Different people, different effects. For me, acetaminophen is the *only* thing that can stop my migraine headaches.
I tried all sorts of OTC stuff, and prescription drugs, but nothing worked. Eventually I figured out that Tylenol and aspirin in combination worked, and then I found that Excedrin (or the generic stuff) works better at a lower dosage (it is acetaminophen + aspirin + caffeine), if I feel it coming and manage to take it before the full-on blinding pain actually kicks in.
Other pain relieving drugs have absolutely no effect as far as I can tell. Aspirin alone does nothing. Aleve works about as well as water. And so forth.
Acetaminophen has a lot of uses, actually. In recommended doses, it's perfectly safe and doesn't cause any liver damage. It's only when you combine it with other things or OD that it becomes problematic.
Unlike aspirin, acetaminophen is safe for children as it doesn't cause Rhye's syndrome. It's safe for pregnant women. It doesn't irritate stomach lining and so is safe for those with gastric ulcers.
It's method of operation is unlike other drugs (especially opiates) and the combination leads to less amount of both needed to produce the desired effects, which is why they combine it with those drugs. Hell, the stuff even works effectively in combination with aspirin (aka Excedrin), leading to a greater effect with less total dosage of either individually.
The fact is that acetaminophen is practically a miracle drug. It works incredibly well with virtually no side effects. Unfortunately, the effective dose happens to be rather high when compared to the damaging dose (1/16th) which is unlike most other drugs (most other drugs fall into the 1/30th to 1/50th range).
Anyway, I'm against the law banning any particular drug in general, because there may be an effective use of that drug in specific cases. My medicine should be between me and my doctor, not subject to government dictates.
a) MOV is not a video format. It's a standard container format. Specs for it are available and free.
b) No argument there, but opinion is not fact.
c) Having certain options turned on by default in the installation program is not the same thing as forcing you to leave them enabled. Also, Quicktime is available without iTunes, which prevents it from installing anything even vaguely iPod related.
Both Amarok and Rhythmbox support standard metadata in files. Even the metadata that iTunes uses in all its supported formats are standards (mostly, all programs tend to throw in one or two extra fields that only they use).
Ordering by filenames are nice if you only want to store the song names and artist, but many people prefer to have more information than that.
Also, if you're manually tagging songs, then you're doing it wrong. We have this amazing thing called "the internet" now, and it has massive amounts of useful and searchable information on it. Many programs connect to this "internet" and retrieve information from it automatically.
That is simply a lie. Hulu is not caught in the middle of anything. They ARE the content provider. They ARE the people trying to enforce the unenforceable.
Take Boxee for example. Boxee *played the Hulu ads*. Always has. So it's not about ad revenue. It's about Hulu not wanting people to watch the shows on their TV sets, because that cuts into their TV ad-revenues.
Or do you think that Hulu trying to prevent this sort of thing happened at the exact same time that they started their new multi-million ad campaign by coincidence?
No, as it's actually even simpler than that. The thing doesn't even require a POST, so clever use of an IMG tag in a web page could have hacked the damn thing. Unless you want to block all third party images from webpages, or something.
The security on those things is just basically non-existent.
Ping hack? Truly devastating back door? Google it yourself and then come back once you understand that it's not a remote exploit[1]. You call it a back door; but it's just a clever way to execute commands on the box, after having already logged into it as a superuser.
Ever heard of an XSS exploit? The ping hack is/was exploitable in that manner rather easily.
There's lots of ways to exploit cheapo home routers, whether they're running custom firmware or stock stuff.
- Linksys firmwares have had shell execution vulnerabilities (that's how it was originally discovered that they were running Linux in the first place) as well as remote access vulnerabilities (where turning it off didn't actually work), among others. - Many of the custom firmwares (DD-WRT in particular) are vulnerable to rather trivial XSS attacks. Yes, visit the wrong webpage with malicious javascript and your router can get owned. - Not to mention the large number of routers with default passwords out there...
A mildly clever script could gain a large foothold quite fast, without even having to resort to password guessing.
On the other hand: The average Joe, who just buys a WRT54G (aka: black box) from Wal-Mart, plugs it into his cable modem, and logs into the "linksys" SSID from his laptop isn't affected by this worm, since the default configuration doesn't allow remote access from the Internet at all.
