Vinyl has some limitations in terms of just how much you can compress/limit by virtue of the fact that it's a physical medium. Your needle is only so small. So by that token it's conceivably less compressed than a CD would be. But it's still compressed.
Whether or not smaller labels are getting two separate mastering jobs - one for CD and one for vinyl - I don't know. It can get kind of pricy.
Well, given that Psytar's existence hinges on the continued sale, demand, and success of Apple's product, then they have quite a stake in Apple's business model. If their suit causes Apple's business model to change, then it's likely they will countersue themselves right out of business.
They're playing what amounts to a very dangerous game.
Well, yes, this didn't happen instantly. It took generations. But we're talking timescales of thousnads of years here. Gathering becomae very primitive agriculture, primitive ag became les primitive, etc. My point is that somehwere along the line, there was a transition from a constantly mobile existence to a mroe fixed one that allowed further specialization and eventually the development of modern civ. Whether it was difficult or not at the beginning doesn't change the fact that it actually happened.
Given the habitat of the early hominids, the ability to reason and recognize patterns was a tremendous advantage. Oak savannah, where predators can hide pretty well from direct sight in tall grasses and where food tends to migrate and move in packs - well, it's handy to be able to track the food over distance (rather than stumbling upon it) and note that that shifting grass over there might be something sneaking up on me rather than just the wind. Add basic communication and suddenly you and your cohorts can hunt with a team methodology that was more productive than standard chase-and-kill.
There has been some (controversial, of course) speculation that religion is an outgropping of the hominid predilection for seeing patterns. If you're evolving to look for patterns and causality in the environment for survival purposes, you might start seeing patterns and causality in more "random" events.
Neat stuff to think about, anyway. Evolution is cool.
If your pan is hot enough, though, you're getting a good sear, and provided you're not charring the outside, that lovely Maillard reaction is turning that loss of moisture and tenderness into complex, rich flavor.
It's really a tradeoff. You're going to lose moisture regardless. But then some of the tastiest beef is dry-aged, and that's lost some moisture already.
Cooking a good steak is a delicate balancing act. A delicious, delicious balancing act.
Hey, don't be knocking brisket. Those plate cuts - brisket, flank, skirt, etc - when prepared well can offer some of the most flavor-for-the-buck of any cut of beef. They just require skill, time, and a little knowledge.
If you get your pork from a reputable vendor, you can also cook that to a more medium/medium-well texture. The main pork parasite that people freak out about, trichonosis, dies at a much lower temperature than the one recommended by the USDA. And, given that most pork in this country has been bred to be super-duper-lean (unless you know the right farmers!) cooking it to the recommended 160 is going to turn it into a dry, flavorless slab - all sorts of culinary trickery has been devised to forstall this (brining, injection, larding, etc) but honestly, good pork cooked properly is both delicious and about as safe as any other meat.
I am totally with you on the steak tartare. There's an ethiopian variant I love called (approximately) kifto lebleb that's basically ground quick-seared beef with spices, and it's really hard to beat for pure beefy deliciousness.
Fermenting grain provides a pretty huge advantage to an early civilisation. The alcohol keeps it from developing horrible bacteria that will kill you - so you've got a method of storing and preserving carbohydrates and fat AND ensuring that you have a potable liquid to drink.
Some of the raw-foodists I've come across are some of the most anti-science folk I've had the displeasure of dealing with, and that includes young earth creationists.
For example, anyone who suggests evidence that hey, cooking might be beneficial at least some of the time is derided as being a pawn of some vast conspiracy of big pharma, the medical establishment and the scientific community that wants to keep you eating cooked food so you're sick and they all make money. Mention that humanity has been cooking food 150,000 years before the pharma industry was even born, and well, that's the scientific community conspiring to lie to you. It's impossible to argue with these people, because any counterargument is merely another layer of conspiracy.
My favorite argument that they trot out is "zoo animals don't eat cooked food." As if there was some sort of 1-1 correlation with what, say, a pygmy marmoset eats and what humans eat.
