I don't want to start a flame war, because I pretty much hate the recording industry, but there are a lot more costs involved in recording than just Pro Tools.
First, you need a good way to get that audio into your computer, and these are still expensive. The newest consumer level Pro Tools mixing board costs about $1500 and can mix 8 sources at a time. The price of larger boards increases exponentially. A professional audio DAT drive ain't cheap, and, most importantly, TO GET A HIGH QUALITY RECORDING YOU NEED A STUDIO. Good quality sound absorbers aren't cheap.
My point is, and let the flames begin, that there are still a lot of costs to sound recording. Also, the cost of producing an album isn't why they're so expensive. If that was true, CD costs would have fell when they became cheap to produce.
I'm not making the argument that new technologies shouldn't be researched, or that the current regulatory scheme is correct. This thread started because someone made some very ignorant and mean statements based on an article that was highly flawed. I was simply trying to state that the "the FCC is a relic of old thinking" crowd overstates things.
And, personally, I think we should stick them on an airplane with some very powerful wideband transmitters. Over the ocean, though.
I was simply trying to dispel some of these myths that the communications ignorant seem to be propagating.
Many older technologies are still in wide use. Also, power control, node routing, and directional antennas will improve just about any point-to-point communications.
From you blatently simplistic arguments, I can see that you suffer from the same ignorance of actual communications theory as the author of the Salon article.
First, people are already doing exactly what you say. Bluetooth, 802.11a,b,g and other technologies operate on unlicensed bands. However, you may notice that you're 802.11 performance sucks if someone near you uses a microwave.
Second, different frequencies have different propagation characteristics in the real world. There is some scarcity, it's not fake. CDMA cell phones use all kinds of spectrum reuse techniques, and they still interfere with each other.
Third, the smart antenna argument, is being used by the lazy geeks who "don't get it". But it's not exactly cheap or easy to implement. Furthermore, for the frequencies used today, it isn't very applicable because the spacing is larger than your average cell phone. That's why it's used in cell phone base stations and those cool WiLan array base stations.
And finally, yes, some people want to send signals farther than 100m. That will take real power, and interfere with all of your "mesh networks."
If you think you can fix it, take some damn communications classes. Build one of these "smart radios." Then you'll see what the problems are.
Because the channels are very different. The physical network that the internet is routed over has the similiar problems, this is why wired data rates are limited. The data only network of the internet represents an ideal channel, although it is rate limited. In the real world, try as you might, the laws of electromagnetics keep getting in your way.
Most modern radios (I mean those in cell phones/WiLan) use a combination of these techniques. Furthermore you have a serious lack of understanding of the technologies you mentioned.
First, CDMA is considered on the forefront of spread spectrum technologies today, TDMA is old-hat. Second, TDMA is not infinitely scalable. If you have shorter time slices, you increase the bandwidth. There is no free lunch, you have to use bandwidth to send data. You can sometimes increase efficiency, but nothing is infinitely scalable.
Really, put the infinitely scalable TDMA system in the engineering hall of fame with the perpetual motion machine and brickwall filter.
Please read the original article before you attack the character of people who put their real names in the reply. The pinhole camera thing came right out of the article, and highlighted the gross lack of technical knowledge of the author. College freshmen in physics and engineering know that radio waves interfere. It's the basis of quantum mechanics.
The reply of Rauch was completely accurate. I'd like to see you send any signifcant power at modern radio or TV frequencies without a giant antenna. Mesh networking may be nice, but what happens when you're alone on a back road with your.1W transmitter that can send 100m? And, it still doesn't change the fact that all of the technologies that you mentioned are incompatible with existing technologies.
Let the people who have EE and not CS degrees build the radios. Real life is not digital.
Yes, and if you want to redesign and replace every radio on the planet, using technology that is significantly more expensive, or doesn't even exist yet, be my guest. But you have to replace my TV with the $20,000 frequency hopping spread spectrum one.