Many Linksys routers, to pick an example, run on top of a Linux even with their default firmware. And many (most?) of these firmwares have had known vulnerabilities that give you enough to get a shell out of it. Google "Linksys ping hack" if you want to see a truly devastating back door.
On top of that, many of these had remote access bugs. I recall one where, if you knew the right URL to hit, you could make the router execute your commands even though remote access had been disabled. All disabling it really did was not make the web pages show up on remote connections. The POST requests from the forms on them still, stupidly, went through.
Most of these problems have been patched, but how many people have never updated their router firmware? I'll bet you it's a lot. And every one of those could be hit with a not-even-that-hard-to-write worm.
In this case, the guy doesn't seem all that malicious, maybe. Especially since he's only storing the exploit script in the tmp directory. He could have just as easily stuck it in the flash memory and made it quite well hidden indeed.
Yes, but there's a simple solution to aliasing problems. Stick a low-pass filter before your sampler, cut out the higher frequencies before aliasing is created.
Why are you trying to record sounds that can't be heard anyway?
You can be interested all you want. But you cannot base your verdict on what you think about case law.
Of course you can. If the law is wrong, then it is the jury's duty to decide that as well.
The jury has the right to judge the merits of the law as well as the facts at hand. And any judge or lawyer that tells you otherwise is flat-out lying to you.
Jurors aren't investigators. It isn't their job to actively try to "find the facts", regardless of whether or not the information has been vetted first. They listen, and decide.
That is the fundamental problem with the system. It should be their job to seek the truth. To relegate the jury to the idea of merely a decision-making machine is to eliminate all judgment and to remove the whole human-factor from the equation. It makes the court system into nothing more than a farce.
The fact that the court system is failing because of the wider availability of information only proves that.
So, in your view, a guilty person should be allowed to go free because the prosecutor is incompetent? Or an innocent man should be convicted because the defense attorney is an idiot?
The purpose of the trial should be to determine the truth. The fact that it's set up entirely differently is the problem with the system. The system is biased and unfair.
The only defense against that system is the right of the jury to vote however they want and not have to explain their reasoning. But it's a minor thing, especially when the system itself controls all their inputs.
Nowadays you really only need two encoders. For MP3, use LAME's VBR preset settings, or the V2,3,4 and so forth. For AAC's, iTunes/QT's encoder is top notch, even if it can't do VBR properly. Most people would be hard pressed to ABX a difference in the CD vs. iTunes AAC at 160k.
Yes, what always bugs me is when people use terms like "warmer" and such to describe effects that are added at the playback side of the music. Look, if the artist wanted the music to be "warmer", then they would have added that on the front end and the sound would be in the actual recording itself. The whole goal of the playback equipment should be to minimize distortion and to produce the sound as exactly as possible to what's on the bloody disc. Introducing new distortion totally subverts the whole point.
The bitrate is not as important as the choice of encoder. LAME at 128 is fairly decent. Not great, but not bad. QT/iTunes is pretty poor at 128 MP3, which is why they pushed AAC so hard. The QT AAC encoder at 128 is top notch.
Hulu made the wrong move. They should have lost the content providers instead. Because then, at least, they would not have tarnished their name beyond repair forever.
Hulu is effectively dead. They just haven't stopped writhing yet.
The fact that a company provides content does not mean that they get to dictate how one can view that content. If it's technically possible for me to view Hulu content on my TV, and Hulu takes measures to prevent that, then Hulu is in the wrong.
To me, Hulu is acting as a content provider. They provide the content to me. If I want to display that content in the way I choose, then that's my right to do so, and I have no problem circumventing any technical measures they decide to put in my way.
However, it's simpler to simply give Hulu the finger and switch back to bittorrent for my television show downloads instead. If Hulu is going to attempt to make it impossible to view legal material, then I'll view the exact same material illegally (only in higher resolution), and tell Hulu to go screw themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Different people, different effects. For me, acetaminophen is the *only* thing that can stop my migraine headaches.
I tried all sorts of OTC stuff, and prescription drugs, but nothing worked. Eventually I figured out that Tylenol and aspirin in combination worked, and then I found that Excedrin (or the generic stuff) works better at a lower dosage (it is acetaminophen + aspirin + caffeine), if I feel it coming and manage to take it before the full-on blinding pain actually kicks in.
