This article makes no assumptions of the kind you assume it is making. You clearly didn't as much as open TFA or it would have been plain as day your assumption about its assumptions is incorrect. This is called closed-mindedness and lack of a clue if it occurs in normal people, but now it's suddenly acceptable?
If an actual, serious war breaks out air superiority will be a very small problem compared to nuclear damage and fallout. All nuclear powers except the US, UK and France are moving towards a "limited use" doctrine, making advanced conventional weapons rather moot.
The main use of air power is, and will remain, managing low intensity conflicts.
Given that ROE in modern engagements include visual identification, and will do so for the foreseeable future, the scenario is pretty clear and does not include any form of BVR engagement. That capability is pretty much a waste in low intensity conflicts, and in areas where civilian and foreign aircraft can be nearby - which describes pretty much all near future conflict scenarios.
And against an F35 the F4 even has a performance advantage in some respects, despite being fifty years old. And you can hang the same AIM-9X for close combat on an F4 with minor modifications to the aircraft.
The point may seem horribly made to those to whom the concept is foreign and antithetical to their way of thinking, yes.
It's rather a matter of reading ability. The majority of characters in her books are selfish. It's just that some are made heroes by virtue of her decisions in how the story moves. Not by their superior, well, anything, really, but by author fiat.
I quoted Atlas Shrugged, and specifically for the authoritarian point made.
And the characters, "good" and "bad", in that story are all selfish. That is indeed one of the points of the whole story. It's just that some are selected by the writer as a "good" selfish, and the events are carefully arranged to allow them to thrive.
Sadly reality is not quite that accommodating. No man is an island, and society is not born in the lap of Randian supermen. Nor does it thrive there. People working together beats out people suffering from selfishness every day. Not always, but often enough that very few people suffer from it to a bad extent. Which is a good thing.
If that's what you took away from Atlas Shrugged then you missed the point or simply refuse to acknowledge it for ideological/political reasons.
Neither. I get the point, it's just so horribly made it doesn't follow at all from the events in her books.
And it seems you conveniently missed the title of one of her stories. "The virtue of selfishness". Oh well, seems you have some reading to catch up on.
It shows that you're not using Linux. The problem is not with OEM drivers. There are hardly any of those. And there shouldn't be. Drivers belong in the kernel tree, and get updated by Torvalds and friends. And they have plenty of manpower to handle that, and then some. The sole exception is gaming level 3D drivers, where a rather kludgy solution exists, but it works well enough in practice.
No, the problem (as far as it exists) is with hardware vendors who do not support development of Linux drivers by providing documentation. The kernel team are champing at the bit to develop drivers, and the hardware vendors won't help them. That's the reason Linux does not support all available hardware (although admittedly, it's been a very long time since I ran into hardware that Linux does not support out of the box).
Sure, if we're in the realm of science fiction and utterly ridiculous conflict scenarios, then ROE are irrelevant. But those are just that, ridiculous.
China won't be invading by military force and in the process destroy the value of their US dollars. It's not going to happen, and there exists no rationale what so ever for it. Why would they shatter their economy for territorial gain? They're not even bothering with annexing Taiwan, because they know that eventually Taiwan will ask to join them.
But what is going to happen is that the US will be engaged in high visibility, high media coverage conflicts through the next half century where their every step will be watched by the whole world. And they won't want to get caught shooting down any civilian airliners during those conflicts, nor do they want to be framed for doing so. Meaning the ROE will become ever stricter, and an airplane built on the doctrine of BVR only fighting will be a liability.
Of course, the US can still manufacture F16's, and probably will again in the near future, to complement the "5th generation" systems.
The problem is not the doctrine. The problem is the ROE under which US forces generally operate. Those ROE at present do not allow BVR fire against suspected enemy planes, and are not likely to allow it for quite some time given the shot down civilian airplanes in recent times.
Thus, no matter the doctrine, US pilots will be forced into the telephone booth with a knife to fight.
And a biplane was not in any respect on par with the F4, but the F4 in the hands of a capable pilot would be a credible threat to a modern jet fighter in a dogfight.
We haven't come nearly as far in the last fifty years as we did in the preceding 50 years. And most of all, our ROE's have if anything become a lot stricter, requiring jet fighters to close to visual identification range (much, much closer than visual spotting range) before being allowed to engage.
