This is something that has boggled me for a while too. There is *nothing* you can find in a book that can't be found online faster. You are already sitting there and looking at the screen!
3) You're royally screwed if your job requires a customized application that isn't compatible with version of the OS running on the terminal servers. So much for dual-booting Linux on your local workstation...
I don't think windows people understand the concept of X windows at all. You wouldn't have a 'local workstation', you'd be sitting at a machine that is strictly for displaying a screen. You can run your applications on whatever machine you want, and it can still display wherever you happen to be sitting.
This was the first thing that I thought of too. The government has to lie so much to support the war on drugs that forcing them to tell the truth is an amazing tool.
No need to be scientific or try double-blind A/B comparisons;
Oh, but there is always the need to do just that. I may think that my ears are above being fooled by what my brain knows, but I would be completely wrong in that assumption.
Here's another example of what happens when real science is used to test audiophiles:
http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicc la ssical/mp3test.html
if you continue to deny that there is not audible difference between CD and SACD then you've ruined your ears with too much clubbing.
Could be. Then again, the difference is probably all in your head.
The difference between a regular CD and a HDCD (96khz 24bit) is... audible... (i think thats the right word)
Prove it.
I have been looking for *any* objective evidence that there is a real audible difference between cd and sacd when played on the exact same equipment and have yet to find any. Sure, if people know which is which, they are going to choose the 'superior' format because they know that it's supposed to be better. Don't tell them, and the differences fall into statistical noise.
Yes, 24 bit may more faithfully reproduce the sound waves than 16 bit, but if a person cannot hear that difference, what does it matter?
I can tell the difference between a CD and a CD that's been spun over a demagnitizer just prior to playing.
Man. I can't believe I missed that line. Anyone who would even make this claim has exactly zero credibility. Here's a clue for you: Aluminum isn't a magnetic metal, and cds are not a magnetic medium. You may as well wave a magic wand over the thing for all the good a demagnetizer would do.
All I'm asking for is a little evidence here, people. If you are claiming that sacd actually sounds better than a cd to a human being and not a dog, post some sort of actual science to back it up. Show me a study that shows that 'audiophiles', let alone the rest of us, can tell any difference when listening to a recording.
I'd lay real money on you never having given this a shot yourself.
A friend of mine's roommate claims to be an 'audiophile', and I can honestly say that I cannot tell the difference between a 160K mp3 and a cd when played through his system.
Of course the study has never been done. Enough people already see CDs as a step backward in audio quality from vinyl that the need for increased quality doesn't need to be proven.
Same set of people who would fail the above double-blind test, I'm sure.
Hmm. Now that I search a little, I did manage to find a site that proves at least some of what I'm saying.
http://www.r3mix.net/
Click on the 'quality' link.
Seems that 'audiophiles' can't even tell the difference between a 256K mp3 and a CD when subjected to a real test. Probably wouldn't have mattered what format was used (vinyl, sacd), they would have rated them all equal, because as far as human ears are concerned they *are* equal.
Was there a double-blind study done to show people could tell the difference between VHS and DVD? Why bother? Obviously we can do better. We can do better than DVD, so hopefully you won't be decrying the need for any future advancements in video quality.
Once the pixel size gets below what a person can see when watching the screen, further advancement is pointless. That point was reached 20 years ago with audio. Anything more is just wacking off.
Ok then, as I posted elsewhere on this thread, show me the double blind studies that show that more than 1% of the population can tell the difference between a CD and an SACD. As you say, most people can't even tell the difference between a 128k mp3 and a cd, no matter what the equipment. I will be *utterly* amazed if such a study has ever been done, because this is really nothing more than another gimmick for the sheep to bleat about. I'd lay real money on you yourself not being able to tell the difference between a cd and an SACD on high end gear.
Demonstrate to me why you have the right to take another's thoughts and use them for your own purposes?
Unless you torture someone, there is no way to force them to give you their thoughts. Once a thought has been transferred from one person to another, the first person has no realistic way of controlling it. It is no longer his.
Apparently the framer's of the Constitution felt that the right to own the interpretations of one's ideas was vital to the expansion of science and art in America; so much so they put it in the Constitution itself instead of making it an amendment.
