than vaccum tubes, meaning that hooking up a car speaker to your amplifier won't destroy it. It also means that if you decide you want to add more speakers to your system you don't have to worry about it. And, with the very high current solid state can provide nowadays, clipping is a thing of the past -- it will only occur on underpowered systems.
As anyone using tube amps has noticed, the majority of speaker companies no longer produce speakers of high enough impedance to run on a tube amp very well. Your chances of finding high-impedance headphones are _nearly_ nil, even with the most respected companies. If you buy a tube amp you limit your selection so much there's little chance you can reproduce the same quality of sound a solid state amp can unless you build your own drivers.
All else being equal, the power you get from the speaker is defined by the impedance of the speaker multiplied by the current level squared. Or you can measure it by voltage squared divided by the impedance. (Yes, I'm ignoring SPL). Either way, a lower impedance driver means you get more power from a higher current system. And the other way around, too. But since I haven't seen too many (not necessarialy none) high-impedance speakers for a while, you'll find you want a high current amp. In other words, a solid state amp.
From the article:
"The unofficial consensus is that you need two to four times the transistor power to achieve the same loudness as you would using tubes. In other words, given the (subjectively) undistorted sound level a 25W (footnote 1) tube amplifier can provide, if you want the same loudness from solid-state technology you would have to replace it with at least a 50W transistor amp (footnote 2)."
This guy is way off his rocker. A 25 watt RMS amp provides 25 watts. There is no "it provides more because its a tube". This is no different from saying that bar-b-que A produces 12k BTUs and bar-b-que B produces 24k BTUs but somehow bar-b-que A is hotter. Physics says this is not possible. Of course, the tube amp could actually be rated much lower than what it provides, but that's not scientific measurement. That's simply cheating.
"So when you drive your tube amp into clipping, the occasional peaks will be compressed and rounded off--not chopped off, as would happen in a transistor amp, which is subjectively far more objectionable."
If your amp isn't powerful enough and does any clipping and you continue to play it in this mode you are a fool, playing with the life of your speakers, and the life of your amp. Tubes blow so much faster than solid state stuff it isn't funny. So you want to buy new tubes every couple of weeks to prove your set does soft clipping? This guy is either devoted, or rich.
"Siltech wanted to celebrate their new G-3 cable (gold-dotted silver), which was used in the recording."
Well, at the least the company he's working with is sensible. Silver is the best conductor.
"Holy Moses. I saw something like 30V peaks from an amp that, when driven with sinewaves and loaded with an 8 ohm resistor, never showed more than a 14V peak--more than twice the voltage technically supposed possible. You'd need a 50W transistor amp to realize the same peaks my 9W 300B launched without wincing at my speakers."
The math:
14 v peak = 20 v RMS
P = V^2 / R
P2 = 20^2 / 8 = 50 watts.
High-school electronics tells me this guy was "blinded by psuedo-science". His 9 watt amp is rated well below what it can do. In other words, his 9 watt RMS amp was a 50-60 watt RMS amp. So he got a bargain. Big deal -- transistor technology has been pumping out a clean 50 watts RMS for decades.
Do you really think a 500 w RMS FET amp with 0.5% THD will clip when it is only outputting 50 watts? Now, which is cheaper? His tube amp or the 500 w FET amp?
"but never arrived at more than 1.4 times the peak voltage observed with a steady-state sinewave near clipping"
That's because the peak of a pure sinewave is 1.4 times the RMS value. This is high-school electronics in action.
"I was disappointed and puzzled. What was happening here?"
I'm disappointed and puzzled this guy has a job writing reviews for a stereo magazine when he doesn't know what RMS means.
I'm enjoying those graphs too...
"First, I loaded a 25W transistor amp with 8 ohms resistive. It clipped at almost 17Vp (peak) on a continuous sinewave (fig.1)."
Sorry to hear your YORx clock-radio can't handle the load. Perhaps if you try a stereo that costs as much as your tube amp we'll be talking.
Fig 4. looks pretty damn harsh on the speakers. Much worse than the distortion from his clock-radio. Might sound better but bye-bye drivers.
"Pick a speaker that, impedance-wise, looks like an 8 ohm resistor (the theoretical ideal!) and your tube amp will sound restrained."
8 ohm theoretical ideal? Where does this guy get his information from?