The modern air to air battlefield has a lot more in common with the Vietnam era battlefield than with the ideal of BVR engagements.
That has never been the case, even when the US has suffered bad losses because of the ROE. In Vietnam the ROE cost the US vast amounts of lives and resources, and the ROE not only didn't change, but breaking them led to severe repercussions.
The same for the Bosnia conflicts. And for Somalia. No matter where, and what the cost has been, the US relies on support from the international community through it's ROE, and that is too valuable to throw away.
Relaxing the ROE is simply not an option, meaning the aircraft will have to deal with visual confirmation of targets and "knife fight in a phone booth" style combat no matter what their technical BVR ability is.
That is reflected in pilot training, and also needs to be reflected in airplane capability. Anyone arguing otherwise is simply delusional.
Oh, she gets a lot of things right. She brings with her a lot of valid observations from her time in a totalitarian state, and she sees how many of them are applied in her new home country. There is a lot of commentary she gets right.
Where she goes wrong is in assuming this means that only selfish people should lead the world and then everything will be all right. In fact, it is amazing that she misses that observation from the totalitarian state. Her perception was selective indeed.
As was her writing on that point; it's hard to find more selfish people than the ones she so strongly despise in her stories. They just happen to not be written as heroes, and therefore their selfishness is bad, while that of the heroes is good. Simply because her stories make it so.
There is one crucial feature that isn't covered perfectly: absolute compatibility with MS Office.
Not even MS Office has that, and that doesn't seem to matter. No, that is not where the problem lies. The compatibility only has to be good enough, and for pretty much everything it is.
Quite often it is even better than MS Office. I have used Libre Office to rescue documents which MS Office stopped loading because something broke in them. And that did not sway people enough to even make them try out Libre Office. Compatibility is a non-issue. It's all inertia.
Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
Yes, Hitler (and Allied media) put a stop to that, but not until after the Soviets had found out about it. The book and series "17 moments of spring" are based around the events. I have only read translated history books here and there, and seen the television series as my Russian is highly inadequate. That is the best leads I can provide, as I do not have the books anymore.
And yes, the carving up after WWI was, to Germany's eyes, arbitrary. They made a "bridge" of land through Germany, fercrissakes. It was petty beyond belief. And every part of Germany was once part of something else. You also downplay the state of the German economy between the wars. It fell through the floor. The terms negotiated were grotesque towards the Germans.
And indeed, the nukes served a useful political purpose. But their military effect was pretty much zero.
Imagine if Daesh manages to get hold of a nukes. One goes off in New York. Three days later another turns Boston to slag. The day after, downtown LA is the center of a dirty nuke.
Do then you see Obama handing the US government over to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Is that the response you expect from the US government in the face of such hardship?
Is that the response you'd expect from the Japanese war cabinet, when they had ignored that you killed 300000 civilians while you promised not to stop, and you just piled up 40000 more?
Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
The decision was taken by the leaders in WWII than unlike in WWI the enemy (aka Nazi's and Japan) had to be utterly defeated
That is completely and utterly false. The US and the UK were negotiating with Himmler for a conditional surrender, in order to gain territorial advantages over Russia. A Russian spy uncovered this, and damage control went into effect, and what you are regurgitating is the result of that damage control.
History had proved with Germany that a ceasefire and negotiated peace had been the biggest mistake of the 20th Century costing tens of millions of lives.
That is not at all what history had shown. The mistake was the insane peace policies, and the arbitrary carving up of Germany, which lead to a collapsed economy and bitter resentment in Germany. Those are the base causes of WWII, and while they came out of the peace negotiations, the problem is not that they were too lax.
The idea that the nuclear bombs didn't have an effect on the Japanese war cabinet is pure and total revisionist fantasy
They had absolutely no effect. The Tokyo firebombing had much more effect on Japan, killing more people, destroying much more property, and that didn't sway them a bit. They already had 86 destroyed cities, so two more does not change much. The War Cabinet didn't care at all about the atomic bombs. They made no difference.
For starters it is in direct contravention of recorded testimony given by surviving members of the Japanese war cabinet after the war.
What the nuclear bombs provided was an excellent excuse to surrender. Japan would prefer to be under the thumb of the US than under the thumb of Russia, and when Russia broke the peace treaty and attacked them, they were very quick to look for reasons to surrender to the US.