The ability (not mandate) to have copyrights was nearly not included in the constitution at all. As it is, it was supposed to be for a short period of time. Since new works of art are effectively kept out of the public domain forever, the primary purpose of copyright (promotion of the progress of the arts) is no longer being served. Only a few individuals are being enriched, to the detriment of everyone else.
Yeah, you're right about that. Still not compelling enough for me to replace all of my existing cds, or even to buy any new ones. All I really have to do is wait for someone to ogg encode any new releases, as it supports any number of channels.
The problems are that individuals don't consider intellectual property to be actual property
The whole concept of intellectual property is just an example of telling people a lie often enough that they begin to believe it. Legal fictions aside, once you have shared an idea with someone else, it ceases to be yours.
'Audiophiles' are hilarious. A regular old cd already produces more sound than the human ear can detect, so let's all go out and buy a new format that can produce *twice* as many sounds than the human ear can detect. Ooh!
Napster was actually great for finding new music. All you had to do was search for someone who you liked, and then view all of the other files that someone who had that artist also had. A few random downloads from someone who has similar musical tastes often paid off.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think Limewire also has this ability.
Re:About time to dump Transgaming
on
Debian And WineX
·
· Score: 2
When's the last time you DONATED to a free project?
For the record, I've donated $30 to the Freenet project in the past year. I donate whenever I think a project is worthwhile, and Transgaming has just about passed that time.
Re:Transgaming isn't bad.
on
Debian And WineX
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If they aren't going to contribute back to the base that their miniscule contributions are based upon, they don't deserve any of our financial support.
Without our contributions, they will fail.
About time to dump Transgaming
on
Debian And WineX
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Right now, I am a paid subscriber to Transgaming. If they don't get their act together - and I mean soon - they are going to have one less subscriber. I will not support a company that doesn't contribute to free software.
Slashdot Mirror
I guarantee that I can find whatever it is you need to find on page 36 just as fast as you can pick up that book and turn to page 36.
This is something that has boggled me for a while too. There is *nothing* you can find in a book that can't be found online faster. You are already sitting there and looking at the screen!
3) You're royally screwed if your job requires a customized application that isn't compatible with version of the OS running on the terminal servers. So much for dual-booting Linux on your local workstation...
I don't think windows people understand the concept of X windows at all. You wouldn't have a 'local workstation', you'd be sitting at a machine that is strictly for displaying a screen. You can run your applications on whatever machine you want, and it can still display wherever you happen to be sitting.
This was the first thing that I thought of too. The government has to lie so much to support the war on drugs that forcing them to tell the truth is an amazing tool.
Then please explain to me why violin-music really sounds like crap on CD, and not (as much) on SACD.
Mainly because you think it should. You have bought into the marketing.
No need to be scientific or try double-blind A/B comparisons;
c la ssical/mp3test.html
Oh, but there is always the need to do just that. I may think that my ears are above being fooled by what my brain knows, but I would be completely wrong in that assumption.
Here's another example of what happens when real science is used to test audiophiles:
http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusic
if you continue to deny that there is not audible difference between CD and SACD then you've ruined your ears with too much clubbing.
Could be. Then again, the difference is probably all in your head.
The difference between a regular CD and a HDCD (96khz 24bit) is ... audible... (i think thats the right word)
Prove it.
I have been looking for *any* objective evidence that there is a real audible difference between cd and sacd when played on the exact same equipment and have yet to find any. Sure, if people know which is which, they are going to choose the 'superior' format because they know that it's supposed to be better. Don't tell them, and the differences fall into statistical noise.
Yes, 24 bit may more faithfully reproduce the sound waves than 16 bit, but if a person cannot hear that difference, what does it matter?
I can tell the difference between a CD and a CD that's been spun over a demagnitizer just prior to playing.
Man. I can't believe I missed that line. Anyone who would even make this claim has exactly zero credibility. Here's a clue for you: Aluminum isn't a magnetic metal, and cds are not a magnetic medium. You may as well wave a magic wand over the thing for all the good a demagnetizer would do.
All I'm asking for is a little evidence here, people. If you are claiming that sacd actually sounds better than a cd to a human being and not a dog, post some sort of actual science to back it up. Show me a study that shows that 'audiophiles', let alone the rest of us, can tell any difference when listening to a recording.
