Here I try to second guess the next argument - about what the US does for the UN miltaristically, always donating its troops, etc.
Not so. The US consistently only volunteers to help where things are in its best interest. And not only in the military sense. Iraq? Oil. Taiwan? Computers (witness the infamous "Earthquake in Taiwan? Oh no! RAM prices will go up!" comments).
East Timor. Doesn't have a lot to offer the US, so they stay way the hell away. The US isn't a team player, it leans heavily towards self-interest.
...consult the UN? After all they are *the* most recalcitrant in paying their fees. In fact Congress refuses to let America pay, somehow thinking the UN owes *it* a debt of gratitude.
I couldn't help but laugh at some of these points:
By the mean of integrating authentification protocols into the client and the server, they could accept result only from official clients.
This would solve the problem of bad results.
No it wouldn't. Because I'd have the source and I'd know how to 'fake' an official client.
Also, opening the source will ensure peer-revision of the way THEY implemented the algorithm. It seem that we must trust them for the correctness of the implementation.
It has been reviewed. By countless PhD'ed astrophysicists over YEARS. SETI isn't new. It's had BILLIONS of dollars of funding and some of the greatest minds in their field. I'm sorry. If it came to it, I'd trust their implmentation.
Science is about peer review, opening the source code of the client AND the server will enable peer review. Peer review should not be only for science data, but also for the tools scientists use.
The data has been peer reviewed, and they didn't develop a new algorithm. IMHO, The seti@home people DO NOT listen. They have hundreds of thousand active users and they do not listen or even respect them.
How many of these hundreds of thousands of users are *QUALIFIED* to review the product? See above point.
False positives are not the problem. Negatives are. "You can just check the positives to see that it's not a hacked client".
What about the person who hacks the client, not realising he's broken something stopping potentially valid results from being sent back. Do we then check all negatives too? If so, why bother?
Yes, a few people who use S@H are "smarter than usual", the kind of backpatting people occasionally like to give themselves. I have a reasonably high IQ. I *don't* think I'm qualified to fiddle with algorithms people with PhD's in astrophysics have spent *years* on. "Thousands of eyes" don't help here.
Napster 2, full version is out now, and fixes a lot of the annoying bugs.
It is very good in that unless the user you choose to download from logs off the net while you're downloading, you're guaranteed that the search results are accurate.
These results are further grouped by ping speed, line speed, and optionally, sample rates, and so forth.
The choice is obviously limited by who is online at the time, but is generally very good.
The only concern I have, re the comment about the RIAA, is that they could much more easily attempt to shut down Napster itself, rather than the individuals using it. Napster doesn't give out IP addresses etc.
Why would you have to give back your burner, Hemos?
Do you sell customised CDs over the web?
Is this a "stupid patent"(tm) because it's blatantly not a patentable concept, or because it's a patent, and more to do with political/moral beliefs?
I think it's a pretty valid one. Being able to create a customised CD over the web, whilst not being a hugely unique idea (in that no-one else could possibly think of it), sounds reasonably patentable to me.
I'd like to think I'm missing something completely obvious, but it seems more and more of these patent stories are "Boo! Hiss! They patented something!" Whilst, admittedly, some of the patents are stupid - "a one click system"? - this one seems reasonable to me. Have you actually used CDnows system?
Comparing it to "patenting respiration" does you no credit.
Rainbow Book, I believe. ATRAC is algorithm based.
Re:Everything that stores 10h of music must die
on
MP3/MD Combo Player
·
· Score: 1
One exists now, and has done for years. The other is vapourware for the time being. That's the difference. Yes, I realise the MP3 players will come, but still.
HD-MD - 6 hours audio. Yes, I want to carry all those MDs with me, so I can have as much or as little music as I like, without having to redownload music into my MP3 player.
Battery life on a MD is pretty decent too... 15 hours. My Discman used to get 10-12 if I was lucky. Oh, and the MD is only using the internal Li-Ion battery. Mine also allows you to attach an external AA to further increase battery life.
For a stereo signal it's 292162.5 bits/sec. ATRAC compresses 512 incoming 16 bit samples (1024 bytes) into one ATRAC ``sound group'' (212 bytes) giving an audio compression ratio of 4.83:1. Here is the math:
How does ATRAC compare with MPEG compression? At what bitrate would an MPEG file be equivalent to a song compressed with ATRAC?
