Why would anyone spend $350 on a pair of headphones? I typically spend $10 to $20 for headphones.
if you have perfect pitch and notice a lot of stuff most don't and it bothers you it is worth it. It is more than just psychological, some folks have much higher density mapping in certain areas of the brain and will be oversensitive compared to average on such things. They are a very small portion of the market though and many work in industry fields where they can get the gear paid for via work. I do notice such things myself but find many who tell me they can tell such differences can't and it is more more money = better which is myth. Bose are shite. You don't get what you pay for, you get NO MORE than what you pay for, in bose case you pay very high price for low value headphone.
Just because you don't notice the difference doesn't mean no-one else will, conversely many who say they can often just think that but cannot as pychology plays a part it just isn't the only factor in every case. Same reason pro musician may spend a LOT for say a Dominique Peccatte violin where average person cannot tell the difference between a student level generic one and that. The difference exists just most wont notice it, and some buy it because they know it is chosen by those who do hear such differences.
I know you're joking of course but they still use leeches in mainstream medicine, used to be niche but they made a wider use comeback in the 90's. They have obvious benefits such as restore bloodflow in reconstructive surgeries where there would be loss of tissue from hypoxia etc but there is less obvious benefits. Not just when they're stimulating the bloodflow directly but after they're removed there is continued effects from the antithrombins they inject (Hirudin and something, I forget the other compound) which reduces need for systemic drug treatments in some cases. Quite a few places supply them such as Biopharm.
....A lot of people accept this situation, I contribute it to our declining education, wages and salaries. I'm seeing more and more people just accept the way things are, I don't see people saying "No way, I don't want it this way"......
I think it is because it is normalised to them. They understand very little of the complexity behind things and take stuff on a superficial level and basically have lazy minds and don't want to learn or think just follow, also a short term view with no real long term self view never mind historical before their time considerations. Basically the companies erode such rights slowly, ever creeping forward over our rights etc until there is grumbling then they back off, rinse repeate until paying to get shafted by them is so normal no-one thinks anything of it.
History has proven time and time again from global and mainstream to the local or niche scale that is how you exploit people. I used to think anyone could understand a given thing when provided with facts and a little motivation, I don't believe that now. Very few I know personally really seem able to look at something for the facts rather than simply trying to find an answer that they feel comfortable with for ego or ease whatever. Those that do have desire for facts have another obstacle in that they lack the deeper knowledge of the subject and good working knowledge of related subjects because of interactions things can often change from what they seem big picture. So they need the wish along with ability to understand in context of the topic with greater knowledge of related subjects and background and education to properly process it.
For the ones with the potential a few take it but most of those other I find all the benefits their education and industry experience opens up to them is undone by signs of conditioning and conforming out of laziness of not wanting to figure something out but be told the answer. I don't mean this as dramatic as it sounds but makes me sad truth be told as I think at this rate we have no chance against constant eroding of the little peoples rights over corp profit and control.
If you really want good sleep, find work where you can set your own hours and then sleep whenever you like. I never had any luck trying to force sleep, but being able to choose when to sleep works great.
that works in delayed or advanced sleep phase disorders really well if people can manage it. Delayed sleep phase disorders is surprisingly common and advanced not far behind so shifts or odd hour work can be perfect when matched to those. Some things like my own are more disruptive because they are out of sync at the reset point and move. Basically I start at delayed and move through over time to point it hits advanced phase point. Then I stop sleeping completely, even at times where I had weeks I could sleep whenever I couldn't because of SLIGHT light and sound in daylight hours. I'm over sensitive to some light and noise due to unrelated conditions so can't just zone it out like neurotypical "normal" would. Then the lack of sleep screws me to the point I have lot of other problems, eventually got to work hours that suit my reset point and got doc that was clinically brilliant compared to the norm and helped work something out rather so intervention is not needed daily now like living on modafinil,zopiclone/zolpidem etc etc which never actually fixed things because they created other problems or changed the existing one rather than remove it. Sadly the only cure I can think of in my case is get a new brain which is not yet possible and I like some of the side effect quirks of being oddly wired I guess.
A couple years at most, then the next big thing will be the new "status symbol".
Granted, I'm a morning person, but if you want good sleep, go to bed at the same time every night and wake up at the same time as much as possible. No sleeping in on days off.
that is an over simplification sadly and not true for many who have problem just because it is for you. There are a lot of causes of sleep problems and insomnia is more of a catchall generic term. I have disruptive sleep phase disorder myself and my "natural" peak and trough alertness times (associated with sleep ease) linked to circadian rhythm changes as it doesn't map neatly to the normal 24 hour ; in environmental queues present every day environments, I mean I know it goes longer for the typical folks when queues removed. It isn't mental thing either as can be monitored as core tmep changes and lot of physiological as well as mental changes. Mine is delayed as I'm late compared to norm BUT it has a habit of drifting forward to the point I need resetting because it goes waaay out over time.
My doc is VERY clinically competent and up to date on research and knows my background but since a kid for 30odd years I'd found a lot of none specialised doctors simply don't have the theory and don't understand it as well as they should and have a very basic understanding of the biochem and neuro side of things as well as specific sleep disorders in general, more a trouble sleeping = stress or routine which is not always true as is proven (objectively I mean not just uncontrolled self observation or self diagnosis).
There are a LOT of factors, cortisol and adrenaline levels get mentioned linked to stress, as does melatonin and inhibition with blue light (and close UV perhaps) often gets blamed in other cases. There are whole host of neurotransmitters invloved though and inblalances can throw stuff out. On top of it disorders like my own make people naturally different due to different neurological wiring so the issue is NOT fixed by routine and relaxation sadly. Even the try it longer shutdown since doing that for 30odd years and still exact same problem but treating it on case by case basis properly fixes the issues mostly or gets around them.
.
Who the hell would put an IoT device in the same VLAN with other network equipment? "Professionals" who cause these massive security issues and effectively shoot themselves in the foot deserve every second of pain and hardship they run into.
blame is partly on the "professionals" but that will never change. There will always be such incompetence in low level competency IT positions especially for inhouse in a none tech business and where budget for that stuff is low. Lost count of how many times I had to troubleshoot such idiocy from so called network professionals when management asked me to step in and sort the issues but management STILL don't listen despite admitting proof of the incompetence they wont change.
More needs to be done from the side of IoT vendors and others in the supply chain end to start making a dent in this issue or these stories wont go away no matter who installs them there will always be major weakness in the chain. Many don't even attempt to secure never mind harden the devices properly and they have no financial or legal incentive to... yet. IoT things wont go away and we need to start having proper encryption implementation plus authentication implementation so not just anyone who gets access can make changes to config (some devices send auth info cleartext so goes hand in hand with former point). System for patching and a way to push this, network isolation considerations both advising proper setup like this case didn't have as well as controlling what data they leak to EVERYTHING on home so less likely to be a weak link to own another device from within. The latter point sure some thigns need to communicate and be aware of each other but there is ways of doing that properly; such as proper handshake needed between such devices and way to determine and config what info what can share with what and when. Or making the requests go through a controller/smart hub as the middleman that is far more hardened with regard to such things. Sadly although this stuff will ocme I do not see it happening soon.
Laziness and impatience drives obscene profit margins within the coffee industry. It's still fairly easy to still spend pennies on a cup of coffee, if you're willing to get off your ass, grind a few beans, and brew a cup......... Starbucks or shove a pod into a machine to whip up a coffee-like substance.
Couldn't agree more, if they bothered not only would they get it cheaper but also better. Starbucks and pods are both average coffee for way above average price, the beans are sometimes good at the start but have spoiled in treatment: cheap air dry process like a lot of African can collect a lot of crap (literally) and often not processed properly and can go off, wet process tends to be better but can also be done wrong. The off flavours are often due to this cheap processing bacterial/mould issue rather than the bean itself. A lot are over roasted too without fine control leading to burned flavour.
If you work out your routine it isn't as much messing as people think. I do it the most inconvenient way but even that is fine with some forward thinking. A lot of the compounds that don't lead to good flavour in large amounts are extracted much much easier with boiling vs cold water, you can get a better balance of them with slow cold extract. I use a french press for most my coffee, know roughly how much I drink a day and prepare all of it day before with warm water after grinding to right size to extract how I want. Cover to stop oxidising, leave out for a little while then put in fridge over night and next day is just a quick microwave and instant coffee that taste amazing, most coffee snobs comment on it being unbelievably good and and I tell them I'm using same beans as them or worse and they are surprised and often start doing it the same way. It takes minutes to grind beans (I have no roaster yet) and that is going slow/pulsing with frozen beans to stop the burning that none burr grinders can suffer from; do enough for a week and back in the freezer tightly sealed it goes and it means this most time consuming method takes about 5min extra a week vs pods for a fraction of the cost and better taste and is just as quick with less work (pour and heat = done) on the actual preparing a cup in the morn/day.
