Is it possible to buy music online without lossy compression? On the basis of my admittedly limited search, on-line music all seems to be compressed using lossy algorithms. CDs (jazz, classical, fine recordings, etc.) provide such uncompressed/lossless source.
I'd like to have archival quality for the source music. Also, when playing discretely instrumented classical music on a good hi-fi, compression artifacts are sometimes noticeable.
Perhaps OT - but there are also combined cycle gas plants. They have both a "giant gas powered jet engine" and a steam plant. The exhaust from the gas turbine is used to boil the water in the steam plant. They extract a lot more useful work out of the fuel. In cold climes, the waste heat from said combined cycle plants can be used too to heat buildings, etc.
...but we have the glaring example of the government regulations helping the initial growth of the internet with net neutrality (the net was neutral in the 1990s).
That was then. Today's government seems to revel in Orwellian doublespeak (e.g., the PATRIOT act). So often they propose new laws to do one thing, but when enacted do another. They're now proposing new laws to enforce "net neutrality". I wager they will be anything but neutral.
... Net Neutrality is about preventing corporate control, not granting government control.
Given prior experience (e.g. mandatory purchase of medical insurance from corporations), how many here believe it'll end up as suggested in the above quote?
All that you mention involves passive viewing. For example, instead of critiquing CSI's poor make-believe science, engage in real science activities. How about looking at the mountains of the Moon through a telescope? Perhaps make said telescope first. Surely such interactive pastimes are more enriching and persistent. How about building and/or learning to fly a model airplane? Build a radio? A musical instrument? Engage in real activities instead of watching fiction.
I question the value of the shared experience involved in watching TV. Compare the collective experience of watching American Idol with your children to taking them out kayaking or caving, observing or building, playing musical instruments. To me, there's no comparison in relative value.
This is just me, of course, but I can think of very few activities exceeded in any value by the viewing of Jerry Springer.
In which case, I see no problem. But given what I see with my peers, and from reading any reasonable metric on the subject, you are not the rule but the exception.
I suspect that I'm going to be modded into oblivion with this comment. So be it.
TV* is an addiction that's sapping so many of time and energy. How important is Dancing with the Stars, Saturday Night Live and CSI:Whocareswhere? One of the better things that could happen to Western society, IMO, is that there'd be no more "interesting" TV. People would spend more time exercising, engaging in hobbies and talking with others.
I know, I know, everyone watches only three "quality" shows per week - all on the Discovery Channel, natch. That must be why the highest viewership numbers are for the most intellectually barren shows.
Over ten years ago, my wife and I ditched our TV. For the first couple of weeks, in the evenings we were at a loss. There was this "hole" in our lives. But once we got past the withdrawal symptoms, we realized how much we'd been hypnotized by the damned thing. We have so much more time now - and we're a lot fitter (back then I was quite the couch potato with the physique to match). When we visit friends who have TVs, watching proves to be quite boring (and at the same time amazing for how utterly moronic the commercials are - we're no longer desensitized I'm guessing).
Perhaps some will think that I'm a holier-than-thou elitist snob, lying about my lack of TV viewing in an attempt to elevate myself. Whatever. Just try ditching the thing for a few weeks. See what it's like. If you find that your life is really poorer, you can always go back to watching your shows.
Fire away.
*: I use the acronym "TV" now as the generic act of watching entertainment shows - regardless of medium.
The general population has lost much privacy and many freedoms. And the encroachment continues - accelerates even.
But the fault is ours. We gave it all away for the promise of cheap baubles, entertainment and security. So many click still on the "get rich quick" eMail scams. So many happily use credit/debit cards to buy every little thing. So many willingly surrender their privacy & dignity - all for the vacuous promise of security. And deity forbid one gets in the way of TV entertainment. Use that cable box/HD/DVR. Let Time Warner/Comcast or (hey!) AT&T monitor every button press.
I suspect many here would agree. But then, many here clamor also for regulation and control over other areas, giving the beast more power and money for the "unwanted" bugaboos. Yet this results the loss of more privacy and freedom - for everyone.
Perhaps my vantage point is clouded, but it looks like the experiment failed.
I've often seen sky trails that look like that - initially. Then, while continuing to watch, it becomes clear that they're just normal airliner contrails - with the planes often becoming visible as they pass by or overhead.
To me, it's clear that this trail is from over the horizon - spreading as it lingers. Without the advantage of stereo vision (no 3D at that distance), perspective can play interesting tricks.
As you identify, SCRAM jets work only in the atmosphere where it isn't practical to accelerate much beyond Mach 6. This is only a small fraction of the delta-V needed to get into orbit (not to mention a small fraction of the altitude necessary). The extra weight of the wings/lifting body shape and SCRAM components are a burden for most of the acceleration.