Also frequency hopping spread spectrum was designed to stop jamming since it's hard to broadcast across a very wide spectrum at high power. But give one of these transmitters to everyone in a metropolitan area and watch the mayhem insue. All cell networks use spread spectrum technology, and there are still subscriber limits.
No, really, you're full of crap. It is bandwidth. The band of the signal in this case is 2KHz wide. Hence the name. Really, put a 2KHz signal on a carrier and look at it in a spectrum analyzer. It'll be 2KHz wide. Please stop commenting if you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
On a side note, just try transmitting at 2KHz. A half wavelength antenna is.5*c/2KHz=150km long.
SCO, I mean Caldera, sells Linux (and Unix). They claim that IBM improperly added their Unix technology to Linux. However, it didn't bother them when they sold Linux, with those improvements, for years. So they're suing IBM for improperly modifying a product that SCO is selling, and has known about for a long time.
Except for SCO, none of the primary UNIX vendors ever developed a UNIX "flavor" to operate on an Intel-based processor chip set. This is because the earlier Intel processors were considered to have inadequate processing power for use in the more demanding enterprise market applications.
Al Queda terrorists have broken into Microsoft in an attempt to add secret back doors and trojans into Microsoft Windows XP. Some of the features include and email client that can propagate viruses without user intervention. Other trojan like viruses include a "feature" that requires users to turn over personal information including social security and credit card numbers to be stored in an easily hackable online database. A new feature, also reportedly added by the terrorists, requires users to call Microsoft when the computers hardware is updated, causing costly delays to the users workday. Ones ecurity expert is quoted as saying "This Windows release is the best virus propagation tool I've ever seen." A noted business analyst commented "This product causes the largest decrease in worker productivity since the LoveBug."
Redoing the math wouldn't be that difficult, you could follow the same derivation, just use different functions for the probabilities. However, the big point is that, while sending binary information, communications systems don't used binary symbols. Most modern communication systems use 2^n symbols to be compatible with binary (the methods are a little too complicated to be explained here), but 3^n would not be that much of a leap.
Copyright is designed to give authors control over the distribution and marketing of their works. Traditional copyright laws enforce this notion by allowing the author to control commercial distribution (i.e. for profit). With traditional distribution methods (paper, records, analog tapes, etc.) this effectively controls access as well, because of the difficulty of duplication. When drafting the DMCA (and even the AHRA) the legislature got these two concepts confused. Publishers were so used to controlling access, they began to view it as their right. By giving publishers this complete control over their work, the government has flown directly in the face of constitutional copyright protection and existing law. This represents the flawed belief that all existing legal notions must be changed in the digital world, when in fact, current situations are exactly what they are designed to address.
"There has been a lot of discussion about circumvention and free speech," Adler said. "But I wonder if those same advocates would be as protective of a piece of technology that helps people obtain their personal information online."
I want the technology that protects my personal data to be open. Legal security means nothing to people who are already trying to break the law. This is a whitewash to fool the drones. These people know what geeks really think.
We, Adobe, have used an illegal law to scare the crap out of anyone who would want to produce a product to protect their rights.
Having accomplished this goal, we need some good spin. God knows we need it after that KIllu!!!censored by Adobe!!! debacle. By appearing to not support the charges, we can appear like a nice company. Maybe no one will notice that we got the government to initiate criminal charges, and that our opinion has about the same legal standing as Donald Duck's at this point.
Furthermore, we have reiterated our support of the DMCA. It might be illegal, immoral, largely redundant, and will lead to weak encryption that helps pirates and hurts legitimate users, but we stand to make a heap of money off of it, so who cares.
Now we can go back to making sure that Acrobat 6 takes all of the resources of a supercomputer, and still sucks ass.
You're a troll, and this is the last time I feed you. This is a news site. Slanted, yes, but a news site. They did their job, they linked to the relevant information. People can do what they see fit. This site is not a repeater for various mailing lists. People who are interested can join the mailing lists themselves.
Oh, and about your little rant. You're original statement said that/. didn't cover anything at all, now you're bitching about what they did cover. You do know that you're original post is still accessible, right? Also, this is a comment on/., not on the free-sklyarov mailing list, so why does my knowledge of that matter? Stop bitching and become part of the solution.