Other pain relieving drugs have absolutely no effect as far as I can tell. Aspirin alone does nothing. Aleve works about as well as water. And so forth.
Acetaminophen has a lot of uses, actually. In recommended doses, it's perfectly safe and doesn't cause any liver damage. It's only when you combine it with other things or OD that it becomes problematic.
Unlike aspirin, acetaminophen is safe for children as it doesn't cause Rhye's syndrome. It's safe for pregnant women. It doesn't irritate stomach lining and so is safe for those with gastric ulcers.
It's method of operation is unlike other drugs (especially opiates) and the combination leads to less amount of both needed to produce the desired effects, which is why they combine it with those drugs. Hell, the stuff even works effectively in combination with aspirin (aka Excedrin), leading to a greater effect with less total dosage of either individually.
The fact is that acetaminophen is practically a miracle drug. It works incredibly well with virtually no side effects. Unfortunately, the effective dose happens to be rather high when compared to the damaging dose (1/16th) which is unlike most other drugs (most other drugs fall into the 1/30th to 1/50th range).
Anyway, I'm against the law banning any particular drug in general, because there may be an effective use of that drug in specific cases. My medicine should be between me and my doctor, not subject to government dictates.
http://www.last.fm/music/Skeptical+Minds
http://www.last.fm/music/Fl%D1%91ur
http://www.last.fm/music/Innerfire
Also: http://www.last.fm/api/intro
a) MOV is not a video format. It's a standard container format. Specs for it are available and free.
b) No argument there, but opinion is not fact.
c) Having certain options turned on by default in the installation program is not the same thing as forcing you to leave them enabled. Also, Quicktime is available without iTunes, which prevents it from installing anything even vaguely iPod related.
d) Installing software to watch videos? Madness!
Both Amarok and Rhythmbox support standard metadata in files. Even the metadata that iTunes uses in all its supported formats are standards (mostly, all programs tend to throw in one or two extra fields that only they use).
Ordering by filenames are nice if you only want to store the song names and artist, but many people prefer to have more information than that.
Also, if you're manually tagging songs, then you're doing it wrong. We have this amazing thing called "the internet" now, and it has massive amounts of useful and searchable information on it. Many programs connect to this "internet" and retrieve information from it automatically.
That is simply a lie. Hulu is not caught in the middle of anything. They ARE the content provider. They ARE the people trying to enforce the unenforceable.
Take Boxee for example. Boxee *played the Hulu ads*. Always has. So it's not about ad revenue. It's about Hulu not wanting people to watch the shows on their TV sets, because that cuts into their TV ad-revenues.
Or do you think that Hulu trying to prevent this sort of thing happened at the exact same time that they started their new multi-million ad campaign by coincidence?
Agreed, I wish that they had an explanation beside them when you get them. For the non-obvious ones, at least.
No, as it's actually even simpler than that. The thing doesn't even require a POST, so clever use of an IMG tag in a web page could have hacked the damn thing. Unless you want to block all third party images from webpages, or something.
The security on those things is just basically non-existent.
Ping hack? Truly devastating back door? Google it yourself and then come back once you understand that it's not a remote exploit[1]. You call it a back door; but it's just a clever way to execute commands on the box, after having already logged into it as a superuser.
Ever heard of an XSS exploit? The ping hack is/was exploitable in that manner rather easily.
There's lots of ways to exploit cheapo home routers, whether they're running custom firmware or stock stuff.
- Linksys firmwares have had shell execution vulnerabilities (that's how it was originally discovered that they were running Linux in the first place) as well as remote access vulnerabilities (where turning it off didn't actually work), among others.
- Many of the custom firmwares (DD-WRT in particular) are vulnerable to rather trivial XSS attacks. Yes, visit the wrong webpage with malicious javascript and your router can get owned.
- Not to mention the large number of routers with default passwords out there...
A mildly clever script could gain a large foothold quite fast, without even having to resort to password guessing.
On the other hand: The average Joe, who just buys a WRT54G (aka: black box) from Wal-Mart, plugs it into his cable modem, and logs into the "linksys" SSID from his laptop isn't affected by this worm, since the default configuration doesn't allow remote access from the Internet at all.