Regarding Skylon: as happened with the HOTOL design when it advanced, I suspect it will prove impractical if its design progresses. IMO the design is too big a leap - too many unknowns and assumptions.
Meanwhile, Atlas was 50 years ago nearly SSTO with the VT part of VTVL. And the DC-X demonstrated robustness and near-ground maneuverability in the early 90s (eventually succumbing to an undercarriage malfunction).
These considerations lead me to believe that a true SSTO vehicle will be in a non-airbreathing VTVL configuration. However, be it VTVL or HTHL, any practical SSTO will be a major advance I would welcome!
"Hybrid rocket engines cannot give you the mass fraction to get into orbit."
Staged hybrids are certainly capable of reaching orbit. If you mean SSTO, then I'm aware of no single stage rocket with the mass fraction to get into orbit - regardless of rocket motor used. The Atlas booster/rocket came close. Still, it dropped it's two outboard motors - leaving the central sustainer running to achieve orbital velocity.
There is no money in the trust fund. To quote from this government document: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf - "If in any year revenues are greater than costs, the Secretary of the Treasury, as Managing Trustee of the trust funds, is required to invest this positive annual balance (or cash flow surplus) in securities
backed by the U.S. government(3). The purchasing of the securities allows the surplus to be used for other government purposes(4)". Reference (4) goes on to say, "This is often referred to as 'borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.'".
So the trust fund contains in essence only IOUs.
Since there is effectively no differentiation between the SS monies and the general pool, interest is not being earned, but being paid on the net negative balance. If you isolate just the SS trust fund, then you're missing the whole picture (large total federal debt and its ongoing growth).
Not an issue of spending? This government spreadsheet of the most recent and prior federal budgets contradicts your claim: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist01z1.xls. Note how the growth in outlays out-paces the growth in revenue. Note the much bigger jump in outlays between 2008 and 2009 (nearly twice the magnitude of the drop in revenues over the same period).
"Worst case scenario - foreign treasury holders start dumping large amounts of US debt into the open market, and possibly severely devalue the dollar."
Putting politics aside, I don't see how this is avoidable. Federal debt is around $13x10^12. Depending upon what you include in your arithmetic, unfunded liabilities (such as SS) are between $50x10^12 and $10^13. Meanwhile, the US GDP is around $14x10^12. Yet deficit spending is not contracting, but accelerating.
On the subject of SS, the earliest baby boomers are drawing now on SS. There is no "lock box" holding SS funds - they were rolled into the general pool and spent a long time ago. The inflows were supposed to have exceeded outflows up to around 2017. They didn't - break-even was hit this year.
Short of a miracle invention tripling or quadrupling productivity (not impossible, but definitely in the class of "hail Mary"), there is no way I see around the problem short of dollar devaluation. How fast and how deep I don't think anyone can say. But it will be painful, both to those who have saved for their retirement and to those who live on the SS payments indexed to the obviously unrealistic CPI.
Section 76 (Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc.) came into force on 15 February 2009[3] making it an offence to elicit, attempt to elicit, or publish information "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"
Good grief. I was referring to the early contributions the UK made regarding freedom. Of course it wasn't perfect - nowhere was or is. Forgive me for lamenting the decline of a once great country.
It is a matter of historical fact that the parliamentary system with the House of Commons gave the citizen a voice in government. It is a matter of fact that said system was used as a model by many other countries in the world. It is a matter of fact that the UK is today stomping on individual liberty.
Oh, and how would I make the members of the House of Windsor do anything, given that I'm a US citizen?
I was referring in small part to the creation of the House of Commons and all that came with it.
I was referring also in small part to the UK abandoning slavery voluntarily, whereas the US fought a bitter war over the issue (nominally at least).
Finally, I refer to the UK declaring war against, well, Godwin prevents me from identifying which country invaded Poland.:-)
Let us not forget that the US derived its governmental system in part from the British - while the French were replacing their royalty with another despotic regime.
... yet government cameras are everywhere, can't keep data private (nor, as I understand it - have a full right to remain silent), can't get DNA samples removed upon acquittal (despite EU court directive), proposals for Inland Revenue to take paychecks and forward to the wage earner what's left, proposal to tax graduates at a higher rate, etc., etc., etc.
Of course, the UK is not unique in much of this. But what makes these examples so sad for me is how the UK was the foundation for much of what one might consider Western freedom. It fought the good fight against totalitarianism (let's not Godwin this). I don't think those who struggled back then would consider all this to be what they were struggling *for*.
