It's interesting to note that Weezer (certainly a guitar-driven band) has been touring with PODs instead of Marshalls lately, though they use real amps in the studio. PODs are certainly a lot more convenient to lug around than Marshall stacks, but, in that interview, the band's frontman makes the claim that they sound better in a messy arena environment.
Actually, I've recently heard Weezer has quit using the PODs live. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this suspicion?
Noise will always be introduced by pickups, and many consider it to be part of the "character" of the guitar/pickups.
That's very short-sighted. You could just as well say that distortion will always be introduced by amplification (ie. tub-amps), and many consider it to be part of the character.
Come on! Are you really trying to argue that people don't think the distortion introduced by tube amps is part of the "character" of their music!? The overdriven tube distortion sound has virtually defined rock music for decades! The "noise" that tubes produce is mostly in the form of even harmonics, which are pleasing to the ear.
Pickups make noise, most of it desirable, some undesirable. Pickups also have a very significant effect on the final sound that somes out of your guitar. I would consider it a little assuming to try to work out a definition to demarcate the "desirable" from the "undesirable;" a lot of it is in the eye of the beholder (ear of the listener?). Try telling some guy who spent hundreds of dollars (or more) on vintage pickups on eBay that a certain facet of his pickups' sound is just "undesirable noise." He might have thrown down his dollars for that very sound.
I am a guitarist who "hates digital," but not this kind of digital. I buy analog effects, amps, and synths because I appreciate the sound they create. I feel that the sound of a screaming analog filter or an overdriven tube amp is not something that has been reproduced accurately in the digital world. I find these analog sounds quite desirable.
However, the "sound" that an audio cable imparts to music (in the form of hum and interference) is not something I find desirable. In this case, the digital version is superior to the analog version.
I'm sure there are a few extreme-odd-audiophile-luddite musicians who don't want any analog to digital conversion happenning at all between their instrument and their ears. This, of course, means that they can't put their music on compact disc, which is the de facto music distribution standard (or at least was). I find this attitude wholly unreasonable and impractical. Musicians who eschew the DAT, the mp3, and the compact disc must, in my estimation, be in the minority.
Most musicians, I think, are like me. I might prefer a quirky old tape delay or analog phaser to their digital equivalents, but, at the end of the day, I know my music gets fed into my computer at 24bit-96kHz digital. I'm an analog fan, but not a snob; I switch to digital when it's better/more practical.
You can have it going over ethernet if you want to, but the probelm is the noise introduced by the pickup of choice, not the 1/4 inch cable.
I'm sorry, but no. Noise will always be introduced by pickups, and many consider it to be part of the "character" of the guitar/pickups. (Modern pickups, particularly humbuckers, aren't all that noisy anyway.) Noise need not be introduced by cables, but it often is, and musicians universally hate it when it is.
Long runs of 1/4 inch cable are notorious for signal interference and degradation. In particular, I (like many others) am often plagued by AM radio interference when I run unbalanced cable too long and amplify it too much.
Balanced cabling (e.g., the XLR cables used for mics) were invented to counteract exactly this kind of interference. Unforunately, most instruments and many effects and amps take only unbalanced connections (though converters are available).
Balanced audio cables try their best to eliminate interference. Digital error correction over ethernet, on the other hand, is perfect. (Well, minus all the information you lost in the digital conversion.)
Sorry for blabbing, but I hate audio cable hum and interference, and I feel pangs of emotion when people claim that pickup noise is more of a concern.
I'd like to point out that no DJs on KCRW are actual Santa Monica College students (AFAIK), which might explain why "their announcing is extremely high quality, without the usual college radio bumbling." KCRW is inarguably a decent station, but it is also the most commerical college radio station in the country. They advertise heavily in Los Angeles. Jason Bentley, who hosts the show, Metropolis, that you like, is head of A&R at Madonna's label, Maverick.
The now-defunct New Times published an interesting article about KCRW a few years back.
Time Warner doesn't think it's doomed. They just launched the Explorer 8000 Digital Video Recorder...
That's what they mean by "the DVR market is doomed:" It's doomed for companies that exclusively make DVRs because DVR features are being incorporated into cable and satellite providers' boxes:
"TiVo and SonicBlue are feeling the pressure from cable companies and satellite services, which are beginning to incorporate DVR features into the latest versions of their receivers and set-top boxes (STBs)."
Iodine clock reactions are the bomb. Especially if you pour your mixture back and forth between beakers so a stream of it is cascading at the time the color changes.
You cited one anomaly out of the millions of certificates Verisign has issued. Verisign does, in fact, try to verify identity, and makes applicants go through a length application process to this end.
If you are claiming that trusted CAs can't be trusted any more than Joe Schmoe, then you are claiming that the entire concept of CAs is useless and should be thrown out the window. Is this really what you intend to be saying?
Self signing my certificates works of course, but just about all browsers make a big fuss about it.
Making yourself a CA out of the blue and signing your own certificates is no different in the "big fuss" department, except the browser only makes a "big fuss about it" once for all your websites. So I highly doubt issuing his own CA cert would be any more acceptable to the poster than signing his own cert.
There is another drawback to becoming your own CA that is much more serious, though. I, as a web user, have no real problem accepting a self-signed certificate for an individual website or two. I'm very very hesitant, though, to accept Joe Schmoe as a CA, as this means I have given him the ability to, for instance, authorize whatever certificate he wants as a valid certificate for my bank's website. This is not cool with me. When I'm sending sensitive data over SSL to my bank (and others), I need to know (as much as possible) that the party on the other end of the transaction is who they say they are. My browser (Mozilla) doesn't offer any way to limit the scope of a CA's power at finer granularity beyond "this certificate can identify web sites."
