There is no debate... al sound is produced in analog, we hear all sounds in analog. Converting sound to digital formats inherently throws away some of the sound and does not
There are only three good reasons to store sound/audio in digital format:
1. Size. You can use a variety of digital compression algorithms for lossy and loss-less compression 2. Convenience. Unlike analog systems you can instantly seek to any portion of the content. 3. Longevity. No physical wear on the media, and you can create exact duplicates (especially with error correction)
If sound quality were all we were interested in, we'd be purchasing all our music on large format tape.
...(z-index only applies to absolutely-positioned elements)... Um... no. z-index applies to any "positioned box" per the spec. All boxes could be considered positioned as soon as you supply a "z-index" that applies to them.
For the 5GB: batteries dying and Firewire port solder joints failing. These are inherent design limitations. After that I'd say dropping/crushing and water damage.
Wiretap deals with any communication over PSTN or leased lines.
E-Mail is delivered over a TCP session, not via UDP datagrams. When server A sends an email to server B, server A receives an acknowledgment that server B accepted the message.
Email is very similar to telephone connections: you are not guaranteed that you will be able to initiate communication with the remote node: busy signals, no local dial-tone, garbled communication. Once you do connect, you are certain that your message is conveyed.
When we were all on shared 10b2, such complaints were completely justified. When we were all on shared 10bT, such complaints were arguably justified. When we are all on switched 100bT, such complaints are arguably unjustified. When we are all on switched 1000bT, such complaints are completely unjustified.
Maybe there is a bit of a problem if your entire network is run on 802.11b and you have dozens of Rendezvous enabled nodes out there.
Rendezvous is not especially "chatty". I think nodes broadcast a small packet at most every 30 seconds to advertise their services or at least availability.
Ya know... people say that, but what do they mean?
Linux the kernel operates on about 8 different major CPU/system types. The kernel could be custom compiled by the end users to extremely varied settings from driver selection, to memory management to being modular or monolithic. On each system there may be dozens of variations on what libraries are used (GNU, BSD, other), and what system layout, starup scripts, etc are used.
There is no standard "Linux" system one can write software for because Linux isn't a platform. It isn't even an OS, it's just a kernel.
They've built an oversized air pistol/rifle and instead of BBs or pellets, they're shooting firework time-bombs. At least one assumes there's a small battery and timer (or accelerometer) in the shells telling them when to explode after launch.
To my knowledge, and from what I've read in these postings so far, no-one is challenging the "facts" that Michael Moore presents in the film. All the criticism flung at the film so far seems to be about Moore's "suggestions", "innuendo" and "assertions".
The article referenced in the parent does nothing to refute any facts in Moore's film, it does however attempt to refute arguments Moore doesn't make by twisting time and space to make its points.
I don't even know where to begin deconstructing that Slate article, other that to ask: Did that writer see the same film I did? Are there two versions of Fahrenheit 9/11?
I fail to see how any documentary about anything controversial or infamous would not cause viewers to become emotional.
A documentary about Apollo 13, Challenger or Columbia would certainly cause people to become emotional when they saw the arrogance and nearly willful carelessness that caused these events.
As many others you as "What did Moore leave out?" or "What did Moore edit to his favor?". I don't disagree that he does these things, but I ask... Where were these questions during the 2000 election decisions? Where were these questions when Bush was making the case to invade Iraq.
Even if it IS only propaganda, and I'm not saying it is, wouldn't it just be countering the propaganda that we've been getting from the Government for the past 3 years?
Where's a definitive statement of the actual profitability of the new music retail business Apple is creating? In one of the recent analyst calls that Apple streams over the Internet, Fred Anderson (I think it was him) was specifically asked about iTMS profitability. His statement was clear: the iTMS is showing a small profit. I'm not certain there would be a more authoritative source than the CFO reporting to analysts.
Granted this was several months ago, and things may have changed. I've seen no indication in the pricing Apple sees or sets other than prices for newly released albums of "headliners" from the major labels.
Which article? The one linked to in the master article mentions no re-negotiation.
Apple has stated that the "big 5" record companies have started charging them more for certain new releases, hence Apple's prices for those select albums have gone up. This leads me to believe that irrespective of label pricing, Apple will make sure they maintain a slim profit on each sale. After all, no matter what the cost of acquiring the content the cost of "shipping" it remains the same. If $.10 is good enough profit for a $10 album, then $.10 is good enough profit for a $14 album in Apple's eyes.
Why don't you just let iTunes play your fragging playlist in the background? Surely iTunes can't take much more CPU to play the music that UT2004 does?
this has been thoroughly covered by Apple. the iTMS US was making a slight profit as of a few months ago. It's all a matter of volume. Apple's share of revenue from each $.99 song sale is on the order of a dime as I recall.
While no longer a loss leader for the iPod, iTMS will not be a major source of income for Apple until/unless they get a larger cut of the sale.
As I understand, for a time at least, you could purchase gift certificates with a US credit card and sell/send those to people around the world who could then use them.