"High sensitivity (preferably >90dB/W/m) is a necessary condition,"
Because tube amps aren't powerful like solid state.
So what he's saying is that tube amps can power through the distortion. This is OK until you realize you can get a solid state amp with enough power to make the tube amp look like a pocket radio for 1/10th the price.
I reamain unconvinced. And I won't be buying a subscription to that magazine any time soon.
I'd like to see him compare his findings with a more modern amplifier. Perhaps a 200W NAD? It would be cheaper than his tube amp and I'm sure it would handle transients better. I think you'll find the letters about the article back me up on this.
"The closest I could do was to place my Tandy (RadioShack) sound-level meter next to the measuring microphone"
Well, when you put it that way... RadioShack, you've got questions, we've got blank stares! Sorry, I couldn't resist.
>1. You don't actually rebut my point.
:-)
:)
:) whatever. If it can change the sound to equal that of a tube amp at a lower cost with more functionality, then that's what I'm talking about.
I didn't really need to. You shot down your own argument (which, as far as I could see it, was that tube amps provide the best quality sound reproduction -- yet if they purposely distort the sound then they can't possibly be the best quality). I just pointed it out for the lazy.
>2. Have you tried listening with a good turntable/tonearm/cartridge? Again, you avoid the main issue.
I've listened to the best: Vinyl recorded to CD in a professional studio with equipment costing more than my house _still_ has clicks and pops. Obviously I can't tell about any more high-frequency information (even if a CD could record it I'd need an oscilloscope to see that).
>As for (B), since you are such an authority,
Not an authority, just not incompetent.
I'll read those references, and if they have anything that changes my mind I'll let ya know.
However, if it is just the high-frequency information that needs to be played, a new digital format could offer it if it extended the frequency spectrum to include the extra frequencies that vinyl has. So, while if these papers do convince me, I still think digital can beat vinyl. Just maybe not CDs anymore.
>We agree here, I think. I was referring to analog equalizers (which seems to be what your original post was citing).
Yes and no... I'm talking about any equalizing mechanism. Computer/DSP/analog/rain barrel
>My remark was hardly ad hominem (think about it)
Isn't that the fun of writing over speech? You can say something with one thing in mind and the other party can get insulted about it.
If you didn't mean to do that, please accept my apology for flaming you so hard. I just found the remark insulting to me -- but it seems you didn't mean it that way after all.
>Tube amplifiers produce Even-Order harmonic distortion. Psycoacoustics show humans are far less sensitive to even-order harmonic distortion than odd-order, meaning that a higher percentage is 'permissable' before becoming audible.
These can be reproduced without tubes more reliably, consistently, and cheaper.
>Vinyl has frequency content out to 30+ kHz. Have the graphs to prove it.
And you are a pregnant teenage mother with a history of ear infections _and_ asthma?
If not, you can't hear that waste of audio spectrum. Your dog might appreciate it, however.
Don't take that personally, this is just a simple truth. If you can hear past 20 khz you are very special. And all the tests in the world (that I've seen) show that you can generate all the frequencies above 20 khz you want without any affect on the perception of sound. Well, I guess you could try to damage the eardrum, but that wouldn't make sense.
>equalizers introduce jitter. Jitter leads to distortion.
Ehhh? Wuh? Jitter? You mean like overlapping of sectors when ripping CDs by quite a few ms? That's one really weird DSP. Considering DSPs are used in _really_ high-frequency stuff (satellite communications come to mind) and your jitter argument would limit them to the field of traffic and strobe light regulation I find this highly unlikely.
>your 'appeal to authority' argument (I am an EE, I work at a radio station, etc.) is just that -- a logical fallacy.
You are right. Of course, the parent poster to your post asked for the proof, so I thought I'd give it. As you can see by looking at the logs, I had no intention of mentioning it until my competency of speaking on this topic was directly called into question.
Oh, and BTW, they also used ad hominem attacks ("There is something wrong with pretending you're not and promulgating untruths."), so I guess we're even. Not that it makes it right, but WTH.
>Enjoy!
MMmmm, the sweet smell of being correct on slashdot. There is simply nothing you can tell me that tube amps or records can do that solid state electronics haven't already mastered. If you can, then I'm wrong. Feel free to prove that there's something either of these provide (other than asthetical/personal value) that solid state electrioncs can't and I'll say I'm wrong.