There are even quicker methods with less messing, just I get the best results from this and it is so little extra to do it is worth it to me. Plenty of expresso machines available that will do fast extract with a nice even lower pressure to get ristretto quality shots which you can make anything from long black/flat white/capuchinno etc with if that is your thing. Part the problem people have is they use a bad machine with too high a temp raw uncontrolled pressure machine that is too high at start and drops rapidly so drags out extract time and more of the harsh compounds you want less of (some is good for flavour) and scorches the favourable [wanted in high ratio] ones and they blame the bean or compare it to a pod machine that is using finer grounds with faster extract. As for time tamping a shot in a portafilter is just as quick as a pod and spent grounds come out like a hockey puck with 1 bang so again they compare to pods as low mess option. Like you say it is laziness for the most part.
My laptop has 64GB RAM, a 2TB SSD, a 7th generation i7 and dual GTX 1080 in SLI. It runs Gentoo / Windows 7 Ultimate dual boot. It's probably more capable than your desktop.
urmmm got news for you but laptop i7 are NOT equivalent of desktops except in marketing speak. The gtx 1080
is also the m version I'm guessing so my similar spec desktop on Win7ult and arch is actually better than your laptop despite lookign the same from marketing pov. Also I have several internal SSD's and mech drives on top of my externals.
Now as for what the article was asking for, seems rather specialized. No one is going to do some specialized work for free so the requester can make tones of money off of it, even if it is open source.
It seems specialised, but if you break down the task, what the OP's friend wants is: 1) a GPU pixel-shader filter for video editing and 2) a video editor UI that doesn't have any extraneous fluff, but just runs a single filter on a single file and generates an output file.
To me, that cuts to the core problem in OSS in my book -- there are large-scale projects that try to deliver a fully-featured package and there are ad hoc projects that produce a small-scale tool for a particular task, but aren't particularly user friendly, and aren't very flexible.
There are probably still plenty of packages out there that can be used in the old-school Unix pipes way, but they're getting harder and harder to find.
hmm seems like asking someone to reinvent the wheel to me, I could be wrong but why does it need to be so particular? He wants it as an output video file and there is a mass of software both free (as in beer), proprietarry and fos that will do whatever you want to video I'm guessing. Not saying he needs to use adobe but there are equivalents, I use it for photo and vid though thus mentiuon it. The industry standard software if likely to do what is needed just fine so why all the messing with this, sounds like someone who doesn't understand vid editing wanting a free lunch to me.
NLE, compositing and grading tools are likely to do what he wants for less money than paying devs for such a niche thing, even things like adobe speedgrade/aftereffects/premierpro can be made to do it without all the "fluff" if you if you have auto batch action like apply some lut or whatever then just queue it and send to the encoder stack, you can apply such workflows in single click from bridge once you've set it up so it could not be more simple. Likewise there are free and foss solutions that will do similar.
CDC testing subsequently revealed the germ was New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase -- a highly resistant form of CRE
It should at least read "revealed the germ CONTAINED New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase". NDM-1 is not a bacteria, it's an enzyme possessed by resistant bacteria that inactivates antibiotics.
What's really fun is that this gene can potentially be transferred to other types of bacteria laterally...
I was about to comment on that until read your comment. It is indeed plasmid mediated gene transfer so can be passed to unrelated diseases. Given the track record of hospitals with not following basic operating proceedures properly I wouldn't be surprised if this does come into contact with other pathogens and we'll have yet another treatment resistant batch of diseases. The rate we're going we'll have treatment proof never mind resistant pathogens soon. Wouldn't be surprised if there was more outbreaks that origniate from within the hospital rather than from the patient prehospitalisation period. People are so lackadaisical with anti contamination proceedures etc, I've see lab workers whos idea of perfect aseptic technique is barely a step above licking your fingers (twice) and wiping them on your labcoat and medical staff including doctors who are even more lazy.
Me too. Onkyo receiver and Dali Zensors, nothing at all fancy FLAC played over DLNA. Definite improvement (yes this is subjective) over purchased mp3s but with your own encoded mp3 at 320kbps vbr, any perceived difference is psychological.
The real beauty of FLAC for me though is simply ripping your CDs to FLAC, dumping them ona network share and using the FLAC as input for transcoding to whatever lossless format you want.
For the unititiated, FLAC is essentially ZIP for audio
you're right but there is more to it, sometimes it is unfair comparissons of apples to oranges since different decoders etc can play back those files differently. What people are hearing a difference between is the particular audio chains efficiency at playing back different formats accurately. On correctly rigged gear with proper hardware and software where there is no difference I have found hardly any listeners can tell the difference. I have perfect pitch and range but only hear it on some very complex music through gear costing more than most peoples cars, and the difference is VERY slight. For archiving flac is superior, for devices that have better flac playback or where listeners can hear the minor difference in very complex tracks flac is superior but most the people making the night/day difference noise are wrong; whether they know it is another thing as it is often subconscious psychological thing or due to not understanding the audio chain on a complex level. I suspect I have higher density of brain wiring where it counts for noticing this kind of thing and it is only slight to me, I'm high functioning autistic with savant traits and in the miniscule percentile with IQ over 150 and can percieve a lot of these things due to higher density of wiring in those areas like I say so average people are less likely to notice the difference. The big picture is often neglected and not taking into account the whole audio chain. Like people commenting on telling opamps etc apart, you can of course but even the same ones sound different put into a different chain and people often compared this as it it is just that link and add psycholoical bias on top.
Nothing fancy. I can hear a definite difference between FLAC and MP3 files on my old Marantz receiver with some JBL speakers.
in double blind tests I find those who say they can hear difference can't actually tell the difference with average music files with mp3 encoded PROPERLY. I do use flac but it depends on the content. I have perfect pitch and range too and the difference is there played with likes of JHA JH11's through a good DAC etc only on some files, for others it is transparent and I cannot tell in double blind tests on all files.
Most people compare apples to oranges such as What you might be hearing a difference between is the decoder since depending on the firmware/hardware (most don't do it in hardware these days especially), the rest of the chain such as dac used etc etc different formats can be played back worse/better than others. Even when apples to apples it is complicated by psychological imagined differenc. It isn't wishful thinking or an insult but subconscious actualyl percieved difference so I'm not saying people are lying just that trained listeners can be tricked even due to actually hearing a none existent difference, the brain is tricky like that; it actually works that way with other senses not just audio and is common in smell and taste.
LOL! That's all it EVER is with audio. Same with vinyl.
You don't see movie lovers going back to VHS/BETA/Laserdisc/8mm/etc. unless there's a specific release limited to those formats (Star Wars on LD, for example). And then it's a Herculean effort to transfer it faithfully to a modern format.
that isn't true. Maybe that is all it EVER is with audio if you're basing it on discussion of none experts in non audio mastering forums. Peoples ignorance is understandable since they have no experience of it and they don't need to know but there is reasons why vinyl is valid to some. Sadly you wont hear those reasons from audiphiles and hipster twats who make hte most noise to the general public and make most the sales up. The real reasons are linked to things like the dynamic range compression and improper limiters like brickwalling things to death. Not everyone notices either since they are ignorant of what to look for, they don't have perfect range and pitch, they don't have the gear to reproduce formats close to what they're capable of and so on so myths on both sides get repeated. Sadly marketing and cliched myths are commonly heard among "normal" people including audiophiles and the facts get buried in the noise. Also when it comes to gear it isn't necessarily about money as you often don't get what you pay for.
Next CDs will make a comeback. Even retro hipterism can't save the 8-track though.
As I said elsewhere there is a reason vinyl is popular, not because it is inherently superior but because of bad audio engineering practises and dicks like rick rubin. Containers capabilities are one thing but often the content is nowhere near (like 5bit in a 16bit container). Part the reaon it made a comeback is hipster twats I admit (most the reason I'd guess) BUT some makes sense in that vinyl tends to be mastered properly and isn't brickwalled to fuck so actually ends up higher spec than CDaudio despite the fact vinyl "container" is inferior to CD/digital container formats. Look up the dynamic range on something like loudnesswars database or somewhere and compare the same album on vinyl release to the cd and digital download editions and you'll see vinyl is often mastered properly. I'm no audiophile (snakeoil and too much money for the most part) but I do use very good gear and hear the difference. Even on the go I use multiBA iem's and good cans and system to drive them at home because I have perfect range and perfect pitch and I notice stuff like that; some CD rips are unlistenable to me compared to the vinyl rip.