What the mans says is true. Yet people still buy and use the products (including many here on/.). Given that there exist alternatives, people must be OK with the compromise (design/"sexiness" vs openness).
We each have a most powerful weapon against such authoritarian control - do not buy the offending company's product. No-one truly needs an iPhone. Either go without or buy a more open alternative.
... but how do these "trawlers" get to see what's on, say, a Facebook page if viewing permission has been given only to a limited set of trusted people? Does Facebook permit trawlers access to such restricted information? Do they use subterfuge to get past the restrictions? How?
... much of the flying hardware designs are decades old too - but this is IMO due to so much of it relying on govt funding or govt being a primary customer. It seems that there might be progress on this front, though - with the like of Musk, Bigelow and perhaps even Branson (suborbital now - but it's a good start).
Guidance computers do not need to be terribly powerful - they need to be reliable. Witness what happened to the first Ariane 5 launch. It wasn't very long ago that the venerable COSMAC 1802 gave way in space platforms to more recent CPU/MCU designs. While quirky, it was well understood and inherently resistant to radiation upset.
Amazon doesn't delete files? Oh dear. I suggest you check that one again.
Given your absolute assertions (truth by edict) and seemingly constant need to appear "superior", I suspect that you are relatively young. Also, your faith in the "establishment" betrays a lack of experience in how nasty the real world can be.
Fortunately, where I live now is relatively tolerant of free choice (for the moment). You no doubt will continue to use your wonderful Kindle, and I'll choose to put up with my antiquated and inconvenient books. Good day to you.
Yes, I understand. And no, you did NOT address it. If you have "recalled" books on your Kindle, they'd be deleted every time you connected to Amazon. Now, perhaps you can constantly reload them from your backup device. But if you must descend to doing that, I'd call it a fail.
Comparing this situation to other software is irrelevant. I am comparing it to paper books - which cannot be remotely deleted.
Giving someone else the ability to delete remotely my books is a big deal to me. One day, it might be to you as well.
Was it necessary to mock me? Perhaps I value my reading privacy more than you do yours because I once lived in a country where having the wrong book on you could land you in jail.
By the way, I see you didn't address my final and overarching reservation regarding DRM. Perhaps you are OK with having books deleted without your permission. I'm not.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it possible to buy music online without lossy compression? On the basis of my admittedly limited search, on-line music all seems to be compressed using lossy algorithms. CDs (jazz, classical, fine recordings, etc.) provide such uncompressed/lossless source.
I'd like to have archival quality for the source music. Also, when playing discretely instrumented classical music on a good hi-fi, compression artifacts are sometimes noticeable.
Perhaps OT - but there are also combined cycle gas plants. They have both a "giant gas powered jet engine" and a steam plant. The exhaust from the gas turbine is used to boil the water in the steam plant. They extract a lot more useful work out of the fuel. In cold climes, the waste heat from said combined cycle plants can be used too to heat buildings, etc.
Anyways, my $0.02.
...but we have the glaring example of the government regulations helping the initial growth of the internet with net neutrality (the net was neutral in the 1990s).
That was then. Today's government seems to revel in Orwellian doublespeak (e.g., the PATRIOT act). So often they propose new laws to do one thing, but when enacted do another. They're now proposing new laws to enforce "net neutrality". I wager they will be anything but neutral.
... Net Neutrality is about preventing corporate control, not granting government control.
Given prior experience (e.g. mandatory purchase of medical insurance from corporations), how many here believe it'll end up as suggested in the above quote?
The identification of the rare non-TV-owner as the subject of humor/ridicule is in itself is very telling.
All that you mention involves passive viewing. For example, instead of critiquing CSI's poor make-believe science, engage in real science activities. How about looking at the mountains of the Moon through a telescope? Perhaps make said telescope first. Surely such interactive pastimes are more enriching and persistent. How about building and/or learning to fly a model airplane? Build a radio? A musical instrument? Engage in real activities instead of watching fiction.
I question the value of the shared experience involved in watching TV. Compare the collective experience of watching American Idol with your children to taking them out kayaking or caving, observing or building, playing musical instruments. To me, there's no comparison in relative value.
This is just me, of course, but I can think of very few activities exceeded in any value by the viewing of Jerry Springer.
In which case, I see no problem. But given what I see with my peers, and from reading any reasonable metric on the subject, you are not the rule but the exception.
I suspect that I'm going to be modded into oblivion with this comment. So be it.
TV* is an addiction that's sapping so many of time and energy. How important is Dancing with the Stars, Saturday Night Live and CSI:Whocareswhere? One of the better things that could happen to Western society, IMO, is that there'd be no more "interesting" TV. People would spend more time exercising, engaging in hobbies and talking with others.