Also, many claim that switching to a raw diet cured everything from acne to cancer. Which may be true, but what they fail to take into account almost accross the board is that perhaps it wasn't the inclusion of raw food that fixed everything, but the exclusion of some terrible crap they were eating before.
It's some seriously wack stuff.
Don't get me wrong, some raw foods can be very delicious and healthy. But it's not everything. And besides cooked foods are tasty!
More time-consuming intially, yes, but it also allowed a centralized location for food production. If you have a "farm", you don't need to travel as far to find food, and you can often generate enough of it to store for the non-productive season - which means you can stay in one place. Get a number of farms in similar areas, you have agriculture. Then specialization. Then towns and cities start to form. And so forth.
Also, a lot of early agriculture was only slightly more advanced than basic hunting-gathering - wasn't so much "work the land, till the soil" as "hey, tasty stuff grows here, maybe we should make sure we leave enough behind so it grows there again next year."
If you're interested in this sort of paleo-history, I recommend the book "After The Ice" which is a remarkably detailed look at the rise of civilisation, including basic agriculture arising from hunter-gatherer groups, after the last ice age.
I bought a 2125 a few years back, and I considered using it tethered. I had the cable, I had the software, etc. I also had an unlimited data plan. I asked AT&T first, thankfully, and they informed politely that tethering my laptop would be a breach of contract, since the fine print of my data plan said "no tethering." They could either terminate my service or, more likely, start charging me their tethered data rate, which was something absurd like $.10/kilobyte. I did some research and apparently it's pretty easy for them to tell if you're tethered, at least on the HTC phones like mine.
I asked why an "unlimited" data plan wouldn't allow me to use my "unlimited" data any way I saw fit...well, see, because people still use less data on a phone than on a modem. So they're playing the profit margin odds.
It's stupid, frankly.
I can almost guarantee that AT&T screamed bloody murder the moment it hit the app store. And I'm sure international app stores got it yanked for the same reason - AT&T doesn't want this app out in the wild *anywhere*, where it could possibly leak back into their market.
I've had four domestic cell providers in the past decade and they've ALL SUCKED. Almost as bad as the cable companies.
Just the other day I saw Steve Jobs kicking a puppy while sacrificing a baby to Moloch. And I hear that everyone at Microsoft drinks the blood of virgins.
> The only people who buy Apple anything are the unwashed me-too masses...
Hey, I took a shower this morning, and I've been fastidious about washing my hands all day, since the guy in the next cube has the plague or something.
So I guess that sends your hypothesis right down the proverbial drain. I'm washed, and I have a few Apple products. QED.
Yes, you have to, but don't. Because there will be, within 8 seconds, hundreds of replies modded "insightful" that do little but bash Apple and call anyone who says "well, I like my Mac/iPod/iPhone" a "drooling fanboy cultist" or the like.
Oh, crap, too late.
Remember, this is slashdot, where it's NOT OKAY TO LIKE ANYTHING.
No scientist is opposed to students learning facts.
That's why they don't want ID taught in schools. There's already enough - if not too much - material for students to learn, so why add factless, pseudoscientific garbage to the syllabus?
The problem seems to be that the discussion took place, the ID'ers didn't like the outcome, so they decided instead to paint themselves as victims of some vast conspiracy, or people who aren't getting the attention they need to develop their "theories."
This happens a lot. It's like a those crackpots who always trumpet that they've created a perpetual motion machine or found a way around the laws of thermodynamics or whatever, and when the basic math shows errors they howl about some conspiracy by the uranium industry or whatever. The difference is ID has a well-funded public-relations arm that helps put out films and hundreds of press releases. Science has an uphill battle against that sort of thing, since evolutionary theory doesn't sound-bite well, requires rigorous scrutiny of data and findings - and issuing press releases and going "to the people" doesn't have those problems.