And that is what the atomic bombs provided. A convenient excuse. Nothing more.
This all blows matters completely out of proportion. Today we're scared numb by nukes. Back then all this wringing of hands and pondering did not occur, because an atomic bomb to the governments of WWII was nothing but a bigger bomb.
And "hide the slaughter" of fewer people than the first bombing run on Tokyo killed? What on earth for? They were at war, and strategic bombing of civilians was considered a viable strategy. The US had already killed over 300 thousand Japanese civilians in the summer bombings. What's there to hide?
Re:wikipedia seems incomplete on this point
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
Are you suggesting that unless the conclusion is guaranteed it justifies ignoring all the other options that would have killed far fewer people?
I am stating - not suggesting - that all options were tried, including bombing 86 Japanese cities to rubble, and including using two atomic bombs. None of that worked, I might add.
The two atomic bombs were peanuts in the bombing campaign. They didn't even make it to the top of the death count. And they did not sway the Japanese into surrendering.
As for your example of the last soldier fighting on until 1974, that was very much a unique situation. If it were otherwise then why didn't more of the Japanese military carry on even after surrendering?
Lots did.
It was a communication problem, it doesn't justify the use of atomic weapons.
You say "atomic weapons" as if that carries any form of special significance. It doesn't. Dead from boiled in a Tokyo canal during firebombing or dead from a blast wave in Nagasaki is still dead. Where is your outrage over the Tokyo firebombings?
The Soviet Union routinely engaged in rape, burning and pillaging during WWII. They also had Unit 731 equivalents. And they were with the Allies. Thus, the answer is: plenty of them.
The Allied engaged in exactly the same sort of wholesale barbarism as the Axis did, and on about the same scale. The difference is, the Allied won. That is why they are today called "the civilized world" even though there was no appreciable difference in conduct at the time.
Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
Let me say that again, the second bomb came just seventy-two hours later. In the age before satellites or the internet.
74 hours actually.
Do you think the Japanese government had any idea what the casualty count was?
Yes. They knew that within a few hours.
At that point in time, do you think that the majority of officers in their military and advisers to the emperor even fully appreciated what an atomic bomb was?
Yes. Japan had its own nuclear program. They knew very well what an atomic bomb was.
And they didn't care. It was not Hiroshima nor Nagasaki that made them surrender. In the summer of 1945 over 300000 Japanese were killed. The atomic bombings were just added on the pile. They were just bigger bombs.
For some background on this, since you take your arguments from wikipedia (as if they get anything about politics right), look here:
Re:wikipedia seems incomplete on this point
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 2
Of course it wasn't the only way. There were lots of ways available. Like killing a lot more people than the atomic bombs did by firebombing Tokyo some more.
In WWII, and for quite a few years afterwards, nuclear weapons were nothing but bigger bombs. It's only in hindsight that they show up as the monstrous weapons they are. The decision to bomb Nagasaki was no different than the decision to send bombers over the Ruhr area on the night of July 22 1943.
All this is completely forgotten today. We (and by we I mean you) argue as if the decision makers back then knew what we know today about nuclear weapons, and as if they knew that Japan would surrender.
Japan's surrender was by no means a foregone conclusion at the time. And in fact, the last Japanese soldier did not cease fighting until 1974. That kind of resolve was not unique. Japan was not about to give in just because things looked a little bleak. US forces burned down Tokyo, and that did not make Japan surrender. How on earth would blowing up a bomb in a desert or on a mountain make Japan surrender?
Formats like DVD audio and other high-res formats set strict limits for minimum dynamic range, overall loudness and other mastering parameters.
No they don't. There are no such limits either technically or in the licenses. What there is, sometimes, is a desire from the seller of the high-res format media to cater to a different audience, and therefore use a different set of mastering parameters.
There is nothing stopping anyone from making just as compressed a DVD audio as a CD. Or a 24 bit FLAC, or whatever. It's all just PCM. And not even SACD/DSD/DSF is immune to this, although the technical details differ.
While this is true, they are not nearly as good as their price tag would indicate. You can find just as good quality products at a much better price, and much better products at the same price.
Heck, even a set of JBL speakers for the same price will sound a lot better, and those are a joke to "serious" audiophiles.
Slashdot Mirror
This article makes no assumptions of the kind you assume it is making. You clearly didn't as much as open TFA or it would have been plain as day your assumption about its assumptions is incorrect. This is called closed-mindedness and lack of a clue if it occurs in normal people, but now it's suddenly acceptable?