Now comparing properly done 16bit/44.1KHz digital file to vinyl yeah digital will always be superior, sadly the mastering a significant amount of releases totally negates that benefit. Sadly many don't realise how bad these things have gotten especially if they don't have perfect hearing and don't have systems to reproduce the difference and the theory doesn't always fit real world. Same happens when people say 24bit audio is pointless when it is far from it, in LISTENING you cannot tell the difference but in editing I notice the difference because there is MUCH more overhead with 24bit vs 16bit and with a complex workflow it really can help, the problem is people without full knowledge of audio work judge based on idiots who claim they can hear differences rather than people who need the extra headroom (simple workflows with little/no complex dsp it isn't needed tbh).
It didn't stop vinyl from coming back when it is objectively a worse format than a CD.
ish.... you're mistaking the containers capabilities with the content. Part the reaon it made a comeback is hipster twats I admit (most the reason I'd guess) BUT some makes sense in that vinyl tends to be mastered properly and isn't brickwalled to fuck so actually ends up higher spec than CDaudio despite the fact vinyl "container" is inferior to CD/digital container formats. Look up the dynamic range on something like loudnesswars database or somewhere and compare the same album on vinyl release to the cd and digital download editions and you'll see vinyl is often mastered properly. I'm no audiophile (snakeoil and too much money for the most part) but I do use very good gear and hear the difference. Even on the go I use multiBA iem's and good cans and system to drive them at home because I have perfect range and perfect pitch and I notice stuff like that; some CD rips are unlistenable to me compared to the vinyl rip.
Now comparing properly done 16bit/44.1KHz digital file to vinyl yeah digital will always be superior, sadly the mastering a significant amount of releases totally negates that benefit. Sadly many don't realise how bad these things have gotten especially if they don't have perfect hearing and don't have systems to reproduce the difference and the theory doesn't always fit real world. Same happens when people say 24bit audio is pointless when it is far from it, in LISTENING you cannot tell the difference but in editing I notice the difference because there is MUCH more overhead with 24bit vs 16bit and with a complex workflow it really can help, the problem is people without full knowledge of audio work judge based on idiots who claim they can hear differences rather than people who need the extra headroom (simple workflows with little/no complex dsp it isn't needed tbh).
You use baking soda + oil (or human fat, in case of Fight Club) to make soap.
as mentioned saponification depends on strong base like NaOH or KOH used in soap making. Secondly "fight club" is waaaay off in many regards and is to be taken at entertainment value alone so don't try and draw any real life knowledge from it(I found the book not much more accurate). I used to make soaps years ago (as hobby my formal background is biochem). For instance animal fats are often way too soft alone and do not make the best soaps unlike claimed in fight club. Sodium rendered soaps tend to be harder and potassium salts softer but lathering and bubble stability, solubiulity and so on can be affected differently so many use a blend of fats and KOH and NaOH (soapcalc will give you amounts needed if interested BUT you need to superfat really for most soap so don't want complete saponification) . You'll find a lot of sodium tallowate soaps (ie. just NaOH and animal fat) need other ingredients added to make them soft enough for most folks.
sorry meant hard enough for most folks on the tallowate it is really soft soap generally (usually sodium palmate firms it up for commercial soap)
You use baking soda + oil (or human fat, in case of Fight Club) to make soap.
as mentioned saponification depends on strong base like NaOH or KOH used in soap making. Secondly "fight club" is waaaay off in many regards and is to be taken at entertainment value alone so don't try and draw any real life knowledge from it(I found the book not much more accurate). I used to make soaps years ago (as hobby my formal background is biochem). For instance animal fats are often way too soft alone and do not make the best soaps unlike claimed in fight club. Sodium rendered soaps tend to be harder and potassium salts softer but lathering and bubble stability, solubiulity and so on can be affected differently so many use a blend of fats and KOH and NaOH (soapcalc will give you amounts needed if interested BUT you need to superfat really for most soap so don't want complete saponification) . You'll find a lot of sodium tallowate soaps (ie. just NaOH and animal fat) need other ingredients added to make them soft enough for most folks.
I think this just reminds you that Kodak missed the boat a long time ago, and is left to ride a fad of a few hipsters / nostalgic fans who will provide some short-lived interest for an old product (an admittedly good one, in its day). Perhaps it will gain a small cult following, or sustained dedicated small fan base.
But any professional or even many amateurs know that given a good linear sensor and quality lens, you can recreate any color warmth or feeling of film you want, after taking the shot, and you don't have to wait 3 days of dunking film in a developing tank to find out how it turned out.
Heck, I (and every other smartphone user) can re-create every film response I want with Instagram or Photoshop. That was Instagram's whole point originally. Is it really worth it to pay $10 extra and several days wait for 36 shots, just to that broadcast to others that I still use film? Followed by scanning in the photo to post it on Facebook? Real analog there, huh?
exactly, only reason to shoot film still is for large or medium format becasue you can't afford digital equivalent. Even then Pentax 645Z now fills that niche on the budget end for the MF folks and would trash film equivalent. Those with a NEED for MF couldn't get the results they need with film TBH compared to hassy and phaseone backs/MF bodies.I got rid of my film slr gear years ago and never looked back. I am not pro as I don't do it for living but digital can do everything film could and better. I'm mainly indoor multi monoblock studio shooter (not for money but passionate hobby for the most part) but do some night astro and cityscape stuff too. The astro work of caoturing DSO with stacks wasn't possible in film days but the latter was only now no reciprosity failure isn't a thing. My dad worked for Kodak and taught me a lot since a young age and I just kept it up and it became a serious passion so it isn't like I never had film experience since that was what I knew first.
Modern sensors are something film cannot match since colour curves in ACR/Photoshop or Capture1 (I use both) can simulate any film response. Coupled with the better modern glass plus improvements in micromirrors and sensors means detail is off the charts compared to film, same with DR, noise/grain and chroma accuracy and gamuts, plus conveniences like no need to use filters in b&w due to bayer array, no need to use different whitebalanced film (or even bother with whibal card since can do it in post if shoot raw, yeah some say you still need to as histogram is affected by whitebalance as made from jpeg preview of the raw data BUT if you meter lights with sekonic 358 or similar that doesn't apply). Massive memory cards with instant previews and histograms, wider dynamic range in raw formats than film why would anyone go back? The latter point sometimes people say benefit is you don't clip highlights in film as easy (which is exposed for shadows due to curved response) but expose for highlights and you can drag shadows up in post since 12 to 14stops of DR in average DSLR file when making files your 8bit files for print/viewing (yeah I know some print is 16bit workflow but that isn't for luma but colour gamut reasons going additive to subtractive system especially since paper is 6 to 7 stops maximum even when highest dmax due to full of OBA's). Those are just the benefits off the top of my head too there are much more and I've not found any drawbacks save for the cost of the change but chemicals for developing are getting more and more expensive so there perhaps isn't even that now.
Freesync 2 is all about adding HDR support for the existing Freesync standard. There is more information in the arstechnica article:
HDR on PC is a more complex beast than just panel brightness, though. First, a game performs colour tone mapping after an engine renders a scene. Then, when the frame is passed to a monitor, it's tone-mapped yet again to fit the display's supported colour range. That may or may not be the same colour space required by HDR10 or Dolby Vision. This two-stage process takes time and introduces latency.
With FreeSync 2, AMD is removing the second step, connecting the game engine directly to the HDR display. When you plug in a FreeSync 2 display, the display announces its HDR capabilities, and the AMD graphics driver will shuttle that information over to the game engine. This ensures that gamers get the best possible image quality, because the game tone-maps to the screen's native colour space, while also reducing input lag. Unfortunately, it also means that in order for FreeSync 2 and HDR to work, AMD needs the specific colour and brightness capabilities of every FreeSync 2 monitor, while games and video players must be enabled via AMD's API. AMD is going to have to win over a lot of hardware partners to make FreeSync 2 a reality.
So they are getting more colours by mandating HDR and increasing performance by removing a stage from the rendering process by allowing the game to use to exact colour space of the monitor.
hmmm I am not convinced until I see some real analysis of this, TFA sounds like marketing BS with no real numbers or facts to backup. The HDR has less to do with the gamut and they don't even mention what they are comparing to, shittiest TN panel is my guess (there are some decent ones now). Gamut is more factor of the screens native bitrate and is oft extended with FRC (frame rate control). The HDR if genuine giving a lower black point with real shadow detail and higher white point WITHOUT just applying a harsh S curve would be welcome but sadly most screens even high end ones don't do wide luma well and are 7bit-ish raneg at best. What good screen DO do is not crush the f*** out of the blacks, calibrate very well even when brightness is turned way down (often the case on such a screen) and don't have washed out grey blacks when the white point is set just right.