ATRAC is 292kbit/sec, giving ``CD like'' audio fidelity. MPEG Layer 1 (i.e. PASC) gives transparent CD fidelity audio at 384kbit/sec, Layer 2 (i.e. Musicam) and Layer 3 give ``CD like'' fidelity at 224kbit/sec and 128kbit/s respectively. A user has compared ATRAC and MPEG Layer 3 and rates ATRAC far better.
Just how do you come up with that? The ATRAC algorithm is far better than MP3. It adapts to the music, so you get quality regardless of classical, hiphop, whatever. Areas where MP3 can fall over - percussion and woodwind etc.
I have a Sharp MD722. I also encode CDs to MP3 at 256kbps. I know which I'd choose, and it's not MP3.
I travel a lot, and a 10pack of MDs and my MD player wipe the floor with my Discman, in terms of size convenience and battery life.
When you're travelling, be it a longhaul flight or the train into work, you really notice that space saving. I can fit my MD player in my pocket, no chance with a Discman.
"This is the kinda stuff dreams are made of come Q3"
Of course this is all true.
Question: how many gamers, hardcore or otherwise, can justify FORTY THOUSAND dollars on a video card? Yes. 40,000. That's the topend model's anticipated asking price. 2gb of ram don't come cheap, which should have been the first clue. The second being how much cards are these days with one or two of these 'chips' which I admittedly don't know too much about.
Is that *BOTH* sides were making death threats towards each other, etc etc.
The police apparently looked through all the posts, decided who *they* thought was oh poor downtrodden one, and recommended to him that he file a restraining order.
To my mind... they're not there to take sides. Both parties were doing wrong. End of story...
Slashdot Mirror
Not so. The US consistently only volunteers to help where things are in its best interest. And not only in the military sense. Iraq? Oil. Taiwan? Computers (witness the infamous "Earthquake in Taiwan? Oh no! RAM prices will go up!" comments).
East Timor. Doesn't have a lot to offer the US, so they stay way the hell away. The US isn't a team player, it leans heavily towards self-interest.
That's like saying the local cornershop owes it to you to provide free sauce on the hotdog you refuse to pay for.
...consult the UN? After all they are *the* most recalcitrant in paying their fees. In fact Congress refuses to let America pay, somehow thinking the UN owes *it* a debt of gratitude.
As opposed to all the Anti-China crap in these comments, perhaps?
At one point you state America as having "been around for how long, 200 some years" and yet not three lines prior you mention Salem, 400 years ago.
Not favourable terms? Wow. I coulda sworn "most favoured nation" status could have meant something else...
I don't see it as being much more dangerous, and nor do I see it being the responsibility of leaders and strategists.
An argument for open source? Yes. But I think the arguments against far outweigh.
By the mean of integrating authentification protocols into the client and the server, they could accept result only from official clients.
This would solve the problem of bad results.
No it wouldn't. Because I'd have the source and I'd know how to 'fake' an official client.
Also, opening the source will ensure peer-revision of the way THEY implemented the algorithm. It seem that we must trust them for the correctness of the implementation.
It has been reviewed. By countless PhD'ed astrophysicists over YEARS. SETI isn't new. It's had BILLIONS of dollars of funding and some of the greatest minds in their field. I'm sorry. If it came to it, I'd trust their implmentation.
Science is about peer review, opening the source code of the client AND the server will enable peer review. Peer review should not be only for science data, but also for the tools scientists use.
The data has been peer reviewed, and they didn't develop a new algorithm. IMHO, The seti@home people DO NOT listen. They have hundreds of thousand active users and they do not listen or even respect them.
How many of these hundreds of thousands of users are *QUALIFIED* to review the product? See above point.
What about the person who hacks the client, not realising he's broken something stopping potentially valid results from being sent back. Do we then check all negatives too? If so, why bother?
Yes, a few people who use S@H are "smarter than usual", the kind of backpatting people occasionally like to give themselves. I have a reasonably high IQ. I *don't* think I'm qualified to fiddle with algorithms people with PhD's in astrophysics have spent *years* on. "Thousands of eyes" don't help here.
no, really?!
thanks for the explaination, but i think people are aware of that fact. the question is, how much science can you do?
