If you take three electronically produced 15kHz tones, one a sine wave, one a sawtooth wave, and one a square wave, that teenager can tell the difference between them. But record those three tones at 44.1k samples per second and you have only three samples per crest; not nearly enough to discern what the shape of the wave it is.
You absolutely can discern (reproduce) the exact shape of the wave in that example. It was proven by Claude Shannon in 1949. The way that digital signals are normally drawn in examples either has stair step (zero-order hold) or jagged lines (linear interpolation) between the samples, but that isn't how actual music equipment reproduces the signal. Mathematically, if the signal is sampled with even slightly more than 2 samples per cycle (the Nyquist limit), then interpolating the samples by multiplying each with a sinc function ( sin(fc*t)/(fc*t) ) will perfectly reproduce the original sine wave(s). Equivalently, you can output a zero-order hold version of the signal and filter it with a properly designed reconstruction filter, which will give the same result. This is how real digital audio hardware works. That is also why a sampling rate of >40k was chosen for CDs; it allows you to represent the full dynamic range of human hearing.
Unfortunately, it isn't rare at all. Californication, by the RHCP, is the normal whipping boy example of a horribly mastered album, but for rock albums it is getting to the point where clipping is the norm, not the exception.
No, it's not a step up. No-one has ever been able to reliably distinguish a 24/96 recording from it's downgraded 16/48 version in a properly conducted double-blind test.
It is absolutely necessary to oversample when acquiring data (since all analog filters have some roll-off), and it is good to use higher dynamic range when mixing to keep the repeated rounding errors below the noise floor. But once the final recording it is mastered, there is no benefit to distributing or listening to the result at higher than 16/48.
According to an article on TechCrunch, these three sites have a yearly profit (EBITDA) of $5 million. From what I've read the purchase price (3*profits + some) is typical of acquisitions of mature companies. It is neither insane dot-com buyout (expecting unrealistic growth), or clearance corner liquidation of assets (expecting to bleed it till it dies).
No, he is using them correctly, referring to the application, not the medium.
Music playback doesn't require low latency; it doesn't matter if there is a 500ms delay between when you press the play button and you hear the music. Because of this data is encoded in (relatively) large blocks to allow for as much compression as possible.
VoIP on the otherhand does require low latency (100ms max). Otherwise it is very difficult to carry on a conversation because otherwise if you were to speak during a silence, it may not still be silent when the signal gets to when the other person, so you constantly talk over one another. The other potential application, live interactive music, requires even lower latency for musicians to keep in sync with each other. For this reason Opus is designed to encode in small blocks of data to obtain better latency.
To me the biggest difference is that Vorbis was competing head on with a strongly entrenched codec (MP3) and it's official successor (AAC). Opus on the other-hand fills niche in the audio encoding world that doesn't have an established winner; that is high-quality low-latency codecs. This area has largely been driven by cellphone market, and has focused on encoding voice signals at toll-quality, that is as good as an analog long-distance signal (8kHz mono). There really hasn't been much focus on creating a low-latency codec that can encode full-band (music signals), and Opus does that incredibly well. It also sounds much better encoding speech at the bitrates that are used for VoIP (rather than the lower ones used by cellphones).
The internet community has never really been happy with the performance of ITU specified codecs that have been primarily used for SIP and other VoIP applications in the past, and there is no good reason from them not to support Opus. The patent grants are there, the vender support is there, and there is no real competitor codec worth mentioning. I'm convinced this will make much deeper inroads than Vorbis did.
There is often a third way to win an argument: You bring a larger number of your audience over to your point of view than your opponent does.
If someone insists on having an argument rather than a discussion that pretty much means that there is no way they are going to change their mind anyway, and the only reason to talk to them at all is if other people are already listening to them and falling for what they are saying.
The idiot is a trade group which represents 70-80% of the worldwide maple syrup production, and whose warehouses exist for the sole purpose of stabilizing worldwide supply of maple syrup.
1) Yeah, so what I said only applies to grandfathered unlimited data plans. 2) I originally read it at GigaOm. The FCC press release is vague on the matter, but the full order and consent decree makes it more clear:
On June 28, 2012, Verizon Wireless modified its pricing plans to allow customers on usage-based plans to tether their devices without paying an additional fee, while customers on unlimited usage plans must continue to pay an additional fee to tether their devices.
No, that requirement was placed on new spectrum that was up for auction a while back. T-Mobile didn't end up with any of that spectrum so the rules don't apply to them. Furthermore, even for Verizon, they are only required to allow tethering on their capped data plans, not their (grandfathered) unlimited plans.