I do a lot of 10bit end to end editing because of photo and design work where colour accuracy matters but most content will be fine in 8bit sRGB space (or the usual 6bit + frc) and consumers wouldn't see any difference between regular and true higher gamut content on those same screen (apples to apples) is my guess. True aRGB gamut monitors like Eizo and higher end NEC are nice for intended use but they don't jack of all trades because that is the price you pay for that as there is no free lunch despite what this article suggests, but they have the price tag drawback for most folks without a need for wide gamut such as making colour accurate work for subtractive reproduction (print) on additive device (screen). I care more for accuracy/how well it performs AFTER calibration than response times. Althoguh for general use I'd recommend people buy another screen than high gamut ones, I'm typing this on a cheaper LG ah-ips true 8bit panel which has alright response in film/game with overdrive working well enough. Slight smearing but hard to notice and it has decent enough photo viewing etc and nice contrast etc but I'd have to sacrifice that to get better response time by nature of tech and I doubt they have fixed the physical limitations as they'd be boasting about such a breakthrough if they had. I hope I'm wrong but doubt it.
The moral of the story is that HP/Compaq is shit and has always been shit. Compaq was shit before being acquired by HP and the resulting combination is also shit. In case you're wondering, Sony is also shit. You want Asus, Lenovo, or Toshiba, in no particular order.
You cannot tell people to buy on a brand any more even at particular pricepoint. Only thing you can trust is researching specific models at your pricepoint and intended use. Only 2 of those mentioned are good IMO (anbd many others share that view), and lenovo lost its touch a little these days imho so I mainly buy asus when I used to drift toward lenovo. Toshiba are shit. Thing is they ALL make stuff that sucks at various pricepoints so a little research goes a long way.
Might've been that way since the 1970s too, but I was in elementary school then.
The game review magazines (now sites) need advance copies of the games to review them in a timely manner.
No advance copies = review comes out a week or more after the game is released = nobody bothers reading it = bankrupt reviewer.
To get an advance copy requires the game developer send you a copy.
If you pan a game in your review, the developer is less likely to send you an advance copy of their next game.
So magazine and website game reviews tend to be biased in favor of the games.
I suspect indie games are panned more partly because they do tend to be worse (low budget and all), but also because a lot of reviewers use them as an opportunity to vent their frustrations about not being allowed to say what they really think about a game.
Since about 2000 I've relied mostly on the opinions of friends and people on forums, rather than reviews. So I don't buy games the day they're released (need a few weeks or months for online communities to build up a consensus), and I never pre-order anymore. I'll still read reviews for things like features in the game (though gameplay videos on YouTube have mostly replaced that). But I usually ignore the reviewer's opinion about a game, unless the opinion is negative.
I find even the negative pro reviewers are not trustworthy these days, they don't "do" proper critique or wrap up truths in nice comments to keep devs happy by saying something seemingly positive but intend you read between the lines and figure out what they are really saying (not necessarily thinnly veiled the way it sounds but something that gets the truth across without directly rubbing peoples nose in it and invoking ire of the devs). They just seem to ignore the real negatives and put the obligatory "buggy at launch but there will be patches" kind of things and ignore real issues. No integrity in game journalism these days, it was always lacking in some areas and partial in others but now journo ethics seems to have died completely. User reviews classed as negative and mixed on likes of metacritic that are longer rather than single sentence reviews are most useful now IMO. If you ignore the bitchfest and those who bought something that wasn't their thing although sometimes those do confirm something is what I'm after such as expecting DCS World planes to fly like an arcade style game, or expect Arma3 to be like Battlefield sells me on it despite reviewer intending it as a negative it is a plus to some like myself. Same with finding actual to completion playtimes like 1 hour max of content padded with pseudocontent like "collectibles" to make the official 10hour figure.
Another problem is several factors seem to have lowered the bar for higher scores. People struggle with niche or "its too different" type stuff so it is hard to review. Big effect is casuals being a big part of the market share and also affecting new generations of what is accetable so it drags content times down, learning curves get turned full retard and handholding is unavoidable and the likes happen as the norm. Plus things like precedent set of it being OK to release buggy stuff at launch and fix latter, acceptable to address missing content with content padding with DLC (Like EliteDangerous did, they finally made the content promised at launch but you need to buy it, design wise it is pretty much the same as E1 and E2 I used to play as a kid).
Elsewhere I mentioned other IoT product that are flawed, such as DVR video security systems with remote monitoring (thieves will be gone before the cops get there), remotely-administered fuel pumps (already hacked), and a few other things. IoT is fundamentally flawed.
Don't get me wrong I totally agree they are flawed, and for all my sarcasm my own opinion is very similar but that doesn't mean there isn't value in it for others. I personally feel most of those things add more problems than they solve and are net connected for the wrong reason.Jjust connecting things to the net that don't need to be, and where the wireless is necessary and you need smart versions keep it on intranet would work for most the applications. However my feelings wont ever fix the issue, just like complaining about carbon emissions from planes doesn't do anything to stop people taking flights.
Sometimes I've complained about shit being silly until someone has corrected me on "our business uses that silly functionality for...." and I have a big "ohhhh" moment and then it makes sense. Some IoT may be a godsend for niche uses, people with a disability and so on and really be more than just because we can kind of things. Sure we can spot the flaws in "some" applications but there will be valid uses too. An of the none essential use people still have a choice and we can't dictate that. What does indeed need fixing is the actual issue though, sadly it will likely come to severe shtf time before sensible action is taken (note the sensible as I'm sure there will be bad "fixes" before the issue is resolved. UK government is rather fond of that approach).
The "internet of Things" was a stupid idea, so why not just ban it once and for all? Or create a separate internet just for people who want such stupidity as turning on their lights without getting off the couch. The world would be a better place either way.
are you trolling or serious as I'm not sure? Just because you don't see the appeal of something isn't a reason, it is an opinion, and doesn't help much anyway since if you need enough sec news you'd see smart things are a very small portion of that iot botnet numbers. Iirc webcams where one of the biggest in the latest analysis. The actual issue is many vendors have no incentive to secure their products. I don't mean they are not properly hardened I mean they don't do ANYTHING to even try to.
The vendors need ot be given incentive to want to invest time and money on it or fear it'll fuck with their bottom line. Secondly consumers need to be given incentive to both care as the issue does affect them, although they link in chain as ignorant enablers albeit not the direct cause and help them to put demand on vendors to meet that rather than make the customers liable instead of the companies which is doomed to fail too never mind unfair. Consumer pressure to meet a requirement etc works in other industries. Hard to know what to do as it is multiaspect issue and not straightforward but sort of good suggestion I read from commenter on Schneier's blog a while back would possibly work which was to notify owners and hold them legally liable for what the devices are used for if they repeatedly ignore or ignore after time period of first confirmed notification and force consumers to demand vendors of webcams, most provided by isp routers and other stuff to secure their stuff.
You'd need to do similar like open vendors to legal challenges ffrom consumers if they don't try to secure their product properly (or at all). Another issue is the isp's don't give a shit as they gain from the increased traffic thus they have been sitting on their hands in many cases and it has been pointed out more than once by industry people so you need to deal with that too. Same goes for governments who also don't necessarily want to find a "fix" for things than can be utilised by them should they ever wish to. Complex issue like I say, understand now? Alternately we could just ban every iot device like you suggest including routers although it means no more reading oversimplified comments from clueless people so there is some merits to that.
......made up your mind before you even read the summary. You don't know what science is, you treat science like a religion.
Not surprising you link those two as decline in religion has had its place taken by science in many ways for lay folk (ie. none scientific background). I come across this a lot from people who blindly believe science without having ANY scientific training. They treat a lot of stuff like gospel truth word of God which cannot be refuted or you'll burn at a stake. Even things that are known from educated background as a flawed theory from general PoV can work very well in context of modelling something, or setting constants we know are actually relative values because it gives results in particular model etc. A lot of scientific "proven" theory is considered by people in those fields NOT to be 100% objective truths but more "best idea we have for current time and technology level that gives acceptable results in pushing the boundary to next level".
Often at loggerheads with family friends etc yet in the same breath say you can't argue with science when you question results, sample sizes or context, funding source etc. Usually ends badly when I point out yeah who is the one with the actual science degree here and who is the other who admits that the dumbed down science for entertainment stuff on TV goes over their head.... often they just repeat the same "can't argue with science" increasing in volume until I give up in despair.
I thought all their fucking wealth was tied up in property at Vancouver, LA, SF, London, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland?,..........
Or perhaps, just perhaps, your starting premise is at best simplistic and most likely wrong.
That the reasons property prices are high in those cities are for a multitude of reasons, some foreign, but many domestic. Perhaps because (in some of those countries), the economy has been doing relatively well (especially in those specific cities -- relative to the rest of the country -- which are drivers of their country's economic growth). Tax and planning laws in many countries encourage property speculation. Quantitative easing (aka printing money, aka currency manipulation by the Federal Reserve) has led to a prolong period of low interest rates which reduces the interest payments and bumps up property prices. Hey life is complex.