In certain environments that I've had to work in, the only way to actually use Visual Studio's debugger was to run as admin. The workaround to allow a non-admin-user to attach to a running process was just about as much of a security risk as running as admin.
It's a horrible design flaw no matter how you look at it.
You know, people always say he's a jerk, or inflammatory, etc but...well, having read his books and heard him speak he's really quite a soft-spoken, dryly humorous individual. he's pretty much what you'd expect from a british professor at Oxford. he ahs a reputation for being Fallwell-esque but I don't think it's justified (for one thing, he's never referred to a massive catastrophe as retribution for deviant lifstyles). Even in debates with some of his most aggressive opponents he's unflinchingly polite.
I think there's a difference between "outspoken" and "inflammatory." I can only think of a few things he says in TGD that are really shocking, and even then only if you take them without his overall tone.
I think it's pretty easy to tar anyone with a strong opinion on either side of the debate with a broad brush. On the grand scale of things Dawkins is much less extreme on his side of the argument than somene like Fred Phelps would be on the other side.
I dunno, it seemed pretty damn mild to me. Even his most forceful statements seemed to have wryly humorous footnotes attached to them. Of all the recent books on atheism, I think TGD is probably the most even-keel (with the exception of Baggini's "Short Introduction").
Now Hitchens...he's got a lot more invective than Dr. Dawkins.
24-bit (and higher) sound is, however, incredibly useful for recording. While the listener can't tell on the raw signal, when you start doing effects processing, you want the most bits available to reduce interpolation errors. Those you CAN hear.
(of course, your 24-bit signal has to actually be clean in the first place for this to even matter, which is another issue entirely)
Actually, his books are pretty thoughtful and well-reasoned - TGD spends a lot of time on the subject of reason and rationality and I only really think it slips when he gets into the religion body-count game. He does have a rep for saying inflammatory things in interviews, but a lot of the time it looks to me like he's just sick of being asked the same questions over and over. He also has the problem that so many scientists do - he can't give a short answer, and his long, detailed answers don't make good soundbites.
A few of the other New Athiests (which are actually the same athiests as always, they're just speaking aloud now) also have reputations for inflammation, simply because they disagree with the "well, you can be an athiest, as long as you don't talk about it" attitude that's pervaded the culture for a while. And when you have ex-presidents telling you that you're not a real citizen, or others accusing you of being by default amoral and hedonistic, well...it's easy to see why they're angry.
It's not that it's not paraphrased well, it's a more that it's a more complicated position than one can summarize easily in a paragraph or two - it took both Dawkins and Sam Harris a coupla books each to really nail down. Of course, Harris goes off on some crazy tangent about ESP and Dawkins brings up the old who-killed-more numbers game (which I don't buy, because no historical atrocity is ever as simple as "it's religion/athieism/etc's" fault) but for the most part, they're pretty coherent on the point.
One of the points that leads up to this is that, in a culture with a heavy faith component, it is a requirement of that culture that one must be "respectful" of religion. Even if that religion is saying something completely out-of-the-box, we still have to respect it - there's no place for someone to say "hey, wait a minute, if you think about that for a minute, that's completely insane!" because we need to de facto be "respectful" of deeply-held beliefs, regardless of what they are. It fosters environments where it's okay to not think critically about certain issues, and that can in turn incubate extremisms.
That's not such a great summary either, I realize. Uh, go read Ophelia Benson's "Why Truth Matters" or Julian Baggini's "Athiesm: A Short Introduction." They're better, and less incendiary introductions to the topic than Dawkins or Harris or Hitchens, as they deal with more philosphical/epistemological matters and make fewer angry statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
Well, kind of.
Vinyl has some limitations in terms of just how much you can compress/limit by virtue of the fact that it's a physical medium. Your needle is only so small. So by that token it's conceivably less compressed than a CD would be. But it's still compressed.
Whether or not smaller labels are getting two separate mastering jobs - one for CD and one for vinyl - I don't know. It can get kind of pricy.