Many Linksys routers, to pick an example, run on top of a Linux even with their default firmware. And many (most?) of these firmwares have had known vulnerabilities that give you enough to get a shell out of it. Google "Linksys ping hack" if you want to see a truly devastating back door.
On top of that, many of these had remote access bugs. I recall one where, if you knew the right URL to hit, you could make the router execute your commands even though remote access had been disabled. All disabling it really did was not make the web pages show up on remote connections. The POST requests from the forms on them still, stupidly, went through.
Most of these problems have been patched, but how many people have never updated their router firmware? I'll bet you it's a lot. And every one of those could be hit with a not-even-that-hard-to-write worm.
In this case, the guy doesn't seem all that malicious, maybe. Especially since he's only storing the exploit script in the tmp directory. He could have just as easily stuck it in the flash memory and made it quite well hidden indeed.
Yes, but there's a simple solution to aliasing problems. Stick a low-pass filter before your sampler, cut out the higher frequencies before aliasing is created.
Why are you trying to record sounds that can't be heard anyway?
You can be interested all you want. But you cannot base your verdict on what you think about case law.
Of course you can. If the law is wrong, then it is the jury's duty to decide that as well.
The jury has the right to judge the merits of the law as well as the facts at hand. And any judge or lawyer that tells you otherwise is flat-out lying to you.
Jurors aren't investigators. It isn't their job to actively try to "find the facts", regardless of whether or not the information has been vetted first. They listen, and decide.
That is the fundamental problem with the system. It should be their job to seek the truth. To relegate the jury to the idea of merely a decision-making machine is to eliminate all judgment and to remove the whole human-factor from the equation. It makes the court system into nothing more than a farce.
The fact that the court system is failing because of the wider availability of information only proves that.
So, in your view, a guilty person should be allowed to go free because the prosecutor is incompetent? Or an innocent man should be convicted because the defense attorney is an idiot?
The purpose of the trial should be to determine the truth. The fact that it's set up entirely differently is the problem with the system. The system is biased and unfair.
The only defense against that system is the right of the jury to vote however they want and not have to explain their reasoning. But it's a minor thing, especially when the system itself controls all their inputs.
There ought to be a better way.
Real human beings cannot hear anything above 22khz, so what happens above that is rather irrelevant.
Increasing bits per sample does offer some improvement, but not much.
Nowadays you really only need two encoders. For MP3, use LAME's VBR preset settings, or the V2,3,4 and so forth. For AAC's, iTunes/QT's encoder is top notch, even if it can't do VBR properly. Most people would be hard pressed to ABX a difference in the CD vs. iTunes AAC at 160k.
Obligatory Nyquist Link.
Yes, what always bugs me is when people use terms like "warmer" and such to describe effects that are added at the playback side of the music. Look, if the artist wanted the music to be "warmer", then they would have added that on the front end and the sound would be in the actual recording itself. The whole goal of the playback equipment should be to minimize distortion and to produce the sound as exactly as possible to what's on the bloody disc. Introducing new distortion totally subverts the whole point.
128kbit MP3 absolutely murders the waveform.
The bitrate is not as important as the choice of encoder. LAME at 128 is fairly decent. Not great, but not bad. QT/iTunes is pretty poor at 128 MP3, which is why they pushed AAC so hard. The QT AAC encoder at 128 is top notch.
That's quite an old way of thinking. Most hippies didn't own TV sets.
New content can be created or found. Audience, once lost, cannot be produced again.
Hulu made the wrong move. They should have lost the content providers instead. Because then, at least, they would not have tarnished their name beyond repair forever.
Hulu is effectively dead. They just haven't stopped writhing yet.
The fact that a company provides content does not mean that they get to dictate how one can view that content. If it's technically possible for me to view Hulu content on my TV, and Hulu takes measures to prevent that, then Hulu is in the wrong.
To me, Hulu is acting as a content provider. They provide the content to me. If I want to display that content in the way I choose, then that's my right to do so, and I have no problem circumventing any technical measures they decide to put in my way.
However, it's simpler to simply give Hulu the finger and switch back to bittorrent for my television show downloads instead. If Hulu is going to attempt to make it impossible to view legal material, then I'll view the exact same material illegally (only in higher resolution), and tell Hulu to go screw themselves.
Shockingly, most people want to watch TV shows on their TV. Not on their computer screens.