You want cheaper house prices, have a depression where there's an unemployment rate (which only counts people actively looking for work) of 30%, that'd fix you right up. Buy in the rust-belt states.
Fucking decimating a generation over here, fuck our politicians allowing this, fuck them to fucking death.
I guess their wallets truly are endless.
Nah, let's just hate instead. Yeah, spread the hate.
wish I had mod points, refreshing to see someone who actually understands one effect in a complex set of interactions isn't the cause. People simplify complex realities with multi variables and direct and indirect interactions between those variables into binary black/white single variable scenarios with no outside interactions.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would anyone spend $350 on a pair of headphones? I typically spend $10 to $20 for headphones.
if you have perfect pitch and notice a lot of stuff most don't and it bothers you it is worth it. It is more than just psychological, some folks have much higher density mapping in certain areas of the brain and will be oversensitive compared to average on such things. They are a very small portion of the market though and many work in industry fields where they can get the gear paid for via work. I do notice such things myself but find many who tell me they can tell such differences can't and it is more more money = better which is myth. Bose are shite. You don't get what you pay for, you get NO MORE than what you pay for, in bose case you pay very high price for low value headphone.
Just because you don't notice the difference doesn't mean no-one else will, conversely many who say they can often just think that but cannot as pychology plays a part it just isn't the only factor in every case. Same reason pro musician may spend a LOT for say a Dominique Peccatte violin where average person cannot tell the difference between a student level generic one and that. The difference exists just most wont notice it, and some buy it because they know it is chosen by those who do hear such differences.
I know you're joking of course but they still use leeches in mainstream medicine, used to be niche but they made a wider use comeback in the 90's. They have obvious benefits such as restore bloodflow in reconstructive surgeries where there would be loss of tissue from hypoxia etc but there is less obvious benefits. Not just when they're stimulating the bloodflow directly but after they're removed there is continued effects from the antithrombins they inject (Hirudin and something, I forget the other compound) which reduces need for systemic drug treatments in some cases. Quite a few places supply them such as Biopharm.
....A lot of people accept this situation, I contribute it to our declining education, wages and salaries. I'm seeing more and more people just accept the way things are, I don't see people saying "No way, I don't want it this way"......
I think it is because it is normalised to them. They understand very little of the complexity behind things and take stuff on a superficial level and basically have lazy minds and don't want to learn or think just follow, also a short term view with no real long term self view never mind historical before their time considerations. Basically the companies erode such rights slowly, ever creeping forward over our rights etc until there is grumbling then they back off, rinse repeate until paying to get shafted by them is so normal no-one thinks anything of it.
History has proven time and time again from global and mainstream to the local or niche scale that is how you exploit people. I used to think anyone could understand a given thing when provided with facts and a little motivation, I don't believe that now. Very few I know personally really seem able to look at something for the facts rather than simply trying to find an answer that they feel comfortable with for ego or ease whatever. Those that do have desire for facts have another obstacle in that they lack the deeper knowledge of the subject and good working knowledge of related subjects because of interactions things can often change from what they seem big picture. So they need the wish along with ability to understand in context of the topic with greater knowledge of related subjects and background and education to properly process it.
For the ones with the potential a few take it but most of those other I find all the benefits their education and industry experience opens up to them is undone by signs of conditioning and conforming out of laziness of not wanting to figure something out but be told the answer. I don't mean this as dramatic as it sounds but makes me sad truth be told as I think at this rate we have no chance against constant eroding of the little peoples rights over corp profit and control.
If you really want good sleep, find work where you can set your own hours and then sleep whenever you like. I never had any luck trying to force sleep, but being able to choose when to sleep works great.
that works in delayed or advanced sleep phase disorders really well if people can manage it. Delayed sleep phase disorders is surprisingly common and advanced not far behind so shifts or odd hour work can be perfect when matched to those. Some things like my own are more disruptive because they are out of sync at the reset point and move. Basically I start at delayed and move through over time to point it hits advanced phase point. Then I stop sleeping completely, even at times where I had weeks I could sleep whenever I couldn't because of SLIGHT light and sound in daylight hours. I'm over sensitive to some light and noise due to unrelated conditions so can't just zone it out like neurotypical "normal" would. Then the lack of sleep screws me to the point I have lot of other problems, eventually got to work hours that suit my reset point and got doc that was clinically brilliant compared to the norm and helped work something out rather so intervention is not needed daily now like living on modafinil,zopiclone/zolpidem etc etc which never actually fixed things because they created other problems or changed the existing one rather than remove it. Sadly the only cure I can think of in my case is get a new brain which is not yet possible and I like some of the side effect quirks of being oddly wired I guess.
A couple years at most, then the next big thing will be the new "status symbol".
Granted, I'm a morning person, but if you want good sleep, go to bed at the same time every night and wake up at the same time as much as possible. No sleeping in on days off.
that is an over simplification sadly and not true for many who have problem just because it is for you. There are a lot of causes of sleep problems and insomnia is more of a catchall generic term. I have disruptive sleep phase disorder myself and my "natural" peak and trough alertness times (associated with sleep ease) linked to circadian rhythm changes as it doesn't map neatly to the normal 24 hour ; in environmental queues present every day environments, I mean I know it goes longer for the typical folks when queues removed. It isn't mental thing either as can be monitored as core tmep changes and lot of physiological as well as mental changes. Mine is delayed as I'm late compared to norm BUT it has a habit of drifting forward to the point I need resetting because it goes waaay out over time.
My doc is VERY clinically competent and up to date on research and knows my background but since a kid for 30odd years I'd found a lot of none specialised doctors simply don't have the theory and don't understand it as well as they should and have a very basic understanding of the biochem and neuro side of things as well as specific sleep disorders in general, more a trouble sleeping = stress or routine which is not always true as is proven (objectively I mean not just uncontrolled self observation or self diagnosis).
There are a LOT of factors, cortisol and adrenaline levels get mentioned linked to stress, as does melatonin and inhibition with blue light (and close UV perhaps) often gets blamed in other cases. There are whole host of neurotransmitters invloved though and inblalances can throw stuff out. On top of it disorders like my own make people naturally different due to different neurological wiring so the issue is NOT fixed by routine and relaxation sadly. Even the try it longer shutdown since doing that for 30odd years and still exact same problem but treating it on case by case basis properly fixes the issues mostly or gets around them. .
Who the hell would put an IoT device in the same VLAN with other network equipment? "Professionals" who cause these massive security issues and effectively shoot themselves in the foot deserve every second of pain and hardship they run into.
blame is partly on the "professionals" but that will never change. There will always be such incompetence in low level competency IT positions especially for inhouse in a none tech business and where budget for that stuff is low. Lost count of how many times I had to troubleshoot such idiocy from so called network professionals when management asked me to step in and sort the issues but management STILL don't listen despite admitting proof of the incompetence they wont change.
More needs to be done from the side of IoT vendors and others in the supply chain end to start making a dent in this issue or these stories wont go away no matter who installs them there will always be major weakness in the chain. Many don't even attempt to secure never mind harden the devices properly and they have no financial or legal incentive to... yet. IoT things wont go away and we need to start having proper encryption implementation plus authentication implementation so not just anyone who gets access can make changes to config (some devices send auth info cleartext so goes hand in hand with former point). System for patching and a way to push this, network isolation considerations both advising proper setup like this case didn't have as well as controlling what data they leak to EVERYTHING on home so less likely to be a weak link to own another device from within. The latter point sure some thigns need to communicate and be aware of each other but there is ways of doing that properly; such as proper handshake needed between such devices and way to determine and config what info what can share with what and when. Or making the requests go through a controller/smart hub as the middleman that is far more hardened with regard to such things. Sadly although this stuff will ocme I do not see it happening soon.
Laziness and impatience drives obscene profit margins within the coffee industry. It's still fairly easy to still spend pennies on a cup of coffee, if you're willing to get off your ass, grind a few beans, and brew a cup......... Starbucks or shove a pod into a machine to whip up a coffee-like substance.
Couldn't agree more, if they bothered not only would they get it cheaper but also better. Starbucks and pods are both average coffee for way above average price, the beans are sometimes good at the start but have spoiled in treatment: cheap air dry process like a lot of African can collect a lot of crap (literally) and often not processed properly and can go off, wet process tends to be better but can also be done wrong. The off flavours are often due to this cheap processing bacterial/mould issue rather than the bean itself. A lot are over roasted too without fine control leading to burned flavour.