Calling water 'air' doesn't make it breathable. Nor does calling a thought 'property' make it tangible.
I'd lay real money on you never having given this a shot yourself.
A friend of mine's roommate claims to be an 'audiophile', and I can honestly say that I cannot tell the difference between a 160K mp3 and a cd when played through his system.
Of course the study has never been done. Enough people already see CDs as a step backward in audio quality from vinyl that the need for increased quality doesn't need to be proven.
Same set of people who would fail the above double-blind test, I'm sure.
Hmm. Now that I search a little, I did manage to find a site that proves at least some of what I'm saying.
http://www.r3mix.net/
Click on the 'quality' link.
Seems that 'audiophiles' can't even tell the difference between a 256K mp3 and a CD when subjected to a real test. Probably wouldn't have mattered what format was used (vinyl, sacd), they would have rated them all equal, because as far as human ears are concerned they *are* equal.
Was there a double-blind study done to show people could tell the difference between VHS and DVD? Why bother? Obviously we can do better. We can do better than DVD, so hopefully you won't be decrying the need for any future advancements in video quality.
Once the pixel size gets below what a person can see when watching the screen, further advancement is pointless. That point was reached 20 years ago with audio. Anything more is just wacking off.
Ok then, as I posted elsewhere on this thread, show me the double blind studies that show that more than 1% of the population can tell the difference between a CD and an SACD. As you say, most people can't even tell the difference between a 128k mp3 and a cd, no matter what the equipment. I will be *utterly* amazed if such a study has ever been done, because this is really nothing more than another gimmick for the sheep to bleat about. I'd lay real money on you yourself not being able to tell the difference between a cd and an SACD on high end gear.
Demonstrate to me why you have the right to take another's thoughts and use them for your own purposes?
Unless you torture someone, there is no way to force them to give you their thoughts. Once a thought has been transferred from one person to another, the first person has no realistic way of controlling it. It is no longer his.
Apparently the framer's of the Constitution felt that the right to own the interpretations of one's ideas was vital to the expansion of science and art in America; so much so they put it in the Constitution itself instead of making it an amendment.
The ability (not mandate) to have copyrights was nearly not included in the constitution at all. As it is, it was supposed to be for a short period of time. Since new works of art are effectively kept out of the public domain forever, the primary purpose of copyright (promotion of the progress of the arts) is no longer being served. Only a few individuals are being enriched, to the detriment of everyone else.
It only takes a single good copy for an album to be copied essentially infinite times.
How many ears do you have anyway?
Yeah, you're right about that. Still not compelling enough for me to replace all of my existing cds, or even to buy any new ones. All I really have to do is wait for someone to ogg encode any new releases, as it supports any number of channels.
...and nobody in the universe can hear the difference, so why does it matter?
So where are the double blind listening tests showing that more than 1% of the population can tell the difference anyway?
Why buy something that is worse than useless?
Yeah, just look at how successful the DMCA has been at keeping people from copying DVDs.
The problems are that individuals don't consider intellectual property to be actual property
The whole concept of intellectual property is just an example of telling people a lie often enough that they begin to believe it. Legal fictions aside, once you have shared an idea with someone else, it ceases to be yours.
'Audiophiles' are hilarious. A regular old cd already produces more sound than the human ear can detect, so let's all go out and buy a new format that can produce *twice* as many sounds than the human ear can detect. Ooh!
Napster was actually great for finding new music. All you had to do was search for someone who you liked, and then view all of the other files that someone who had that artist also had. A few random downloads from someone who has similar musical tastes often paid off.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think Limewire also has this ability.
When's the last time you DONATED to a free project?
For the record, I've donated $30 to the Freenet project in the past year. I donate whenever I think a project is worthwhile, and Transgaming has just about passed that time.
If they aren't going to contribute back to the base that their miniscule contributions are based upon, they don't deserve any of our financial support.
Without our contributions, they will fail.
Right now, I am a paid subscriber to Transgaming. If they don't get their act together - and I mean soon - they are going to have one less subscriber. I will not support a company that doesn't contribute to free software.