He was "standing around". Yes it was beside a pickup truck on the side of a road.
In Mr. Hiibel's view he was approached for no reason. His truck was not blocking traffic and not illegally parked. Mr. Hiibel knew he had committed no crime. A police officer arriving on scene appeared to have no connection to anything he was doing.
The "passer-by" turned out to be wrong. Wrong description, wrong account of events. And it was all anonymous to boot.
a) this case says the police need reasonable suspicion; which they clearly had I don't think they did. An anonymous source who'd description didn't match Hiibel is not reasonable suspicion to me.
b) this case wasn't about providing identification documents, all Hiibel had to do was state his name. No. the police never asked him his name and he never refused to state his name. The police continually asked quite clearly "show me some ID", and he kept asking "why?" and "what did I do?" and refusing to show an ID. Mr. Hiible NEVER refused to state his name, he was never asked to.
False report yes. But answering an officer's questions is not making a report. You can lie to police officers all you like as long as you aren't filing a criminal report and aren't under oath/affirmation.
The police are under no obligation to provide truthful, or indeed, any information to me during this "investigation". I fail to see why I shouldn't be allowed the same standard as long as I am "Presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law".
The officer in this situation never asked "what is your name" to the male suspect, he only ever asked "show me some ID", "I need to see some ID", "Where's your ID". Please educate yourself before you comment.
The only time the question "What is your name?" was asked, was of the female after the three officers had tackled her.
The whole stop was wrong. From the anonymous witness who's description was almost completely wrong, to the first officer on scene ignoring the alleged victim and instead worrying about someone's name (for all he knew, she was bleeding to death in the front of the truck), to the assault on the alleged victim by the officers on scene, seriously... tackling a 17 year old girl.
Yup. They also let this one "slide" because the damage to the person was only $250 and a night in jail. There was no significant damage.
Ironically all of the other charges (domestic violence, assault, etc) were either dismissed or he was acquitted. This leads me to think that the police's claim of reasonable cause was improper, and the request itself was made without justification.
If that's what you think, then there is a big fuss. Watch the video. The arresting officer never asks "what's your name". The officer only every asks to "see I.D.".
Slashdot Mirror
There is no debate... al sound is produced in analog, we hear all sounds in analog. Converting sound to digital formats inherently throws away some of the sound and does not
There are only three good reasons to store sound/audio in digital format:
1. Size. You can use a variety of digital compression algorithms for lossy and loss-less compression
2. Convenience. Unlike analog systems you can instantly seek to any portion of the content.
3. Longevity. No physical wear on the media, and you can create exact duplicates (especially with error correction)
If sound quality were all we were interested in, we'd be purchasing all our music on large format tape.
...(z-index only applies to absolutely-positioned elements)...
Um... no. z-index applies to any "positioned box" per the spec. All boxes could be considered positioned as soon as you supply a "z-index" that applies to them.
Shit... we /.ed NASA!
No the poster had it correct.
The DJ is 164% larger than the Mini.
The DJ is 264% as large as the Mini.
The former means 59cm + 1.64 * 59cm
The latter means 59cm * 2.64
Some will call it semantics, I call it being accurate.
For the 5GB: batteries dying and Firewire port solder joints failing. These are inherent design limitations.
After that I'd say dropping/crushing and water damage.
Wiretap deals with any communication over PSTN or leased lines.
E-Mail is delivered over a TCP session, not via UDP datagrams. When server A sends an email to server B, server A receives an acknowledgment that server B accepted the message.
Email is very similar to telephone connections: you are not guaranteed that you will be able to initiate communication with the remote node: busy signals, no local dial-tone, garbled communication. Once you do connect, you are certain that your message is conveyed.
When we were all on shared 10b2, such complaints were completely justified.
When we were all on shared 10bT, such complaints were arguably justified.
When we are all on switched 100bT, such complaints are arguably unjustified.
When we are all on switched 1000bT, such complaints are completely unjustified.
Maybe there is a bit of a problem if your entire network is run on 802.11b and you have dozens of Rendezvous enabled nodes out there.
Rendezvous is not especially "chatty". I think nodes broadcast a small packet at most every 30 seconds to advertise their services or at least availability.
Ya know... people say that, but what do they mean?
Linux the kernel operates on about 8 different major CPU/system types.
The kernel could be custom compiled by the end users to extremely varied settings from driver selection, to memory management to being modular or monolithic.
On each system there may be dozens of variations on what libraries are used (GNU, BSD, other), and what system layout, starup scripts, etc are used.
There is no standard "Linux" system one can write software for because Linux isn't a platform. It isn't even an OS, it's just a kernel.
Bingo!
They've built an oversized air pistol/rifle and instead of BBs or pellets, they're shooting firework time-bombs.
At least one assumes there's a small battery and timer (or accelerometer) in the shells telling them when to explode after launch.
To my knowledge, and from what I've read in these postings so far, no-one is challenging the "facts" that Michael Moore presents in the film. All the criticism flung at the film so far seems to be about Moore's "suggestions", "innuendo" and "assertions".