If you want the real story, RTFA.
If an actual, serious war breaks out air superiority will be a very small problem compared to nuclear damage and fallout. All nuclear powers except the US, UK and France are moving towards a "limited use" doctrine, making advanced conventional weapons rather moot.
The main use of air power is, and will remain, managing low intensity conflicts.
Given that ROE in modern engagements include visual identification, and will do so for the foreseeable future, the scenario is pretty clear and does not include any form of BVR engagement. That capability is pretty much a waste in low intensity conflicts, and in areas where civilian and foreign aircraft can be nearby - which describes pretty much all near future conflict scenarios.
And against an F35 the F4 even has a performance advantage in some respects, despite being fifty years old. And you can hang the same AIM-9X for close combat on an F4 with minor modifications to the aircraft.
The point may seem horribly made to those to whom the concept is foreign and antithetical to their way of thinking, yes.
It's rather a matter of reading ability. The majority of characters in her books are selfish. It's just that some are made heroes by virtue of her decisions in how the story moves. Not by their superior, well, anything, really, but by author fiat.
I quoted Atlas Shrugged, and specifically for the authoritarian point made.
And the characters, "good" and "bad", in that story are all selfish. That is indeed one of the points of the whole story. It's just that some are selected by the writer as a "good" selfish, and the events are carefully arranged to allow them to thrive.
Sadly reality is not quite that accommodating. No man is an island, and society is not born in the lap of Randian supermen. Nor does it thrive there. People working together beats out people suffering from selfishness every day. Not always, but often enough that very few people suffer from it to a bad extent. Which is a good thing.
Yes, I have. In detail, when I lived there.
Tell me, how long have you lived in China?
If that's what you took away from Atlas Shrugged then you missed the point or simply refuse to acknowledge it for ideological/political reasons.
Neither. I get the point, it's just so horribly made it doesn't follow at all from the events in her books.
And it seems you conveniently missed the title of one of her stories. "The virtue of selfishness". Oh well, seems you have some reading to catch up on.
It shows that you're not using Linux. The problem is not with OEM drivers. There are hardly any of those. And there shouldn't be. Drivers belong in the kernel tree, and get updated by Torvalds and friends. And they have plenty of manpower to handle that, and then some. The sole exception is gaming level 3D drivers, where a rather kludgy solution exists, but it works well enough in practice.
No, the problem (as far as it exists) is with hardware vendors who do not support development of Linux drivers by providing documentation. The kernel team are champing at the bit to develop drivers, and the hardware vendors won't help them. That's the reason Linux does not support all available hardware (although admittedly, it's been a very long time since I ran into hardware that Linux does not support out of the box).
Sure, if we're in the realm of science fiction and utterly ridiculous conflict scenarios, then ROE are irrelevant. But those are just that, ridiculous.
China won't be invading by military force and in the process destroy the value of their US dollars. It's not going to happen, and there exists no rationale what so ever for it. Why would they shatter their economy for territorial gain? They're not even bothering with annexing Taiwan, because they know that eventually Taiwan will ask to join them.
But what is going to happen is that the US will be engaged in high visibility, high media coverage conflicts through the next half century where their every step will be watched by the whole world. And they won't want to get caught shooting down any civilian airliners during those conflicts, nor do they want to be framed for doing so. Meaning the ROE will become ever stricter, and an airplane built on the doctrine of BVR only fighting will be a liability.
Of course, the US can still manufacture F16's, and probably will again in the near future, to complement the "5th generation" systems.
The problem is not the doctrine. The problem is the ROE under which US forces generally operate. Those ROE at present do not allow BVR fire against suspected enemy planes, and are not likely to allow it for quite some time given the shot down civilian airplanes in recent times.
Thus, no matter the doctrine, US pilots will be forced into the telephone booth with a knife to fight.
And a biplane was not in any respect on par with the F4, but the F4 in the hands of a capable pilot would be a credible threat to a modern jet fighter in a dogfight.
We haven't come nearly as far in the last fifty years as we did in the preceding 50 years. And most of all, our ROE's have if anything become a lot stricter, requiring jet fighters to close to visual identification range (much, much closer than visual spotting range) before being allowed to engage.