If you work out your routine it isn't as much messing as people think. I do it the most inconvenient way but even that is fine with some forward thinking. A lot of the compounds that don't lead to good flavour in large amounts are extracted much much easier with boiling vs cold water, you can get a better balance of them with slow cold extract. I use a french press for most my coffee, know roughly how much I drink a day and prepare all of it day before with warm water after grinding to right size to extract how I want. Cover to stop oxidising, leave out for a little while then put in fridge over night and next day is just a quick microwave and instant coffee that taste amazing, most coffee snobs comment on it being unbelievably good and and I tell them I'm using same beans as them or worse and they are surprised and often start doing it the same way. It takes minutes to grind beans (I have no roaster yet) and that is going slow/pulsing with frozen beans to stop the burning that none burr grinders can suffer from; do enough for a week and back in the freezer tightly sealed it goes and it means this most time consuming method takes about 5min extra a week vs pods for a fraction of the cost and better taste and is just as quick with less work (pour and heat = done) on the actual preparing a cup in the morn/day.
There are even quicker methods with less messing, just I get the best results from this and it is so little extra to do it is worth it to me. Plenty of expresso machines available that will do fast extract with a nice even lower pressure to get ristretto quality shots which you can make anything from long black/flat white/capuchinno etc with if that is your thing. Part the problem people have is they use a bad machine with too high a temp raw uncontrolled pressure machine that is too high at start and drops rapidly so drags out extract time and more of the harsh compounds you want less of (some is good for flavour) and scorches the favourable [wanted in high ratio] ones and they blame the bean or compare it to a pod machine that is using finer grounds with faster extract. As for time tamping a shot in a portafilter is just as quick as a pod and spent grounds come out like a hockey puck with 1 bang so again they compare to pods as low mess option. Like you say it is laziness for the most part.
My laptop has 64GB RAM, a 2TB SSD, a 7th generation i7 and dual GTX 1080 in SLI. It runs Gentoo / Windows 7 Ultimate dual boot. It's probably more capable than your desktop.
urmmm got news for you but laptop i7 are NOT equivalent of desktops except in marketing speak. The gtx 1080 is also the m version I'm guessing so my similar spec desktop on Win7ult and arch is actually better than your laptop despite lookign the same from marketing pov. Also I have several internal SSD's and mech drives on top of my externals.
Now as for what the article was asking for, seems rather specialized. No one is going to do some specialized work for free so the requester can make tones of money off of it, even if it is open source.
It seems specialised, but if you break down the task, what the OP's friend wants is: 1) a GPU pixel-shader filter for video editing and 2) a video editor UI that doesn't have any extraneous fluff, but just runs a single filter on a single file and generates an output file.
To me, that cuts to the core problem in OSS in my book -- there are large-scale projects that try to deliver a fully-featured package and there are ad hoc projects that produce a small-scale tool for a particular task, but aren't particularly user friendly, and aren't very flexible.
There are probably still plenty of packages out there that can be used in the old-school Unix pipes way, but they're getting harder and harder to find.
hmm seems like asking someone to reinvent the wheel to me, I could be wrong but why does it need to be so particular? He wants it as an output video file and there is a mass of software both free (as in beer), proprietarry and fos that will do whatever you want to video I'm guessing. Not saying he needs to use adobe but there are equivalents, I use it for photo and vid though thus mentiuon it. The industry standard software if likely to do what is needed just fine so why all the messing with this, sounds like someone who doesn't understand vid editing wanting a free lunch to me.
NLE, compositing and grading tools are likely to do what he wants for less money than paying devs for such a niche thing, even things like adobe speedgrade/aftereffects/premierpro can be made to do it without all the "fluff" if you if you have auto batch action like apply some lut or whatever then just queue it and send to the encoder stack, you can apply such workflows in single click from bridge once you've set it up so it could not be more simple. Likewise there are free and foss solutions that will do similar.
CDC testing subsequently revealed the germ was New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase -- a highly resistant form of CRE
It should at least read "revealed the germ CONTAINED New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase". NDM-1 is not a bacteria, it's an enzyme possessed by resistant bacteria that inactivates antibiotics.
What's really fun is that this gene can potentially be transferred to other types of bacteria laterally...
I was about to comment on that until read your comment. It is indeed plasmid mediated gene transfer so can be passed to unrelated diseases. Given the track record of hospitals with not following basic operating proceedures properly I wouldn't be surprised if this does come into contact with other pathogens and we'll have yet another treatment resistant batch of diseases. The rate we're going we'll have treatment proof never mind resistant pathogens soon. Wouldn't be surprised if there was more outbreaks that origniate from within the hospital rather than from the patient prehospitalisation period. People are so lackadaisical with anti contamination proceedures etc, I've see lab workers whos idea of perfect aseptic technique is barely a step above licking your fingers (twice) and wiping them on your labcoat and medical staff including doctors who are even more lazy.
Me too. Onkyo receiver and Dali Zensors, nothing at all fancy FLAC played over DLNA. Definite improvement (yes this is subjective) over purchased mp3s but with your own encoded mp3 at 320kbps vbr, any perceived difference is psychological.
The real beauty of FLAC for me though is simply ripping your CDs to FLAC, dumping them ona network share and using the FLAC as input for transcoding to whatever lossless format you want.
For the unititiated, FLAC is essentially ZIP for audio
you're right but there is more to it, sometimes it is unfair comparissons of apples to oranges since different decoders etc can play back those files differently. What people are hearing a difference between is the particular audio chains efficiency at playing back different formats accurately. On correctly rigged gear with proper hardware and software where there is no difference I have found hardly any listeners can tell the difference. I have perfect pitch and range but only hear it on some very complex music through gear costing more than most peoples cars, and the difference is VERY slight. For archiving flac is superior, for devices that have better flac playback or where listeners can hear the minor difference in very complex tracks flac is superior but most the people making the night/day difference noise are wrong; whether they know it is another thing as it is often subconscious psychological thing or due to not understanding the audio chain on a complex level. I suspect I have higher density of brain wiring where it counts for noticing this kind of thing and it is only slight to me, I'm high functioning autistic with savant traits and in the miniscule percentile with IQ over 150 and can percieve a lot of these things due to higher density of wiring in those areas like I say so average people are less likely to notice the difference. The big picture is often neglected and not taking into account the whole audio chain. Like people commenting on telling opamps etc apart, you can of course but even the same ones sound different put into a different chain and people often compared this as it it is just that link and add psycholoical bias on top.
Nothing fancy. I can hear a definite difference between FLAC and MP3 files on my old Marantz receiver with some JBL speakers.
in double blind tests I find those who say they can hear difference can't actually tell the difference with average music files with mp3 encoded PROPERLY. I do use flac but it depends on the content. I have perfect pitch and range too and the difference is there played with likes of JHA JH11's through a good DAC etc only on some files, for others it is transparent and I cannot tell in double blind tests on all files.
Most people compare apples to oranges such as What you might be hearing a difference between is the decoder since depending on the firmware/hardware (most don't do it in hardware these days especially), the rest of the chain such as dac used etc etc different formats can be played back worse/better than others. Even when apples to apples it is complicated by psychological imagined differenc. It isn't wishful thinking or an insult but subconscious actualyl percieved difference so I'm not saying people are lying just that trained listeners can be tricked even due to actually hearing a none existent difference, the brain is tricky like that; it actually works that way with other senses not just audio and is common in smell and taste.
why it's not solely about retro hipsterism
LOL! That's all it EVER is with audio. Same with vinyl.
You don't see movie lovers going back to VHS/BETA/Laserdisc/8mm/etc. unless there's a specific release limited to those formats (Star Wars on LD, for example). And then it's a Herculean effort to transfer it faithfully to a modern format.
that isn't true. Maybe that is all it EVER is with audio if you're basing it on discussion of none experts in non audio mastering forums. Peoples ignorance is understandable since they have no experience of it and they don't need to know but there is reasons why vinyl is valid to some. Sadly you wont hear those reasons from audiphiles and hipster twats who make hte most noise to the general public and make most the sales up. The real reasons are linked to things like the dynamic range compression and improper limiters like brickwalling things to death. Not everyone notices either since they are ignorant of what to look for, they don't have perfect range and pitch, they don't have the gear to reproduce formats close to what they're capable of and so on so myths on both sides get repeated. Sadly marketing and cliched myths are commonly heard among "normal" people including audiophiles and the facts get buried in the noise. Also when it comes to gear it isn't necessarily about money as you often don't get what you pay for.
First Vinyl... Then Cassette...
Next CDs will make a comeback. Even retro hipterism can't save the 8-track though.