Most of the decent schools accept mostly American students, and only a small number of overseas students (who are usually much stronger). Some of the weaker universities accept a lot of foreign students.
At MIT, at very substantial portion of the grad students are from other countries. Three of the four other people in my research group are international students. I'd imagine that international students are common in technical and engineering disciplines at most universities (this was the case at my undergrad university, UCSB).
Incidentally, MIT requires neither the GRE General Exam nor the Computer Science Subject Test of applicants to their CS grad program.
What Shell are we talking about here? The oil company? Is it really that generic? Does anyone in the world say, "I'm going down to the Shell station," when in reality they're going to BP?
The term you are looking for is probably O(n), but definatly not O(1).
No, he means O(1) scheduler, definitely not O(n). Most simple scheduling algorithms (e.g., basic round robin) are constant-time, and a contant-time scheduler patch was recently released for Linux.
Just think about it logically. Why would he expectantly ask if the scheduler was O(n)? Name one super-linear scheduling algorithm in use in modern operating systems.
Re:Bugs I haven't laughed at...
on
Pet Bugs?
·
· Score: 1
Uh, I think you're confused, duder. The f00f bug never caused calculations to return erroneous results. That was a contemporary FP bug. F00f just made your machine hang, regardless of OS protection. Read yr link.
No, actually, he/she said "there are enough channels if we go 802.11a but cost is a concern." In other words, the ideal solution would not be 802.11a-based.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I've recently heard Weezer has quit using the PODs live. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this suspicion?
Pickups make noise, most of it desirable, some undesirable. Pickups also have a very significant effect on the final sound that somes out of your guitar. I would consider it a little assuming to try to work out a definition to demarcate the "desirable" from the "undesirable;" a lot of it is in the eye of the beholder (ear of the listener?). Try telling some guy who spent hundreds of dollars (or more) on vintage pickups on eBay that a certain facet of his pickups' sound is just "undesirable noise." He might have thrown down his dollars for that very sound.
I am a guitarist who "hates digital," but not this kind of digital. I buy analog effects, amps, and synths because I appreciate the sound they create. I feel that the sound of a screaming analog filter or an overdriven tube amp is not something that has been reproduced accurately in the digital world. I find these analog sounds quite desirable.
However, the "sound" that an audio cable imparts to music (in the form of hum and interference) is not something I find desirable. In this case, the digital version is superior to the analog version.
I'm sure there are a few extreme-odd-audiophile-luddite musicians who don't want any analog to digital conversion happenning at all between their instrument and their ears. This, of course, means that they can't put their music on compact disc, which is the de facto music distribution standard (or at least was). I find this attitude wholly unreasonable and impractical. Musicians who eschew the DAT, the mp3, and the compact disc must, in my estimation, be in the minority.
Most musicians, I think, are like me. I might prefer a quirky old tape delay or analog phaser to their digital equivalents, but, at the end of the day, I know my music gets fed into my computer at 24bit-96kHz digital. I'm an analog fan, but not a snob; I switch to digital when it's better/more practical.
Long runs of 1/4 inch cable are notorious for signal interference and degradation. In particular, I (like many others) am often plagued by AM radio interference when I run unbalanced cable too long and amplify it too much.
Balanced cabling (e.g., the XLR cables used for mics) were invented to counteract exactly this kind of interference. Unforunately, most instruments and many effects and amps take only unbalanced connections (though converters are available).
Balanced audio cables try their best to eliminate interference. Digital error correction over ethernet, on the other hand, is perfect. (Well, minus all the information you lost in the digital conversion.)
Sorry for blabbing, but I hate audio cable hum and interference, and I feel pangs of emotion when people claim that pickup noise is more of a concern.
The now-defunct New Times published an interesting article about KCRW a few years back.
Use it like this: wtf ./configure or wtf make or wtf g++
Iodine clock reactions are the bomb. Especially if you pour your mixture back and forth between beakers so a stream of it is cascading at the time the color changes.
If you are claiming that trusted CAs can't be trusted any more than Joe Schmoe, then you are claiming that the entire concept of CAs is useless and should be thrown out the window. Is this really what you intend to be saying?
There is another drawback to becoming your own CA that is much more serious, though. I, as a web user, have no real problem accepting a self-signed certificate for an individual website or two. I'm very very hesitant, though, to accept Joe Schmoe as a CA, as this means I have given him the ability to, for instance, authorize whatever certificate he wants as a valid certificate for my bank's website. This is not cool with me. When I'm sending sensitive data over SSL to my bank (and others), I need to know (as much as possible) that the party on the other end of the transaction is who they say they are. My browser (Mozilla) doesn't offer any way to limit the scope of a CA's power at finer granularity beyond "this certificate can identify web sites."
Incidentally, MIT requires neither the GRE General Exam nor the Computer Science Subject Test of applicants to their CS grad program.
You've only been at MIT for a month; give it time. I'd say I've been motivated to attended less than 30% of my lectures.
Just think about it logically. Why would he expectantly ask if the scheduler was O(n)? Name one super-linear scheduling algorithm in use in modern operating systems.
Uh, I think you're confused, duder. The f00f bug never caused calculations to return erroneous results. That was a contemporary FP bug. F00f just made your machine hang, regardless of OS protection. Read yr link.
Hopefully the pressures of changing the world don't drive Wolfram to drill a hole in his head.
Because the monitor is facing away from the window through which you're snooping.
Looks like Neo didn't even have to bother dodging the poorly aimed first bullet.