I know, I know, everyone watches only three "quality" shows per week - all on the Discovery Channel, natch. That must be why the highest viewership numbers are for the most intellectually barren shows.
Over ten years ago, my wife and I ditched our TV. For the first couple of weeks, in the evenings we were at a loss. There was this "hole" in our lives. But once we got past the withdrawal symptoms, we realized how much we'd been hypnotized by the damned thing. We have so much more time now - and we're a lot fitter (back then I was quite the couch potato with the physique to match). When we visit friends who have TVs, watching proves to be quite boring (and at the same time amazing for how utterly moronic the commercials are - we're no longer desensitized I'm guessing).
Perhaps some will think that I'm a holier-than-thou elitist snob, lying about my lack of TV viewing in an attempt to elevate myself. Whatever. Just try ditching the thing for a few weeks. See what it's like. If you find that your life is really poorer, you can always go back to watching your shows.
Fire away.
*: I use the acronym "TV" now as the generic act of watching entertainment shows - regardless of medium.
The general population has lost much privacy and many freedoms. And the encroachment continues - accelerates even.
But the fault is ours. We gave it all away for the promise of cheap baubles, entertainment and security. So many click still on the "get rich quick" eMail scams. So many happily use credit/debit cards to buy every little thing. So many willingly surrender their privacy & dignity - all for the vacuous promise of security. And deity forbid one gets in the way of TV entertainment. Use that cable box/HD/DVR. Let Time Warner/Comcast or (hey!) AT&T monitor every button press.
I suspect many here would agree. But then, many here clamor also for regulation and control over other areas, giving the beast more power and money for the "unwanted" bugaboos. Yet this results the loss of more privacy and freedom - for everyone.
Perhaps my vantage point is clouded, but it looks like the experiment failed.
I've often seen sky trails that look like that - initially. Then, while continuing to watch, it becomes clear that they're just normal airliner contrails - with the planes often becoming visible as they pass by or overhead.
To me, it's clear that this trail is from over the horizon - spreading as it lingers. Without the advantage of stereo vision (no 3D at that distance), perspective can play interesting tricks.
As you identify, SCRAM jets work only in the atmosphere where it isn't practical to accelerate much beyond Mach 6. This is only a small fraction of the delta-V needed to get into orbit (not to mention a small fraction of the altitude necessary). The extra weight of the wings/lifting body shape and SCRAM components are a burden for most of the acceleration.
Regarding Skylon: as happened with the HOTOL design when it advanced, I suspect it will prove impractical if its design progresses. IMO the design is too big a leap - too many unknowns and assumptions.
Meanwhile, Atlas was 50 years ago nearly SSTO with the VT part of VTVL. And the DC-X demonstrated robustness and near-ground maneuverability in the early 90s (eventually succumbing to an undercarriage malfunction).
These considerations lead me to believe that a true SSTO vehicle will be in a non-airbreathing VTVL configuration. However, be it VTVL or HTHL, any practical SSTO will be a major advance I would welcome!
"Hybrid rocket engines cannot give you the mass fraction to get into orbit."
Staged hybrids are certainly capable of reaching orbit. If you mean SSTO, then I'm aware of no single stage rocket with the mass fraction to get into orbit - regardless of rocket motor used. The Atlas booster/rocket came close. Still, it dropped it's two outboard motors - leaving the central sustainer running to achieve orbital velocity.
There is no money in the trust fund. To quote from this government document: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf - "If in any year revenues are greater than costs, the Secretary of the Treasury, as Managing Trustee of the trust funds, is required to invest this positive annual balance (or cash flow surplus) in securities backed by the U.S. government(3). The purchasing of the securities allows the surplus to be used for other government purposes(4)". Reference (4) goes on to say, "This is often referred to as 'borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.'". So the trust fund contains in essence only IOUs.
Since there is effectively no differentiation between the SS monies and the general pool, interest is not being earned, but being paid on the net negative balance. If you isolate just the SS trust fund, then you're missing the whole picture (large total federal debt and its ongoing growth).
Further, SS ran a deficit this year: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html. Deficits are expected to grow rapidly after 2014 - read the document. But even had this recent downturn not happened, the situation is still dire. Here is a chart showing the problem - made before the recent increases in federal outflows: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png.
Not an issue of spending? This government spreadsheet of the most recent and prior federal budgets contradicts your claim: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist01z1.xls. Note how the growth in outlays out-paces the growth in revenue. Note the much bigger jump in outlays between 2008 and 2009 (nearly twice the magnitude of the drop in revenues over the same period).