It's ignorant morons like you who have kneejerk reactions to everything without bothering to actually READ anything that junk up slashdot with useless comments.
Well, you and whatever jackass moderator that actually modded your comments up.
To everyone that has replied. I'm not saying that the Chinese are going to guide a missle with the PS2. I'm saying that's the goverment's reasoning for not wanting the chinese to have them. I was responding to the knee jerk comments of people who hadn't read the article.
Sometimes perhaps you should read more than the title before posting an article. DVD technology is not secret, and they are manufactured in China. The problem is the extreemly powerful CPU on the Playstation 2, which many governments believe could have military purposes. I seem to remember an article a while ago about using one to guide missles. We don't sell supercomputers to China for similiar reasons.
Slashdot is starting to become more like gossipy old women. Read the articles sometimes before you go nuts.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to start a flame war, because I pretty much hate the recording industry, but there are a lot more costs involved in recording than just Pro Tools.
First, you need a good way to get that audio into your computer, and these are still expensive. The newest consumer level Pro Tools mixing board costs about $1500 and can mix 8 sources at a time. The price of larger boards increases exponentially. A professional audio DAT drive ain't cheap, and, most importantly, TO GET A HIGH QUALITY RECORDING YOU NEED A STUDIO. Good quality sound absorbers aren't cheap.
My point is, and let the flames begin, that there are still a lot of costs to sound recording. Also, the cost of producing an album isn't why they're so expensive. If that was true, CD costs would have fell when they became cheap to produce.
Sorry, you are correct. I was actually referring to the previous comment.
I'm not making the argument that new technologies shouldn't be researched, or that the current regulatory scheme is correct. This thread started because someone made some very ignorant and mean statements based on an article that was highly flawed. I was simply trying to state that the "the FCC is a relic of old thinking" crowd overstates things.
And, personally, I think we should stick them on an airplane with some very powerful wideband transmitters. Over the ocean, though.
Quite right on all fronts.
I was simply trying to dispel some of these myths that the communications ignorant seem to be propagating.
Many older technologies are still in wide use. Also, power control, node routing, and directional antennas will improve just about any point-to-point communications.
From you blatently simplistic arguments, I can see that you suffer from the same ignorance of actual communications theory as the author of the Salon article.
First, people are already doing exactly what you say. Bluetooth, 802.11a,b,g and other technologies operate on unlicensed bands. However, you may notice that you're 802.11 performance sucks if someone near you uses a microwave.
Second, different frequencies have different propagation characteristics in the real world. There is some scarcity, it's not fake. CDMA cell phones use all kinds of spectrum reuse techniques, and they still interfere with each other.
Third, the smart antenna argument, is being used by the lazy geeks who "don't get it". But it's not exactly cheap or easy to implement. Furthermore, for the frequencies used today, it isn't very applicable because the spacing is larger than your average cell phone. That's why it's used in cell phone base stations and those cool WiLan array base stations.
And finally, yes, some people want to send signals farther than 100m. That will take real power, and interfere with all of your "mesh networks."
If you think you can fix it, take some damn communications classes. Build one of these "smart radios." Then you'll see what the problems are.
Because the channels are very different. The physical network that the internet is routed over has the similiar problems, this is why wired data rates are limited. The data only network of the internet represents an ideal channel, although it is rate limited. In the real world, try as you might, the laws of electromagnetics keep getting in your way.
Where the hell do you get your info?
Most modern radios (I mean those in cell phones/WiLan) use a combination of these techniques. Furthermore you have a serious lack of understanding of the technologies you mentioned.
First, CDMA is considered on the forefront of spread spectrum technologies today, TDMA is old-hat. Second, TDMA is not infinitely scalable. If you have shorter time slices, you increase the bandwidth. There is no free lunch, you have to use bandwidth to send data. You can sometimes increase efficiency, but nothing is infinitely scalable.