Fermilab? The power bill is the expensive part. Last year they got their budget cut so much they had to get private funding or else they'd close.
I don't know the exact amount, but it's not a whole lot compared to a lot of other science programs.
Well, given that Psytar's existence hinges on the continued sale, demand, and success of Apple's product, then they have quite a stake in Apple's business model. If their suit causes Apple's business model to change, then it's likely they will countersue themselves right out of business.
They're playing what amounts to a very dangerous game.
Well, yes, this didn't happen instantly. It took generations. But we're talking timescales of thousnads of years here. Gathering becomae very primitive agriculture, primitive ag became les primitive, etc. My point is that somehwere along the line, there was a transition from a constantly mobile existence to a mroe fixed one that allowed further specialization and eventually the development of modern civ. Whether it was difficult or not at the beginning doesn't change the fact that it actually happened.
Given the habitat of the early hominids, the ability to reason and recognize patterns was a tremendous advantage. Oak savannah, where predators can hide pretty well from direct sight in tall grasses and where food tends to migrate and move in packs - well, it's handy to be able to track the food over distance (rather than stumbling upon it) and note that that shifting grass over there might be something sneaking up on me rather than just the wind. Add basic communication and suddenly you and your cohorts can hunt with a team methodology that was more productive than standard chase-and-kill.
There has been some (controversial, of course) speculation that religion is an outgropping of the hominid predilection for seeing patterns. If you're evolving to look for patterns and causality in the environment for survival purposes, you might start seeing patterns and causality in more "random" events.
Neat stuff to think about, anyway. Evolution is cool.
If your pan is hot enough, though, you're getting a good sear, and provided you're not charring the outside, that lovely Maillard reaction is turning that loss of moisture and tenderness into complex, rich flavor.
It's really a tradeoff. You're going to lose moisture regardless. But then some of the tastiest beef is dry-aged, and that's lost some moisture already.
Cooking a good steak is a delicate balancing act. A delicious, delicious balancing act.
Hey, don't be knocking brisket. Those plate cuts - brisket, flank, skirt, etc - when prepared well can offer some of the most flavor-for-the-buck of any cut of beef. They just require skill, time, and a little knowledge.
If you get your pork from a reputable vendor, you can also cook that to a more medium/medium-well texture. The main pork parasite that people freak out about, trichonosis, dies at a much lower temperature than the one recommended by the USDA. And, given that most pork in this country has been bred to be super-duper-lean (unless you know the right farmers!) cooking it to the recommended 160 is going to turn it into a dry, flavorless slab - all sorts of culinary trickery has been devised to forstall this (brining, injection, larding, etc) but honestly, good pork cooked properly is both delicious and about as safe as any other meat.
I am totally with you on the steak tartare. There's an ethiopian variant I love called (approximately) kifto lebleb that's basically ground quick-seared beef with spices, and it's really hard to beat for pure beefy deliciousness.
Fermenting grain provides a pretty huge advantage to an early civilisation. The alcohol keeps it from developing horrible bacteria that will kill you - so you've got a method of storing and preserving carbohydrates and fat AND ensuring that you have a potable liquid to drink.
Plus it's delicious and endrunkening.
Beer is really win-win.
Some of the raw-foodists I've come across are some of the most anti-science folk I've had the displeasure of dealing with, and that includes young earth creationists.
For example, anyone who suggests evidence that hey, cooking might be beneficial at least some of the time is derided as being a pawn of some vast conspiracy of big pharma, the medical establishment and the scientific community that wants to keep you eating cooked food so you're sick and they all make money. Mention that humanity has been cooking food 150,000 years before the pharma industry was even born, and well, that's the scientific community conspiring to lie to you. It's impossible to argue with these people, because any counterargument is merely another layer of conspiracy.
My favorite argument that they trot out is "zoo animals don't eat cooked food." As if there was some sort of 1-1 correlation with what, say, a pygmy marmoset eats and what humans eat.