The modern air to air battlefield has a lot more in common with the Vietnam era battlefield than with the ideal of BVR engagements.
That has never been the case, even when the US has suffered bad losses because of the ROE. In Vietnam the ROE cost the US vast amounts of lives and resources, and the ROE not only didn't change, but breaking them led to severe repercussions.
The same for the Bosnia conflicts. And for Somalia. No matter where, and what the cost has been, the US relies on support from the international community through it's ROE, and that is too valuable to throw away.
Relaxing the ROE is simply not an option, meaning the aircraft will have to deal with visual confirmation of targets and "knife fight in a phone booth" style combat no matter what their technical BVR ability is.
That is reflected in pilot training, and also needs to be reflected in airplane capability. Anyone arguing otherwise is simply delusional.
Oh, she gets a lot of things right. She brings with her a lot of valid observations from her time in a totalitarian state, and she sees how many of them are applied in her new home country. There is a lot of commentary she gets right.
Where she goes wrong is in assuming this means that only selfish people should lead the world and then everything will be all right. In fact, it is amazing that she misses that observation from the totalitarian state. Her perception was selective indeed.
As was her writing on that point; it's hard to find more selfish people than the ones she so strongly despise in her stories. They just happen to not be written as heroes, and therefore their selfishness is bad, while that of the heroes is good. Simply because her stories make it so.
There is one crucial feature that isn't covered perfectly: absolute compatibility with MS Office.
Not even MS Office has that, and that doesn't seem to matter. No, that is not where the problem lies. The compatibility only has to be good enough, and for pretty much everything it is.
Quite often it is even better than MS Office. I have used Libre Office to rescue documents which MS Office stopped loading because something broke in them. And that did not sway people enough to even make them try out Libre Office. Compatibility is a non-issue. It's all inertia.
Yes, Hitler (and Allied media) put a stop to that, but not until after the Soviets had found out about it. The book and series "17 moments of spring" are based around the events. I have only read translated history books here and there, and seen the television series as my Russian is highly inadequate. That is the best leads I can provide, as I do not have the books anymore.
And yes, the carving up after WWI was, to Germany's eyes, arbitrary. They made a "bridge" of land through Germany, fercrissakes. It was petty beyond belief. And every part of Germany was once part of something else. You also downplay the state of the German economy between the wars. It fell through the floor. The terms negotiated were grotesque towards the Germans.
And indeed, the nukes served a useful political purpose. But their military effect was pretty much zero.
Imagine if Daesh manages to get hold of a nukes. One goes off in New York. Three days later another turns Boston to slag. The day after, downtown LA is the center of a dirty nuke.
Do then you see Obama handing the US government over to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Is that the response you expect from the US government in the face of such hardship?
Is that the response you'd expect from the Japanese war cabinet, when they had ignored that you killed 300000 civilians while you promised not to stop, and you just piled up 40000 more?
The decision was taken by the leaders in WWII than unlike in WWI the enemy (aka Nazi's and Japan) had to be utterly defeated
That is completely and utterly false. The US and the UK were negotiating with Himmler for a conditional surrender, in order to gain territorial advantages over Russia. A Russian spy uncovered this, and damage control went into effect, and what you are regurgitating is the result of that damage control.
History had proved with Germany that a ceasefire and negotiated peace had been the biggest mistake of the 20th Century costing tens of millions of lives.
That is not at all what history had shown. The mistake was the insane peace policies, and the arbitrary carving up of Germany, which lead to a collapsed economy and bitter resentment in Germany. Those are the base causes of WWII, and while they came out of the peace negotiations, the problem is not that they were too lax.
The idea that the nuclear bombs didn't have an effect on the Japanese war cabinet is pure and total revisionist fantasy
They had absolutely no effect. The Tokyo firebombing had much more effect on Japan, killing more people, destroying much more property, and that didn't sway them a bit. They already had 86 destroyed cities, so two more does not change much. The War Cabinet didn't care at all about the atomic bombs. They made no difference.
For starters it is in direct contravention of recorded testimony given by surviving members of the Japanese war cabinet after the war.
What the nuclear bombs provided was an excellent excuse to surrender. Japan would prefer to be under the thumb of the US than under the thumb of Russia, and when Russia broke the peace treaty and attacked them, they were very quick to look for reasons to surrender to the US.
And that is what the atomic bombs provided. A convenient excuse. Nothing more.