"Worst case scenario - foreign treasury holders start dumping large amounts of US debt into the open market, and possibly severely devalue the dollar."
Putting politics aside, I don't see how this is avoidable. Federal debt is around $13x10^12. Depending upon what you include in your arithmetic, unfunded liabilities (such as SS) are between $50x10^12 and $10^13. Meanwhile, the US GDP is around $14x10^12. Yet deficit spending is not contracting, but accelerating.
On the subject of SS, the earliest baby boomers are drawing now on SS. There is no "lock box" holding SS funds - they were rolled into the general pool and spent a long time ago. The inflows were supposed to have exceeded outflows up to around 2017. They didn't - break-even was hit this year.
Short of a miracle invention tripling or quadrupling productivity (not impossible, but definitely in the class of "hail Mary"), there is no way I see around the problem short of dollar devaluation. How fast and how deep I don't think anyone can say. But it will be painful, both to those who have saved for their retirement and to those who live on the SS payments indexed to the obviously unrealistic CPI.
Practically speaking, you can't. See Section 76:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Terrorism_Act_2008
Practically speaking, not really:
Section 76 (Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc.) came into force on 15 February 2009[3] making it an offence to elicit, attempt to elicit, or publish information "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Terrorism_Act_2008
Good grief. I was referring to the early contributions the UK made regarding freedom. Of course it wasn't perfect - nowhere was or is. Forgive me for lamenting the decline of a once great country.
It is a matter of historical fact that the parliamentary system with the House of Commons gave the citizen a voice in government. It is a matter of fact that said system was used as a model by many other countries in the world. It is a matter of fact that the UK is today stomping on individual liberty.
Oh, and how would I make the members of the House of Windsor do anything, given that I'm a US citizen?
I was referring in small part to the creation of the House of Commons and all that came with it.
I was referring also in small part to the UK abandoning slavery voluntarily, whereas the US fought a bitter war over the issue (nominally at least).
Finally, I refer to the UK declaring war against, well, Godwin prevents me from identifying which country invaded Poland. :-)
Let us not forget that the US derived its governmental system in part from the British - while the French were replacing their royalty with another despotic regime.
Of course, the UK is not unique in much of this. But what makes these examples so sad for me is how the UK was the foundation for much of what one might consider Western freedom. It fought the good fight against totalitarianism (let's not Godwin this). I don't think those who struggled back then would consider all this to be what they were struggling *for*.
Will this constant erosion of freedom ever stop?
What the mans says is true. Yet people still buy and use the products (including many here on /.). Given that there exist alternatives, people must be OK with the compromise (design/"sexiness" vs openness).
We each have a most powerful weapon against such authoritarian control - do not buy the offending company's product. No-one truly needs an iPhone. Either go without or buy a more open alternative.
... but how do these "trawlers" get to see what's on, say, a Facebook page if viewing permission has been given only to a limited set of trusted people? Does Facebook permit trawlers access to such restricted information? Do they use subterfuge to get past the restrictions? How?
... much of the flying hardware designs are decades old too - but this is IMO due to so much of it relying on govt funding or govt being a primary customer. It seems that there might be progress on this front, though - with the like of Musk, Bigelow and perhaps even Branson (suborbital now - but it's a good start). Guidance computers do not need to be terribly powerful - they need to be reliable. Witness what happened to the first Ariane 5 launch. It wasn't very long ago that the venerable COSMAC 1802 gave way in space platforms to more recent CPU/MCU designs. While quirky, it was well understood and inherently resistant to radiation upset.
Amazon doesn't delete files? Oh dear. I suggest you check that one again.
Given your absolute assertions (truth by edict) and seemingly constant need to appear "superior", I suspect that you are relatively young. Also, your faith in the "establishment" betrays a lack of experience in how nasty the real world can be.
Fortunately, where I live now is relatively tolerant of free choice (for the moment). You no doubt will continue to use your wonderful Kindle, and I'll choose to put up with my antiquated and inconvenient books. Good day to you.
Yes, I understand. And no, you did NOT address it. If you have "recalled" books on your Kindle, they'd be deleted every time you connected to Amazon. Now, perhaps you can constantly reload them from your backup device. But if you must descend to doing that, I'd call it a fail.
Comparing this situation to other software is irrelevant. I am comparing it to paper books - which cannot be remotely deleted.
Giving someone else the ability to delete remotely my books is a big deal to me. One day, it might be to you as well.
Was it necessary to mock me? Perhaps I value my reading privacy more than you do yours because I once lived in a country where having the wrong book on you could land you in jail.
By the way, I see you didn't address my final and overarching reservation regarding DRM. Perhaps you are OK with having books deleted without your permission. I'm not.