Also, many claim that switching to a raw diet cured everything from acne to cancer. Which may be true, but what they fail to take into account almost accross the board is that perhaps it wasn't the inclusion of raw food that fixed everything, but the exclusion of some terrible crap they were eating before.
It's some seriously wack stuff.
Don't get me wrong, some raw foods can be very delicious and healthy. But it's not everything. And besides cooked foods are tasty!
More time-consuming intially, yes, but it also allowed a centralized location for food production. If you have a "farm", you don't need to travel as far to find food, and you can often generate enough of it to store for the non-productive season - which means you can stay in one place. Get a number of farms in similar areas, you have agriculture. Then specialization. Then towns and cities start to form. And so forth.
Also, a lot of early agriculture was only slightly more advanced than basic hunting-gathering - wasn't so much "work the land, till the soil" as "hey, tasty stuff grows here, maybe we should make sure we leave enough behind so it grows there again next year."
If you're interested in this sort of paleo-history, I recommend the book "After The Ice" which is a remarkably detailed look at the rise of civilisation, including basic agriculture arising from hunter-gatherer groups, after the last ice age.
I bought a 2125 a few years back, and I considered using it tethered. I had the cable, I had the software, etc. I also had an unlimited data plan. I asked AT&T first, thankfully, and they informed politely that tethering my laptop would be a breach of contract, since the fine print of my data plan said "no tethering." They could either terminate my service or, more likely, start charging me their tethered data rate, which was something absurd like $.10/kilobyte. I did some research and apparently it's pretty easy for them to tell if you're tethered, at least on the HTC phones like mine.
I asked why an "unlimited" data plan wouldn't allow me to use my "unlimited" data any way I saw fit...well, see, because people still use less data on a phone than on a modem. So they're playing the profit margin odds.
It's stupid, frankly.
I can almost guarantee that AT&T screamed bloody murder the moment it hit the app store. And I'm sure international app stores got it yanked for the same reason - AT&T doesn't want this app out in the wild *anywhere*, where it could possibly leak back into their market.
I've had four domestic cell providers in the past decade and they've ALL SUCKED. Almost as bad as the cable companies.
And in those two weeks are the greatest spectator sport our state has to offer - road construction!
We've recently added "massive flooding" to our list of attractions, too.
No, I'm not. I'm part of the *washed* masses. Which is *entirely different.*
It's like saying a midget is one of the tall people just because he owns a basketball.
Just the other day I saw Steve Jobs kicking a puppy while sacrificing a baby to Moloch. And I hear that everyone at Microsoft drinks the blood of virgins.
"Evil?" Hyperbole, anyone?
> The only people who buy Apple anything are the unwashed me-too masses...
Hey, I took a shower this morning, and I've been fastidious about washing my hands all day, since the guy in the next cube has the plague or something.
So I guess that sends your hypothesis right down the proverbial drain. I'm washed, and I have a few Apple products. QED.
Yes, you have to, but don't. Because there will be, within 8 seconds, hundreds of replies modded "insightful" that do little but bash Apple and call anyone who says "well, I like my Mac/iPod/iPhone" a "drooling fanboy cultist" or the like.
Oh, crap, too late.
Remember, this is slashdot, where it's NOT OKAY TO LIKE ANYTHING.
No scientist is opposed to students learning facts.
That's why they don't want ID taught in schools. There's already enough - if not too much - material for students to learn, so why add factless, pseudoscientific garbage to the syllabus?
And a montage works best if you've got a bitchin' 80's soundtrack!
The problem seems to be that the discussion took place, the ID'ers didn't like the outcome, so they decided instead to paint themselves as victims of some vast conspiracy, or people who aren't getting the attention they need to develop their "theories."