This all blows matters completely out of proportion. Today we're scared numb by nukes. Back then all this wringing of hands and pondering did not occur, because an atomic bomb to the governments of WWII was nothing but a bigger bomb.
And "hide the slaughter" of fewer people than the first bombing run on Tokyo killed? What on earth for? They were at war, and strategic bombing of civilians was considered a viable strategy. The US had already killed over 300 thousand Japanese civilians in the summer bombings. What's there to hide?
Are you suggesting that unless the conclusion is guaranteed it justifies ignoring all the other options that would have killed far fewer people?
I am stating - not suggesting - that all options were tried, including bombing 86 Japanese cities to rubble, and including using two atomic bombs. None of that worked, I might add.
The two atomic bombs were peanuts in the bombing campaign. They didn't even make it to the top of the death count. And they did not sway the Japanese into surrendering.
As for your example of the last soldier fighting on until 1974, that was very much a unique situation. If it were otherwise then why didn't more of the Japanese military carry on even after surrendering?
Lots did.
It was a communication problem, it doesn't justify the use of atomic weapons.
You say "atomic weapons" as if that carries any form of special significance. It doesn't. Dead from boiled in a Tokyo canal during firebombing or dead from a blast wave in Nagasaki is still dead. Where is your outrage over the Tokyo firebombings?
The Soviet Union routinely engaged in rape, burning and pillaging during WWII. They also had Unit 731 equivalents. And they were with the Allies. Thus, the answer is: plenty of them.
The Allied engaged in exactly the same sort of wholesale barbarism as the Axis did, and on about the same scale. The difference is, the Allied won. That is why they are today called "the civilized world" even though there was no appreciable difference in conduct at the time.
Let me say that again, the second bomb came just seventy-two hours later. In the age before satellites or the internet.
74 hours actually.
Do you think the Japanese government had any idea what the casualty count was?
Yes. They knew that within a few hours.
At that point in time, do you think that the majority of officers in their military and advisers to the emperor even fully appreciated what an atomic bomb was?
Yes. Japan had its own nuclear program. They knew very well what an atomic bomb was.
And they didn't care. It was not Hiroshima nor Nagasaki that made them surrender. In the summer of 1945 over 300000 Japanese were killed. The atomic bombings were just added on the pile. They were just bigger bombs.
For some background on this, since you take your arguments from wikipedia (as if they get anything about politics right), look here:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/...
Of course it wasn't the only way. There were lots of ways available. Like killing a lot more people than the atomic bombs did by firebombing Tokyo some more.
In WWII, and for quite a few years afterwards, nuclear weapons were nothing but bigger bombs. It's only in hindsight that they show up as the monstrous weapons they are. The decision to bomb Nagasaki was no different than the decision to send bombers over the Ruhr area on the night of July 22 1943.
All this is completely forgotten today. We (and by we I mean you) argue as if the decision makers back then knew what we know today about nuclear weapons, and as if they knew that Japan would surrender.
Japan's surrender was by no means a foregone conclusion at the time. And in fact, the last Japanese soldier did not cease fighting until 1974. That kind of resolve was not unique. Japan was not about to give in just because things looked a little bleak. US forces burned down Tokyo, and that did not make Japan surrender. How on earth would blowing up a bomb in a desert or on a mountain make Japan surrender?
The Samsung firmware bug is still there, in the Samsung drives. In addition there was a bug in the RAID0/10 TRIM code which Samsung fixed.
So no, we did not have a Samsung firmware bug in TRIM that was not an issue with Samsung drives.
Wow. Just ... wow.
Formats like DVD audio and other high-res formats set strict limits for minimum dynamic range, overall loudness and other mastering parameters.
No they don't. There are no such limits either technically or in the licenses. What there is, sometimes, is a desire from the seller of the high-res format media to cater to a different audience, and therefore use a different set of mastering parameters.
There is nothing stopping anyone from making just as compressed a DVD audio as a CD. Or a 24 bit FLAC, or whatever. It's all just PCM. And not even SACD/DSD/DSF is immune to this, although the technical details differ.
While this is true, they are not nearly as good as their price tag would indicate. You can find just as good quality products at a much better price, and much better products at the same price.
Heck, even a set of JBL speakers for the same price will sound a lot better, and those are a joke to "serious" audiophiles.