The article referenced in the parent does nothing to refute any facts in Moore's film, it does however attempt to refute arguments Moore doesn't make by twisting time and space to make its points.
I don't even know where to begin deconstructing that Slate article, other that to ask: Did that writer see the same film I did? Are there two versions of Fahrenheit 9/11?
Documentaries do not have to be about facts.
I fail to see how any documentary about anything controversial or infamous would not cause viewers to become emotional.
A documentary about Apollo 13, Challenger or Columbia would certainly cause people to become emotional when they saw the arrogance and nearly willful carelessness that caused these events.
As many others you as "What did Moore leave out?" or "What did Moore edit to his favor?". I don't disagree that he does these things, but I ask... Where were these questions during the 2000 election decisions? Where were these questions when Bush was making the case to invade Iraq.
Even if it IS only propaganda, and I'm not saying it is, wouldn't it just be countering the propaganda that we've been getting from the Government for the past 3 years?
Where's a definitive statement of the actual profitability of the new music retail business Apple is creating?
In one of the recent analyst calls that Apple streams over the Internet, Fred Anderson (I think it was him) was specifically asked about iTMS profitability. His statement was clear: the iTMS is showing a small profit. I'm not certain there would be a more authoritative source than the CFO reporting to analysts.
Granted this was several months ago, and things may have changed. I've seen no indication in the pricing Apple sees or sets other than prices for newly released albums of "headliners" from the major labels.
Which article? The one linked to in the master article mentions no re-negotiation.
Apple has stated that the "big 5" record companies have started charging them more for certain new releases, hence Apple's prices for those select albums have gone up.
This leads me to believe that irrespective of label pricing, Apple will make sure they maintain a slim profit on each sale. After all, no matter what the cost of acquiring the content the cost of "shipping" it remains the same. If $.10 is good enough profit for a $10 album, then $.10 is good enough profit for a $14 album in Apple's eyes.
Why don't you just let iTunes play your fragging playlist in the background? Surely iTunes can't take much more CPU to play the music that UT2004 does?
this has been thoroughly covered by Apple. the iTMS US was making a slight profit as of a few months ago. It's all a matter of volume.
Apple's share of revenue from each $.99 song sale is on the order of a dime as I recall.
While no longer a loss leader for the iPod, iTMS will not be a major source of income for Apple until/unless they get a larger cut of the sale.
The billing address on your credit card.
As I understand, for a time at least, you could purchase gift certificates with a US credit card and sell/send those to people around the world who could then use them.
I don't now if Apple ever squashed that.
He was "standing around". Yes it was beside a pickup truck on the side of a road.
In Mr. Hiibel's view he was approached for no reason. His truck was not blocking traffic and not illegally parked. Mr. Hiibel knew he had committed no crime. A police officer arriving on scene appeared to have no connection to anything he was doing.
The "passer-by" turned out to be wrong. Wrong description, wrong account of events. And it was all anonymous to boot.
a) this case says the police need reasonable suspicion; which they clearly had
I don't think they did. An anonymous source who'd description didn't match Hiibel is not reasonable suspicion to me.
b) this case wasn't about providing identification documents, all Hiibel had to do was state his name.
No. the police never asked him his name and he never refused to state his name. The police continually asked quite clearly "show me some ID", and he kept asking "why?" and "what did I do?" and refusing to show an ID. Mr. Hiible NEVER refused to state his name, he was never asked to.
False report yes. But answering an officer's questions is not making a report. You can lie to police officers all you like as long as you aren't filing a criminal report and aren't under oath/affirmation.
The police are under no obligation to provide truthful, or indeed, any information to me during this "investigation". I fail to see why I shouldn't be allowed the same standard as long as I am "Presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law".
In fact if you read the ruling, the US Supreme Court has struck down other similar laws as being too vague, or improperly limited.
I think this law would fall under other arguments, such as perhaps the 9th amendment.
The officer in this situation never asked "what is your name" to the male suspect, he only ever asked "show me some ID", "I need to see some ID", "Where's your ID". Please educate yourself before you comment.
The only time the question "What is your name?" was asked, was of the female after the three officers had tackled her.
The whole stop was wrong. From the anonymous witness who's description was almost completely wrong, to the first officer on scene ignoring the alleged victim and instead worrying about someone's name (for all he knew, she was bleeding to death in the front of the truck), to the assault on the alleged victim by the officers on scene, seriously... tackling a 17 year old girl.
Yup. They also let this one "slide" because the damage to the person was only $250 and a night in jail. There was no significant damage.
Ironically all of the other charges (domestic violence, assault, etc) were either dismissed or he was acquitted. This leads me to think that the police's claim of reasonable cause was improper, and the request itself was made without justification.
If that's what you think, then there is a big fuss. Watch the video. The arresting officer never asks "what's your name". The officer only every asks to "see I.D.".
http://papersplease.org/hiibel