This happens a lot. It's like a those crackpots who always trumpet that they've created a perpetual motion machine or found a way around the laws of thermodynamics or whatever, and when the basic math shows errors they howl about some conspiracy by the uranium industry or whatever. The difference is ID has a well-funded public-relations arm that helps put out films and hundreds of press releases. Science has an uphill battle against that sort of thing, since evolutionary theory doesn't sound-bite well, requires rigorous scrutiny of data and findings - and issuing press releases and going "to the people" doesn't have those problems.
In certain environments that I've had to work in, the only way to actually use Visual Studio's debugger was to run as admin. The workaround to allow a non-admin-user to attach to a running process was just about as much of a security risk as running as admin.
It's a horrible design flaw no matter how you look at it.
You know, people always say he's a jerk, or inflammatory, etc but...well, having read his books and heard him speak he's really quite a soft-spoken, dryly humorous individual. he's pretty much what you'd expect from a british professor at Oxford. he ahs a reputation for being Fallwell-esque but I don't think it's justified (for one thing, he's never referred to a massive catastrophe as retribution for deviant lifstyles). Even in debates with some of his most aggressive opponents he's unflinchingly polite.
I think there's a difference between "outspoken" and "inflammatory." I can only think of a few things he says in TGD that are really shocking, and even then only if you take them without his overall tone.
I think it's pretty easy to tar anyone with a strong opinion on either side of the debate with a broad brush. On the grand scale of things Dawkins is much less extreme on his side of the argument than somene like Fred Phelps would be on the other side.
Wait, TGD was full of *invective*?
I dunno, it seemed pretty damn mild to me. Even his most forceful statements seemed to have wryly humorous footnotes attached to them. Of all the recent books on atheism, I think TGD is probably the most even-keel (with the exception of Baggini's "Short Introduction").
Now Hitchens...he's got a lot more invective than Dr. Dawkins.
24-bit (and higher) sound is, however, incredibly useful for recording. While the listener can't tell on the raw signal, when you start doing effects processing, you want the most bits available to reduce interpolation errors. Those you CAN hear.
(of course, your 24-bit signal has to actually be clean in the first place for this to even matter, which is another issue entirely)
Actually, his books are pretty thoughtful and well-reasoned - TGD spends a lot of time on the subject of reason and rationality and I only really think it slips when he gets into the religion body-count game. He does have a rep for saying inflammatory things in interviews, but a lot of the time it looks to me like he's just sick of being asked the same questions over and over. He also has the problem that so many scientists do - he can't give a short answer, and his long, detailed answers don't make good soundbites.
A few of the other New Athiests (which are actually the same athiests as always, they're just speaking aloud now) also have reputations for inflammation, simply because they disagree with the "well, you can be an athiest, as long as you don't talk about it" attitude that's pervaded the culture for a while. And when you have ex-presidents telling you that you're not a real citizen, or others accusing you of being by default amoral and hedonistic, well...it's easy to see why they're angry.
It's not that it's not paraphrased well, it's a more that it's a more complicated position than one can summarize easily in a paragraph or two - it took both Dawkins and Sam Harris a coupla books each to really nail down. Of course, Harris goes off on some crazy tangent about ESP and Dawkins brings up the old who-killed-more numbers game (which I don't buy, because no historical atrocity is ever as simple as "it's religion/athieism/etc's" fault) but for the most part, they're pretty coherent on the point.
One of the points that leads up to this is that, in a culture with a heavy faith component, it is a requirement of that culture that one must be "respectful" of religion. Even if that religion is saying something completely out-of-the-box, we still have to respect it - there's no place for someone to say "hey, wait a minute, if you think about that for a minute, that's completely insane!" because we need to de facto be "respectful" of deeply-held beliefs, regardless of what they are. It fosters environments where it's okay to not think critically about certain issues, and that can in turn incubate extremisms.
That's not such a great summary either, I realize. Uh, go read Ophelia Benson's "Why Truth Matters" or Julian Baggini's "Athiesm: A Short Introduction." They're better, and less incendiary introductions to the topic than Dawkins or Harris or Hitchens, as they deal with more philosphical/epistemological matters and make fewer angry statements.