* Myth 1. Tube amplifiers are the best way to listen to music.
:-)
:-)
Facts. Tube amplifiers tend to give a more realistic presentation of vocals and soundstaging--especially depth. If, due to your preferred music, that is what you most care about, then tube amps give great value for money.
Fact: Tube amplifiers distort the sound. The distortion may be pleasing to the ears, but they do. You admit so. This pleasing distortion can be applied in much cheaper, more effictive, higher quality, and much more consistent ways -- You could try parametric/graphic equalizers, for example. For some reason audiophiles have problems with this (dunno why -- they say they want to hear the source, but they put a tube amp in the mix). The beloved tube amp is nothing but an overglorified sound pre-processor, if you ask me.
* Myth 2. Vinyl records are the best because they are analog while digital sampling ruins the sound.
Facts. Simply listen on a good turntable: use your ears, and you will prefer vinyl. I have never met anyone who disagreed after actually listening. There are various theories as to why. (A) Vinyl has a greater dynamic range (you can hear ~20 dB into the hiss, which is ignored). (B) Vinyl allows much faster transients (the human ear detects up to 30 kHz, even though pure tones are inaudible above about 20 kHz). (C) Things related to Shun Mook and PWB (which seem to work, though I don't understand why). (D) etc.
(A) DVD replaces vinyl for dynamic range.
(B) I'd like to see proof of that -- No pregnant teenage mothers with ear infections, please.
(C) Dunno, I'm not that much into it all. This is coming from an electronics standpoint... What are their points?
(D) Click. Pop. Hissssssssssss. Wobble. loUDer to SOftER. Too fast! Too slow!
Vynil introduces defects such as clicks and pops and sub-audible noise (which, without proper filtering, will ruin even the best speakers). They also wear much more quickly than most other media. Why do people want to hear this?
Beats me. Probably because most of the stuff people hear on vinyl isn't BSB, or Britney Spears (sp?). Maybe they just enjoy a break from the usual?
Personally, I prefer CD. Nice and clean. No hiss. Hiss drives me nuts.
* Myth 3. CD doesn't have a low enough signal to noise ratio. The new DVD super audio is a huge improvement.
Facts. This is really the same as above: CD has to throw away a lot of the information, especially getting rid of fast transients. The CD standard compresses music much more than DVD-A: so much so that the difference is audible (though "huge" might be exaggerated).
CD samples at 16 bits, 44.1 khz. CD may lose resolution, but fast transients? WTF are you talking about?
The only thing CD might miss would be a VERY small change in the input level. Enough that the ADC doesn't pick it up. It would have to be less than 1/65535 the dynamic range of the CD. A very small detail indeed.
A fast transient, AFAIK from EE, is a sharp spike/dip in the signal. It would have to last less than 4.5 x 10^-5 seconds to be missed by a CD. Period. This is physics and Nyquists law here and they aren't to be disobeyed, not even if you are an audiophile.
* Myth 4. Equalizers are bad.
Facts. Anything in the signal path will cause some unwanted distortion, and so should generally be avoided. This is truly obvious.
No, you are so very wrong on this point. Use a DSP. If you go all digital you will not get unwanted distortion unless you are an incompetent designer, or an unknowledgeable user.
Besides, the entire goal of vinyl and tube amps is to change the input audio. Otherwise, whats the point?
So all the arguments against using a graphic equalizer, noise machine, and a fader that dulls the music over time to produce the identical effects of a record, or a tube amp, rest on this. That more stuff in the signal path is bad... This was true until a decade or two ago. Now we can use electronics to do it all real time, real well.
Better, if I might say so, than media that (especially over time) warps, dulls, scratches (permanently), reacts badly to a wide variety of cleaners, is impossible to accurately duplicate, and is bulkier than a digital player and media itself.
In fact, digital electronics do it longer, faster, easier, cheaper, consistently, and, might I say so, with more dynamic range than a tube amp. Sure you usually want something analog to power the speakers, but thats because PWM just doesn't cut it. Transistors and FETs are great for class A/AB/B/D amps. They cover the entire range of well known methods of high power music reproduction.
>There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. There is something wrong with pretending you're not and promulgating untruths.