As I said elsewhere there is a reason vinyl is popular, not because it is inherently superior but because of bad audio engineering practises and dicks like rick rubin. Containers capabilities are one thing but often the content is nowhere near (like 5bit in a 16bit container). Part the reaon it made a comeback is hipster twats I admit (most the reason I'd guess) BUT some makes sense in that vinyl tends to be mastered properly and isn't brickwalled to fuck so actually ends up higher spec than CDaudio despite the fact vinyl "container" is inferior to CD/digital container formats. Look up the dynamic range on something like loudnesswars database or somewhere and compare the same album on vinyl release to the cd and digital download editions and you'll see vinyl is often mastered properly. I'm no audiophile (snakeoil and too much money for the most part) but I do use very good gear and hear the difference. Even on the go I use multiBA iem's and good cans and system to drive them at home because I have perfect range and perfect pitch and I notice stuff like that; some CD rips are unlistenable to me compared to the vinyl rip.
Now comparing properly done 16bit/44.1KHz digital file to vinyl yeah digital will always be superior, sadly the mastering a significant amount of releases totally negates that benefit. Sadly many don't realise how bad these things have gotten especially if they don't have perfect hearing and don't have systems to reproduce the difference and the theory doesn't always fit real world. Same happens when people say 24bit audio is pointless when it is far from it, in LISTENING you cannot tell the difference but in editing I notice the difference because there is MUCH more overhead with 24bit vs 16bit and with a complex workflow it really can help, the problem is people without full knowledge of audio work judge based on idiots who claim they can hear differences rather than people who need the extra headroom (simple workflows with little/no complex dsp it isn't needed tbh).
It didn't stop vinyl from coming back when it is objectively a worse format than a CD.
ish.... you're mistaking the containers capabilities with the content. Part the reaon it made a comeback is hipster twats I admit (most the reason I'd guess) BUT some makes sense in that vinyl tends to be mastered properly and isn't brickwalled to fuck so actually ends up higher spec than CDaudio despite the fact vinyl "container" is inferior to CD/digital container formats. Look up the dynamic range on something like loudnesswars database or somewhere and compare the same album on vinyl release to the cd and digital download editions and you'll see vinyl is often mastered properly. I'm no audiophile (snakeoil and too much money for the most part) but I do use very good gear and hear the difference. Even on the go I use multiBA iem's and good cans and system to drive them at home because I have perfect range and perfect pitch and I notice stuff like that; some CD rips are unlistenable to me compared to the vinyl rip.
Now comparing properly done 16bit/44.1KHz digital file to vinyl yeah digital will always be superior, sadly the mastering a significant amount of releases totally negates that benefit. Sadly many don't realise how bad these things have gotten especially if they don't have perfect hearing and don't have systems to reproduce the difference and the theory doesn't always fit real world. Same happens when people say 24bit audio is pointless when it is far from it, in LISTENING you cannot tell the difference but in editing I notice the difference because there is MUCH more overhead with 24bit vs 16bit and with a complex workflow it really can help, the problem is people without full knowledge of audio work judge based on idiots who claim they can hear differences rather than people who need the extra headroom (simple workflows with little/no complex dsp it isn't needed tbh).
You use baking soda + oil (or human fat, in case of Fight Club) to make soap.
as mentioned saponification depends on strong base like NaOH or KOH used in soap making. Secondly "fight club" is waaaay off in many regards and is to be taken at entertainment value alone so don't try and draw any real life knowledge from it(I found the book not much more accurate). I used to make soaps years ago (as hobby my formal background is biochem). For instance animal fats are often way too soft alone and do not make the best soaps unlike claimed in fight club. Sodium rendered soaps tend to be harder and potassium salts softer but lathering and bubble stability, solubiulity and so on can be affected differently so many use a blend of fats and KOH and NaOH (soapcalc will give you amounts needed if interested BUT you need to superfat really for most soap so don't want complete saponification) . You'll find a lot of sodium tallowate soaps (ie. just NaOH and animal fat) need other ingredients added to make them soft enough for most folks.
sorry meant hard enough for most folks on the tallowate it is really soft soap generally (usually sodium palmate firms it up for commercial soap)
You use baking soda + oil (or human fat, in case of Fight Club) to make soap.
as mentioned saponification depends on strong base like NaOH or KOH used in soap making. Secondly "fight club" is waaaay off in many regards and is to be taken at entertainment value alone so don't try and draw any real life knowledge from it(I found the book not much more accurate). I used to make soaps years ago (as hobby my formal background is biochem). For instance animal fats are often way too soft alone and do not make the best soaps unlike claimed in fight club. Sodium rendered soaps tend to be harder and potassium salts softer but lathering and bubble stability, solubiulity and so on can be affected differently so many use a blend of fats and KOH and NaOH (soapcalc will give you amounts needed if interested BUT you need to superfat really for most soap so don't want complete saponification) . You'll find a lot of sodium tallowate soaps (ie. just NaOH and animal fat) need other ingredients added to make them soft enough for most folks.
I think this just reminds you that Kodak missed the boat a long time ago, and is left to ride a fad of a few hipsters / nostalgic fans who will provide some short-lived interest for an old product (an admittedly good one, in its day). Perhaps it will gain a small cult following, or sustained dedicated small fan base. But any professional or even many amateurs know that given a good linear sensor and quality lens, you can recreate any color warmth or feeling of film you want, after taking the shot, and you don't have to wait 3 days of dunking film in a developing tank to find out how it turned out. Heck, I (and every other smartphone user) can re-create every film response I want with Instagram or Photoshop. That was Instagram's whole point originally. Is it really worth it to pay $10 extra and several days wait for 36 shots, just to that broadcast to others that I still use film? Followed by scanning in the photo to post it on Facebook? Real analog there, huh?
exactly, only reason to shoot film still is for large or medium format becasue you can't afford digital equivalent. Even then Pentax 645Z now fills that niche on the budget end for the MF folks and would trash film equivalent. Those with a NEED for MF couldn't get the results they need with film TBH compared to hassy and phaseone backs/MF bodies.I got rid of my film slr gear years ago and never looked back. I am not pro as I don't do it for living but digital can do everything film could and better. I'm mainly indoor multi monoblock studio shooter (not for money but passionate hobby for the most part) but do some night astro and cityscape stuff too. The astro work of caoturing DSO with stacks wasn't possible in film days but the latter was only now no reciprosity failure isn't a thing. My dad worked for Kodak and taught me a lot since a young age and I just kept it up and it became a serious passion so it isn't like I never had film experience since that was what I knew first.
Modern sensors are something film cannot match since colour curves in ACR/Photoshop or Capture1 (I use both) can simulate any film response. Coupled with the better modern glass plus improvements in micromirrors and sensors means detail is off the charts compared to film, same with DR, noise/grain and chroma accuracy and gamuts, plus conveniences like no need to use filters in b&w due to bayer array, no need to use different whitebalanced film (or even bother with whibal card since can do it in post if shoot raw, yeah some say you still need to as histogram is affected by whitebalance as made from jpeg preview of the raw data BUT if you meter lights with sekonic 358 or similar that doesn't apply). Massive memory cards with instant previews and histograms, wider dynamic range in raw formats than film why would anyone go back? The latter point sometimes people say benefit is you don't clip highlights in film as easy (which is exposed for shadows due to curved response) but expose for highlights and you can drag shadows up in post since 12 to 14stops of DR in average DSLR file when making files your 8bit files for print/viewing (yeah I know some print is 16bit workflow but that isn't for luma but colour gamut reasons going additive to subtractive system especially since paper is 6 to 7 stops maximum even when highest dmax due to full of OBA's). Those are just the benefits off the top of my head too there are much more and I've not found any drawbacks save for the cost of the change but chemicals for developing are getting more and more expensive so there perhaps isn't even that now.
Freesync 2 is all about adding HDR support for the existing Freesync standard. There is more information in the arstechnica article:
So they are getting more colours by mandating HDR and increasing performance by removing a stage from the rendering process by allowing the game to use to exact colour space of the monitor.
hmmm I am not convinced until I see some real analysis of this, TFA sounds like marketing BS with no real numbers or facts to backup. The HDR has less to do with the gamut and they don't even mention what they are comparing to, shittiest TN panel is my guess (there are some decent ones now). Gamut is more factor of the screens native bitrate and is oft extended with FRC (frame rate control). The HDR if genuine giving a lower black point with real shadow detail and higher white point WITHOUT just applying a harsh S curve would be welcome but sadly most screens even high end ones don't do wide luma well and are 7bit-ish raneg at best. What good screen DO do is not crush the f*** out of the blacks, calibrate very well even when brightness is turned way down (often the case on such a screen) and don't have washed out grey blacks when the white point is set just right.