Really, put the infinitely scalable TDMA system in the engineering hall of fame with the perpetual motion machine and brickwall filter.
The reply of Rauch was completely accurate. I'd like to see you send any signifcant power at modern radio or TV frequencies without a giant antenna. Mesh networking may be nice, but what happens when you're alone on a back road with your
Let the people who have EE and not CS degrees build the radios. Real life is not digital.
Also frequency hopping spread spectrum was designed to stop jamming since it's hard to broadcast across a very wide spectrum at high power. But give one of these transmitters to everyone in a metropolitan area and watch the mayhem insue. All cell networks use spread spectrum technology, and there are still subscriber limits.
On a side note, just try transmitting at 2KHz. A half wavelength antenna is
I understand that, but the complaint says that no other intel flavors were produced.
Let me make sure that I understand this.
SCO, I mean Caldera, sells Linux (and Unix). They claim that IBM improperly added their Unix technology to Linux. However, it didn't bother them when they sold Linux, with those improvements, for years. So they're suing IBM for improperly modifying a product that SCO is selling, and has known about for a long time.
From the complaint:
Except for SCO, none of the primary UNIX vendors ever developed a UNIX "flavor" to operate on an Intel-based processor chip set. This is because the earlier Intel processors were considered to have inadequate processing power for use in the more demanding enterprise market applications.
What about the x86 version of Solaris?
They haven't released the actual card specs, this is just a sample.
The released card could run at different speeds.
How hard would I have to overclock a Ti4600 to meet these specs?
Try an alternate browser.
Does that wool get itchy?
Al Queda terrorists have broken into Microsoft in an attempt to add secret back doors and trojans into Microsoft Windows XP. Some of the features include and email client that can propagate viruses without user intervention. Other trojan like viruses include a "feature" that requires users to turn over personal information including social security and credit card numbers to be stored in an easily hackable online database. A new feature, also reportedly added by the terrorists, requires users to call Microsoft when the computers hardware is updated, causing costly delays to the users workday. Ones ecurity expert is quoted as saying "This Windows release is the best virus propagation tool I've ever seen." A noted business analyst commented "This product causes the largest decrease in worker productivity since the LoveBug."
Redoing the math wouldn't be that difficult, you could follow the same derivation, just use different functions for the probabilities. However, the big point is that, while sending binary information, communications systems don't used binary symbols. Most modern communication systems use 2^n symbols to be compatible with binary (the methods are a little too complicated to be explained here), but 3^n would not be that much of a leap.
AKA Drive-through
I want the technology that protects my personal data to be open. Legal security means nothing to people who are already trying to break the law. This is a whitewash to fool the drones. These people know what geeks really think.
Having accomplished this goal, we need some good spin. God knows we need it after that KIllu!!!censored by Adobe!!! debacle. By appearing to not support the charges, we can appear like a nice company. Maybe no one will notice that we got the government to initiate criminal charges, and that our opinion has about the same legal standing as Donald Duck's at this point.
Furthermore, we have reiterated our support of the DMCA. It might be illegal, immoral, largely redundant, and will lead to weak encryption that helps pirates and hurts legitimate users, but we stand to make a heap of money off of it, so who cares.
Now we can go back to making sure that Acrobat 6 takes all of the resources of a supercomputer, and still sucks ass.
Oh, and about your little rant. You're original statement said that /. didn't cover anything at all, now you're bitching about what they did cover. You do know that you're original post is still accessible, right? Also, this is a comment on /., not on the free-sklyarov mailing list, so why does my knowledge of that matter? Stop bitching and become part of the solution.
It's ignorant morons like you who have kneejerk reactions to everything without bothering to actually READ anything that junk up slashdot with useless comments.
Well, you and whatever jackass moderator that actually modded your comments up.
To everyone that has replied. I'm not saying that the Chinese are going to guide a missle with the PS2. I'm saying that's the goverment's reasoning for not wanting the chinese to have them. I was responding to the knee jerk comments of people who hadn't read the article.
Slashdot is starting to become more like gossipy old women. Read the articles sometimes before you go nuts.