How rude. But, to refute your questioning of my ability to comment in these areas:
How many years of EE did you take? 2 myself.
How long have you been a DJ? Getting close to a year for me. On Canada's biggest independent radio station. Listen to me on 88.3 CJIQ FM, in the KW area of Ontario, Canada between 7 and 9 pm on Thursdays. We share the same signal output as the CBC does round here.
Ever built your own speakers? I've built 7. All of which my friends were amazed at (a few want me to make some for them).
On a board of directors of a radio station? I am.
I don't usually say that flat out... but seriously, trying to attack my credibility without providing any yourself? Is that enough proof I'm right?
Point taken.
I'd like to introduce you to www.r3mix.net. Specifically, click on the link labelled "Myths".
If you don't like listening to the true, unadulterated source, well, I guess tubes are for ya! Me, I like to hear what the musician played, so I buy transistor/fet based equipment.
>Because this means that when asked, you must *prove* that you did not pirate the software, else, you are considered guilty.
I don't think it really works that way.
Think about exploding money dye packs at the bank.
You steal one of these, along with a load of other money, from a bank. Upon exiting the bank the pack promptly explodes all over your clothes, hands, etc. You drop the bags of money and get the hell out of there.
The cops find you covered in ink 5 miles away. They arrest you and you're dragged in court.
Now the prosecution explains about the dye packs and presents pictures of you covered in dye pack ink to the jury. You were innocent and proven guilty. Now you _can_ try to worm out of it, but its your job to show the evidence is poor at best (thereby casting doubt on the case).
Same with the CDs. Prosecution says your CD had no logo and all MS CDs do. Now you must prove that evidence is unreliable. To do this you'll need to get an MS employee to say "We did make a batch that looked like his". Which you probably wouldn't be able to do.
Poof! You've been found out and you got your innocent till proven guilty day in court.
>It's almost like MS doesn't want people paying for Windows.
:-)
Now you're catching on.
Took everyone long enough.
First it was MS-DOS floppies that didn't copy.
Then it was Chicago that phoned home.
Now its XP that breaks upon contact with new hardware.
And just look at that, after each and every scare MS "fixed" their software just in time for the pirates to get it.
Why?
Because MS knows pirates aren't buyers. They are users. Users create buyers. Remember the old saying "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?". Well, a pirate running windows is worth two not doing so.
Or so I would say.
>Anyway i hope this gives you a little more respect for the engineers who actually do this.
:-)
I'm not the original poster, but I still agree with him. And I have respect for the engineers, as you'll soon see.
>The manager will assign the bug to a tester who will try to reproduce it. That is after he has worked on all the other items in his queue that have a higher priority.
There's the weak link right there. Get rid of the manager. If it is a security bug send it directly to the people who handle it.
My lack of respect is for the manager that's so lazy they can't take 1 minute out of their lunch break to email the security bug of the day. And if you are getting more than 1 security bug a day from "tested" software I'd suggest you fire yourself for hiring incompetent engineers and testers!
At least you can still publish "ideas" on the net.
Bill C-36 will make it a thought crime to write terrorist thoughts on the net, among much other sweeping restructuring of freedoms. This is actually the least of my worries. For quite some time our prime minister wanted this to be permanent legislation. At least now we only have 5 years of authoritarianism at hand. At that point hopefully the Canadian people won't be so blinded by their anger at people on the other side of the earth that we will help care for our own freedom, rather than trading it to Afganistan.
Read it and weep Canada. The Taliban may be defeated soon but they shall win posthumously, even though they've never struck our homeland. They will take what they truly seek: Our freedom. This is a truly international victory for the enemy.
Nothing much makes me happy anymore, except that a few wartorn cities in Afganistan have a semblance of freedom now. I feel sad about the lost souls at the WTC, the children in Afganistan who've never seen freedom, those there who lost their freedom for so long. And now I feel sad that writing this, with words like "WTC", "Taliban", and "authoritarianism" I may soon be flagged as a possible Taliban supporter along with the many others who have carefully suppressed their rage at the Taliban in the pursuit of a logical end to all the fighting.
I submitted this story (with more links and a better writeup with less opinion) to slashdot a long time ago but I guess they have better things to do than help defend the liberties of countries outside America nowadays (ahh, I pine for the days when slashdot reported on stuff like our CD-R piracy taxes and such).