I do a lot of 10bit end to end editing because of photo and design work where colour accuracy matters but most content will be fine in 8bit sRGB space (or the usual 6bit + frc) and consumers wouldn't see any difference between regular and true higher gamut content on those same screen (apples to apples) is my guess. True aRGB gamut monitors like Eizo and higher end NEC are nice for intended use but they don't jack of all trades because that is the price you pay for that as there is no free lunch despite what this article suggests, but they have the price tag drawback for most folks without a need for wide gamut such as making colour accurate work for subtractive reproduction (print) on additive device (screen). I care more for accuracy/how well it performs AFTER calibration than response times. Althoguh for general use I'd recommend people buy another screen than high gamut ones, I'm typing this on a cheaper LG ah-ips true 8bit panel which has alright response in film/game with overdrive working well enough. Slight smearing but hard to notice and it has decent enough photo viewing etc and nice contrast etc but I'd have to sacrifice that to get better response time by nature of tech and I doubt they have fixed the physical limitations as they'd be boasting about such a breakthrough if they had. I hope I'm wrong but doubt it.
Moral of the story? Fuck, I don't know.
The moral of the story is that HP/Compaq is shit and has always been shit. Compaq was shit before being acquired by HP and the resulting combination is also shit. In case you're wondering, Sony is also shit. You want Asus, Lenovo, or Toshiba, in no particular order.
You cannot tell people to buy on a brand any more even at particular pricepoint. Only thing you can trust is researching specific models at your pricepoint and intended use. Only 2 of those mentioned are good IMO (anbd many others share that view), and lenovo lost its touch a little these days imho so I mainly buy asus when I used to drift toward lenovo. Toshiba are shit. Thing is they ALL make stuff that sucks at various pricepoints so a little research goes a long way.
Might've been that way since the 1970s too, but I was in elementary school then.
Since about 2000 I've relied mostly on the opinions of friends and people on forums, rather than reviews. So I don't buy games the day they're released (need a few weeks or months for online communities to build up a consensus), and I never pre-order anymore. I'll still read reviews for things like features in the game (though gameplay videos on YouTube have mostly replaced that). But I usually ignore the reviewer's opinion about a game, unless the opinion is negative.
I find even the negative pro reviewers are not trustworthy these days, they don't "do" proper critique or wrap up truths in nice comments to keep devs happy by saying something seemingly positive but intend you read between the lines and figure out what they are really saying (not necessarily thinnly veiled the way it sounds but something that gets the truth across without directly rubbing peoples nose in it and invoking ire of the devs). They just seem to ignore the real negatives and put the obligatory "buggy at launch but there will be patches" kind of things and ignore real issues. No integrity in game journalism these days, it was always lacking in some areas and partial in others but now journo ethics seems to have died completely. User reviews classed as negative and mixed on likes of metacritic that are longer rather than single sentence reviews are most useful now IMO. If you ignore the bitchfest and those who bought something that wasn't their thing although sometimes those do confirm something is what I'm after such as expecting DCS World planes to fly like an arcade style game, or expect Arma3 to be like Battlefield sells me on it despite reviewer intending it as a negative it is a plus to some like myself. Same with finding actual to completion playtimes like 1 hour max of content padded with pseudocontent like "collectibles" to make the official 10hour figure.
Another problem is several factors seem to have lowered the bar for higher scores. People struggle with niche or "its too different" type stuff so it is hard to review. Big effect is casuals being a big part of the market share and also affecting new generations of what is accetable so it drags content times down, learning curves get turned full retard and handholding is unavoidable and the likes happen as the norm. Plus things like precedent set of it being OK to release buggy stuff at launch and fix latter, acceptable to address missing content with content padding with DLC (Like EliteDangerous did, they finally made the content promised at launch but you need to buy it, design wise it is pretty much the same as E1 and E2 I used to play as a kid).
Elsewhere I mentioned other IoT product that are flawed, such as DVR video security systems with remote monitoring (thieves will be gone before the cops get there), remotely-administered fuel pumps (already hacked), and a few other things. IoT is fundamentally flawed.
Don't get me wrong I totally agree they are flawed, and for all my sarcasm my own opinion is very similar but that doesn't mean there isn't value in it for others. I personally feel most of those things add more problems than they solve and are net connected for the wrong reason.Jjust connecting things to the net that don't need to be, and where the wireless is necessary and you need smart versions keep it on intranet would work for most the applications. However my feelings wont ever fix the issue, just like complaining about carbon emissions from planes doesn't do anything to stop people taking flights.
...." and I have a big "ohhhh" moment and then it makes sense. Some IoT may be a godsend for niche uses, people with a disability and so on and really be more than just because we can kind of things. Sure we can spot the flaws in "some" applications but there will be valid uses too. An of the none essential use people still have a choice and we can't dictate that. What does indeed need fixing is the actual issue though, sadly it will likely come to severe shtf time before sensible action is taken (note the sensible as I'm sure there will be bad "fixes" before the issue is resolved. UK government is rather fond of that approach).
Sometimes I've complained about shit being silly until someone has corrected me on "our business uses that silly functionality for
The "internet of Things" was a stupid idea, so why not just ban it once and for all? Or create a separate internet just for people who want such stupidity as turning on their lights without getting off the couch. The world would be a better place either way.
are you trolling or serious as I'm not sure? Just because you don't see the appeal of something isn't a reason, it is an opinion, and doesn't help much anyway since if you need enough sec news you'd see smart things are a very small portion of that iot botnet numbers. Iirc webcams where one of the biggest in the latest analysis. The actual issue is many vendors have no incentive to secure their products. I don't mean they are not properly hardened I mean they don't do ANYTHING to even try to.
The vendors need ot be given incentive to want to invest time and money on it or fear it'll fuck with their bottom line. Secondly consumers need to be given incentive to both care as the issue does affect them, although they link in chain as ignorant enablers albeit not the direct cause and help them to put demand on vendors to meet that rather than make the customers liable instead of the companies which is doomed to fail too never mind unfair. Consumer pressure to meet a requirement etc works in other industries. Hard to know what to do as it is multiaspect issue and not straightforward but sort of good suggestion I read from commenter on Schneier's blog a while back would possibly work which was to notify owners and hold them legally liable for what the devices are used for if they repeatedly ignore or ignore after time period of first confirmed notification and force consumers to demand vendors of webcams, most provided by isp routers and other stuff to secure their stuff.
You'd need to do similar like open vendors to legal challenges ffrom consumers if they don't try to secure their product properly (or at all). Another issue is the isp's don't give a shit as they gain from the increased traffic thus they have been sitting on their hands in many cases and it has been pointed out more than once by industry people so you need to deal with that too. Same goes for governments who also don't necessarily want to find a "fix" for things than can be utilised by them should they ever wish to. Complex issue like I say, understand now? Alternately we could just ban every iot device like you suggest including routers although it means no more reading oversimplified comments from clueless people so there is some merits to that.
......made up your mind before you even read the summary. You don't know what science is, you treat science like a religion.
Not surprising you link those two as decline in religion has had its place taken by science in many ways for lay folk (ie. none scientific background). I come across this a lot from people who blindly believe science without having ANY scientific training. They treat a lot of stuff like gospel truth word of God which cannot be refuted or you'll burn at a stake. Even things that are known from educated background as a flawed theory from general PoV can work very well in context of modelling something, or setting constants we know are actually relative values because it gives results in particular model etc. A lot of scientific "proven" theory is considered by people in those fields NOT to be 100% objective truths but more "best idea we have for current time and technology level that gives acceptable results in pushing the boundary to next level".
Often at loggerheads with family friends etc yet in the same breath say you can't argue with science when you question results, sample sizes or context, funding source etc. Usually ends badly when I point out yeah who is the one with the actual science degree here and who is the other who admits that the dumbed down science for entertainment stuff on TV goes over their head.... often they just repeat the same "can't argue with science" increasing in volume until I give up in despair.
I thought all their fucking wealth was tied up in property at Vancouver, LA, SF, London, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland? ,..........
Or perhaps, just perhaps, your starting premise is at best simplistic and most likely wrong.
That the reasons property prices are high in those cities are for a multitude of reasons, some foreign, but many domestic. Perhaps because (in some of those countries), the economy has been doing relatively well (especially in those specific cities -- relative to the rest of the country -- which are drivers of their country's economic growth). Tax and planning laws in many countries encourage property speculation. Quantitative easing (aka printing money, aka currency manipulation by the Federal Reserve) has led to a prolong period of low interest rates which reduces the interest payments and bumps up property prices. Hey life is complex.
You want cheaper house prices, have a depression where there's an unemployment rate (which only counts people actively looking for work) of 30%, that'd fix you right up. Buy in the rust-belt states.
Fucking decimating a generation over here, fuck our politicians allowing this, fuck them to fucking death.
I guess their wallets truly are endless.
Nah, let's just hate instead. Yeah, spread the hate.
wish I had mod points, refreshing to see someone who actually understands one effect in a complex set of interactions isn't the cause. People simplify complex realities with multi variables and direct and indirect interactions between those variables into binary black/white single variable scenarios with no outside interactions.