Ironic that not two posts above, we have someone stating "that if there is one thing S@H is *not*, it's science".
... the 'validation' method for fingerprinting :)
True.. but a frustrating and timeconsuming use of time...
It is very good in that unless the user you choose to download from logs off the net while you're downloading, you're guaranteed that the search results are accurate.
These results are further grouped by ping speed, line speed, and optionally, sample rates, and so forth.
The choice is obviously limited by who is online at the time, but is generally very good.
The only concern I have, re the comment about the RIAA, is that they could much more easily attempt to shut down Napster itself, rather than the individuals using it. Napster doesn't give out IP addresses etc.
What I'm querying is the 'sensationalism' of the article...
Do you sell customised CDs over the web?
Is this a "stupid patent"(tm) because it's blatantly not a patentable concept, or because it's a patent, and more to do with political/moral beliefs?
I think it's a pretty valid one. Being able to create a customised CD over the web, whilst not being a hugely unique idea (in that no-one else could possibly think of it), sounds reasonably patentable to me.
I'd like to think I'm missing something completely obvious, but it seems more and more of these patent stories are "Boo! Hiss! They patented something!" Whilst, admittedly, some of the patents are stupid - "a one click system"? - this one seems reasonable to me. Have you actually used CDnows system?
Comparing it to "patenting respiration" does you no credit.
I'd love to see the costs of that HDD option.
Rainbow Book, I believe. ATRAC is algorithm based.
HD-MD - 6 hours audio. Yes, I want to carry all those MDs with me, so I can have as much or as little music as I like, without having to redownload music into my MP3 player.
Battery life on a MD is pretty decent too... 15 hours. My Discman used to get 10-12 if I was lucky. Oh, and the MD is only using the internal Li-Ion battery. Mine also allows you to attach an external AA to further increase battery life.
You can buy a MD data recorder for PCs if you look rather hard.
For a stereo signal it's 292162.5 bits/sec. ATRAC compresses 512 incoming 16 bit samples (1024 bytes) into one ATRAC ``sound group'' (212 bytes) giving an audio compression ratio of 4.83:1. Here is the math:
44100 samples/sec (incoming single channel rate)
/ 512 samples/soundgroup (giving 86.133 soundgroups/sec/channel)
* 2 channels (giving 172.266 stereo soundgroups/sec)
* 212 bytes/soundgroup (giving 36.5K stereo bytes/sec)
* 8 bits/byte (giving stereo bits/sec)
= 292162.5 bits/sec.
How does ATRAC compare with MPEG compression? At what bitrate would an MPEG file be equivalent to a song compressed with ATRAC?
ATRAC is 292kbit/sec, giving ``CD like'' audio fidelity. MPEG Layer 1 (i.e. PASC) gives transparent CD fidelity audio at 384kbit/sec, Layer 2 (i.e. Musicam) and Layer 3 give ``CD like'' fidelity at 224kbit/sec and 128kbit/s respectively. A user has compared ATRAC and MPEG Layer 3 and rates ATRAC far better.
Just how do you come up with that? The ATRAC algorithm is far better than MP3. It adapts to the music, so you get quality regardless of classical, hiphop, whatever. Areas where MP3 can fall over - percussion and woodwind etc.
I have a Sharp MD722. I also encode CDs to MP3 at 256kbps. I know which I'd choose, and it's not MP3.
I travel a lot, and a 10pack of MDs and my MD player wipe the floor with my Discman, in terms of size convenience and battery life.
When you're travelling, be it a longhaul flight or the train into work, you really notice that space saving. I can fit my MD player in my pocket, no chance with a Discman.
"GeForce eat your heart out. 2gb, 32 processors"
"This is the kinda stuff dreams are made of come Q3"
Of course this is all true.
Question: how many gamers, hardcore or otherwise, can justify FORTY THOUSAND dollars on a video card? Yes. 40,000. That's the topend model's anticipated asking price. 2gb of ram don't come cheap, which should have been the first clue. The second being how much cards are these days with one or two of these 'chips' which I admittedly don't know too much about.
*sigh*
The police apparently looked through all the posts, decided who *they* thought was oh poor downtrodden one, and recommended to him that he file a restraining order.
To my mind... they're not there to take sides. Both parties were doing wrong. End of story...