And I thought only Nixon kept lists of names.
Don't worry -- if you're posting to slashdot you'll be able to circumvent the thing.
Here's a couple of ways (provided you know someone outside the country on a server the gov't doesn't mind you viewing):
httptunnel
corkscrew
NSTX
Fortunately, I've already had experience with this. I went to school in the WCBE of Ontario, Canada, where it's against the rules to view nintendo.com when you're doing an essay on which console is the best (this was in high school too...). IIRC, I used a different solution then though (can't remember what now).
Goodie.
It seems like its think inside the box day (why is it I've said this for the first two times of my life today?)...
:-) Other than his dislike for distributors (does he roll his own?) DJB seems like a cool guy.
"You can distribute your patches for other people to use."
"You may distribute a precompiled package if installing your package produces exactly the same files, in exactly the same locations, that a user would obtain by installing one of my packages listed above"
"You may distribute exact copies of any of the following packages"
It seems DJB is A-OK with the raw source or raw binaries being on the CD. He's also OK with patches and patch distribution.
So here's how to "get around" his license if you are a distributor (which isn't all that bad except for distributors, who generally have better things to deal with than "attitude" -- which it appears DJB has against software distributors, and is why his software is doomed to fail in the market, even if it won't fail in the computer):
- djbdns
[ ] Install virgin djbdns binary
[ ] Install virgin djbdns source
- patches
[ ] Install binary patch for djbdns for correct operation with your platform
[ ] Install source patch for djbdns for correct operation with your platform
Problem solved. He's happy, you're happy, I'm happy. We're all a happy family. Well, maybe DJB isn't happy, but then again maybe he should get back to coding more good software rather than writing software licenses (which it appears he isn't particularly good at... I'm no legal expert and I saw that gaping hole a mile away).
Can't we just all get along?
[IANAL. If you wanted legal advice, you looked at the wrong post.]
>Out of curiosity, where do you live?
... :-/ I can just imagine what it's like even further north.
Just outside of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Just ever so slightly in the countryside. That should give you an idea. Granted, my area is a little different than many, but after living where I live I figure I can speak for quite a few people living outside of a big city.
If you're anywhere near there you'll know that the streets outside the big malls 'round here virtually turn into parking lots right before christmas. Most of that's due to poor city planning (the 'main drag' of shopping area is also the main drag transport trucks use to get on the highways). I don't look forward to winter driving
>Use wireless when I could be using a cable
:-)
:-)
I do, and the marketplace has determined this a big hit. The RIM Blackberry being it.
Its a PITA having to log in all the time to check email. That and email being paged to me is better in so many ways than a cellphone (I'll list them if you care to ask...
>surf the web on my phone.
Used to do that on my Blackberry, but the cost is just too high right now. My Blackberry's just a tad smaller than most cellphones so I'd say it counts.
>have my personal documents on somebody else's computer.
Millions of ssh users would disagree.
>do anything in virtual reality.
Yes, most VR stuff on the market is lame. However, at one time 3D shooters were almost considered "VR" and they're pretty popular. I'd probably want to do that in VR if the price were right.
>and I'm never going to bug groceries, clothes or pets over the web, or install linux on my grandmother's computer
I'd buy groceries on the web. Nearest store is almost 20 mins away and I'm lazy. Don't think they ship pets over the web (seems like a logistical nightmare considering how UPS handles non-living packages). I buy christmas presents over the web since with christmas traffic makes getting to the store a 1 to 2 hour escapade of sliding around broken down cars in -15 deg C snowstorm weather at 1.5 mph (ahhh, that quality city planning at work).
I wouldn't install windows on Grandma's computer because she wouldn't pay $300 for windows XP, and doesn't want something out of date. Doesn't leave much. However, since I still consider linux moderately difficult to configure, I'd probably get her one of those webterminal deals.
>If nobody wants to buy what you're selling........
Then you just don't know what they want.
It's all in the implementation. A phone is not a web device. A RIM pager is. idrive is an inconvenient way to access your files across the 'net. ssh isn't (the windows and linux clients easily fit on a disk). VR is badly implemented. I think when someone can finally get it under $200, make it high enough res and refresh you're not sick 5 minutes after using it, and actually get popular games to run on it it would be HOT.
Getting groceries on the net is moronically implemented. It is marketed (and only availiable to) downtown city folk who have a supermarket in walking distance. Uhhh, hello McFly? There's millions of us out in the counrty who are used to paying premiums to get what we want (eg. I pay $150/mo for high speed internet) and would be willing to do that for the groceries.
Shipping pets from a website or a real paper catalog is probably a great way to get sued.
Getting christmas presents on the web is actually good, if you can find a store that doesn't have sucky stock. Maybe again, city folk find it useless. But in the country it's great!
All those web ideas would have failed in the real world too, IMHO.
Time for people to realize selling stuff on the web is identical to selling it from a catalog. And, surprise, surprise, a lot of catalog business comes from people "out of the way".
[Oh, and wireless access is another thing. Idiots who market it seem to think the best way to make money on it is to put their towers in big cities. Why? These people already have cheap ways to get on the net and you can't compete. Go where there's less competition, and where there's people willing to pay more. Go outside of the city. Think outside of the box (literally)].
>Who the fuck feels they have the right to complain when they use software they downloaded FOR FREE to download music/software/videos, FOR FREE, while the developers spend their own time to write this software and distribute it FOR FREE????
(Ahem... Clearing throat... Need to speak LOUDLY because we're in a SHOUTING match)
Maybe the reason why people feel they have the right to complain about free stuff is because (in most free countries) you have the right to:
- Sue for false advertising
- Sue for wasted computing resources
- Sue for privacy invasion
- And many, many, many more rights
No matter what fee a company charges.
If you got a box of corn flakes in the mail (FOR FREE) and they turned out to contain, oh I dunno, a secret spy camera that tracked your every move, would you not feel entitled to a LARGE CASH SETTLEMENT?
Spyware is no more acceptable if it is free or not.
And you should know better than that by now. The whole idea that the level of your ethics depends on the price you pay for something is damn low.
BTW: I just sent you a free copy of Windows XP. Included (secretly) is every single piece of spyware ever made, all wrapped up (secretly) on the CD in a tight little package. When you install it (FOR FREE!) don't be a whiny asshole ("LIKE THEM!").
[Ok, so I didn't really do the above, but think about it for a tiny little moment]
>So what do you do when the only option is to receive another copy of the CD in question? That's the return policy in 99% of the stores I have bought CDs from.
Buy from a store that's on your way to work. Return the CD daily until the store figures out that they either shouldn't sell to you, or should sell you better product.
Cost to you: Minimal.
Cost to the store: $20 a day.
>There are $everal very good rea$on$...
:-)
You aren't suggesting that somehow my wacky conspiracy ideas might have actually lead somwhere, are you?
Wow... I was just joking!
However, a tech company working alongside another tech company isn't too unusual I suppose.
[Please note, this is just an opinion piece. These really aren't translations.]
Q. Is a Service required to access all of the features of the ZapStation?
A. Currently no ZapMedia service or subscription is required to access all of the features of the ZapStation.
T. We will ream you for service charges once we run out of venture capital.
Q. Do I need an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to use the ZapStation?
A. To experience all of the features of the ZapStation you will need to have an ISP. Broadband service is strongly encouraged. However, the ZapStation will work with a dial-up connection through a home network.
T. Our device is almost useless to many people in our target market
Q. Will my ZapStation be updated with new releases?
A. Yes, your ZapStation will receive software updates via the Internet.
T. We have designed our device to update itself with anti-consumer code whenever the RIAA/MPAA says "jump".
Q. Can I record my CDs and DVDs on the ZapStation?
A. You can record your CDs but not DVDs.
T. The MPAA already told us not to do this.
Q. What audio streaming formats will the ZapStation support?
A. The ZapStation currently supports MP3 and Windows Media formats.
T. Our product doesn't support the most popular streaming format, RealMedia, because, well... we don't know why. We suck.
Q. Can I transfer MP3s and WMA files from my PC to the ZapStation?
A. Yes, the ZapStation supports transferring MP3, WMA, WMV, and MPEG files.
T. We didn't want to mention if you can transfer them off the ZapStation(tm) because if someone does that the RIAA will be... angry.
Q. Can I create a "music jukebox" with the ZapStation?
A. Yes, you can build audio playlists comprised of songs you have recorded onto the ZapStation from CDs along with songs you have downloaded from the Internet or transferred from your PC to the ZapStation. You can also build video playlists with video files you have downloaded from the ZapMedia portal, the ZapZone, or from the Internet.
T. We want to portalize the internet because look at what it did for excite@home!
Q. How many songs can I record on the ZapStation?
A. Approximately 10,000 songs can be recorded on the ZapStation depending on the recording quality selected and the length of the songs.
T. Our margin wasn't high enough so we put in a tiny 30 Gb HDD and recorded everything at 128 kbps.
Q. Can I record TV programs onto the ZapStation?
A. Currently, the ZapStation does not support recording TV shows.
T. We'll do this when the MPAA says it will let us.
Q. Can I load applications on the ZapStation?
A. No, the ZapStation is a closed system.
T. The ZapStation is about as well supported as a Timex Sinclair is right now.
Advanced Networking -- Fast connection through DSL, Cable, or T1 access
T. We threw in an RTL8139 because it only cost $2. It's advanced because it was made this decade.
110V/220V Power Supply
T. We're one stupid company. We only sell to America, but think that home theater afficandos hook up their equipment to their Dryers.
Pardon me for being cynical, but at $1500 I can buy a laptop with the same features that doesn't come with RIAA/MPAA baggage.
>I own and operate a movie theatre.
I go to movie theaters.
>Can you imagine what would happen if a lot of people started to bring their own popcorn and drinks to the show and quit purchasing it from the concession? The sound of a door being locked....
I already do this. Look for the guy with the crinkly stomach.
On that note, I've been to a lot of theaters where I hear "psssh..." (the sound of a can opening) over and over again before the show starts.
If you don't make any money on the ticket, I'm sorry to hear that. The tickets are usually well overpriced (IMHO as your customer) at $10 a pop to begin with, even if you aren't making any money. That's the reason why I won't chuck in another $5 - $10 for food. For $20 I can get a _lot_ more value than watching a movie at a theater. [In Canada, the movies come out for FREE on DirecTV a few months later anyways].
Of course, I quit going to the theater more than once a year when ticket prices went over $5 so maybe you don't have to worry about me. Or, if you're a prudent businessman, you will.
If you can get the ticket + food price to under $8 I'll see you monthly. $7 and I might be there weekly.
Your choice. As a consumer I'm just exercising my right to boycott your high prices (oh, and if you catch me coming in with outside food and kick me out, no big loss. You'll be refunding my ticket anyhow, and then I'll never come back no matter what your price is. Ever).
>Theft is still theft, even if its easy and there is no chance of getting caught.
:-)
Tough luck on that. I've never seen (decent) software in anything but a locked glass case in a store with on-duty personnel. Then again, considering what winzip sells for, maybe it isn't behind the glass case.
Or did you mean copyright violation? The dictionary very distinctly says it and theft are different things... I've never commited larceny (syn. theft) in my entire life. Ever.
However, being the imperfect being I am, I may have accidentally violated copyright or commited an act against software law by using winzip for longer than the trial period.
Sometimes, agreeably, the dictinary can be contrary, in which case it's probably prudent to take the base definitions and the dates into account. Older words whose base definitions have remained the same longer are, IMHO, considered more correct than "updated" definitions combining these words into a new meaning that doesn't resemble the base words whatsoever.
(This is post #666 right?
>Clearly, if civil rights have been "trashed", there must be endless examples.
McCarthyism. s/communist/terrorist/
QED.
>People that have something to say about this bill are either terrorists or have something to hide.
An AC saying that terrorists have something to hide. Now that's a hoot!
>It took me nearly 2-3 years to get a bonus
:-)
Wow. Took me a month (maybe two). I don't use it hardly at all, though.
Maybe I need to stop posting. Have I hit 666 yet?
>I wonder how it's possible to write a "Linux Emulation Layer" without using the Linux source in a way that violates the GPL.
Same way as Compaq did it to "clone" the IBM BIOS. Poke stuff in, see what happens. Read technical manuals deviod of code. Get engineers in that haven't already written GPL code (untainted).
Running (basic) Linux binaries will be easy in comparison to hacking a copy of a BIOS without any idea of what it does -- or so I'm thinking.