Nearly all advertizements pay per impression (view) not per click these days. Ads primarily exist to leave an impression, not to get an immediate response. That is why passive advertizements existed long before there was a way to interact with them like you can on the internet.
So by not loading ads you are decreasing the site's revenue regardless of whether you would have clicked them or not.
The context is they'd already had consensual sex and were sleeping together. On top of that we have no physical evidence that it even occurred except that she said so.
And the further context is that she repeated and consistently insisted that he used a condom when the had sex. He is accused of having unprotected sex with her without her consent, clearly knowing that it was against her wishes to do so. I don't care how many times they'd had consensual sex before, what he is accused of is still rape given that context.
Rhetorical question: do they have to interview murder suspects before filing charges?
Yes they do. Formally filing charges means something different in Sweden that the US and other places. In the US, if you can only detain someone for a limited time (usually a few days) if you don't file charges against them. Sweden has other stages in the legal process that occur before formal charges are filed that allow them to detain suspects for longer.
Yes it is. Among other things, he is a accused of having non-consensual sex with a sleeping woman. That is considered rape in the US, Australia, and all of the EU. The UK would not have extradited him if the actions he is accused of weren't a crime in the UK; read the Supreme Court's Extradition Judgement for more details.
1) The phone wasn't broadcasting data that the police happened to notice. They had the phone company send the phone commands querying it for it's precise precision (this is a feature that is required by law to be in phones for the purpose of e911). So this was an active search, not a happenstance observation.
2) Because this isn't a signal that just anyone can monitor, but rather one that requires explicit cooperation of the phone company to generate and access, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding that signal.
Those two facts essentially are the definition of when a search that requires a warrant.
It is certainly important to let and fund anyone who wants to call their self an "artist" to put junk into orbit. And far better to let this jerk, I mean artist, use the funds and the launch space to feel good about himself than to actually put micro-sats or other useful technology into space.
He didn't use your money, or any government funding, or force anyone to donate who didn't want to. Who are you to dictate how others choose to spend their resources?
Well OpenGL ES wasn't good enough for the desktop. In addition to removing a bunch of old cruft they also removed a bunch of advanced features that embedded systems at the time couldn't handle. OpenGL ES 3.0 improves the situation quite a bit, and is at least a proper subset of OpenGL 4.3, but is still missing important features needed to get the best performance out of games.
The nice thing about living near gorgeous outdoors is that you can enjoy it even when you need to be doing other things. During grad school people were always asking me why I was doing homework at a bar rather than socializing or having fun. Because it beats doing homework in the library, that's why. I had to do the homework regardless; this way I got to listen to great live music and have a pint while I was doing it.
None of Orbital's rockets come close to the capacity of the Falcon 9, which is why their CCDev entry was to be launched from an Atlas V, rather than one of their own. On top of that 3 out of the last 4 Taurus launches have failed. I've worked with Orbital before, and they are a great company (the polar opposite of Lockheed). I'll happily work them any time in the future, and wish them the best luck with Antares. But the fact is that SpaceX is getting more attention than Orbital now because they earned it by delivering better results.
That would be a good argument, until you look at NASA today instead of 40 years ago. NASA has not only the common pool of knowledge to work from, but concrete working designs to build off of, and still managed to spend way more on Ares and has far less to show for it than SpaceX.
Slashdot Mirror
If you take three electronically produced 15kHz tones, one a sine wave, one a sawtooth wave, and one a square wave, that teenager can tell the difference between them. But record those three tones at 44.1k samples per second and you have only three samples per crest; not nearly enough to discern what the shape of the wave it is.
You absolutely can discern (reproduce) the exact shape of the wave in that example. It was proven by Claude Shannon in 1949. The way that digital signals are normally drawn in examples either has stair step (zero-order hold) or jagged lines (linear interpolation) between the samples, but that isn't how actual music equipment reproduces the signal. Mathematically, if the signal is sampled with even slightly more than 2 samples per cycle (the Nyquist limit), then interpolating the samples by multiplying each with a sinc function ( sin(fc*t)/(fc*t) ) will perfectly reproduce the original sine wave(s). Equivalently, you can output a zero-order hold version of the signal and filter it with a properly designed reconstruction filter, which will give the same result. This is how real digital audio hardware works. That is also why a sampling rate of >40k was chosen for CDs; it allows you to represent the full dynamic range of human hearing.
Unfortunately, it isn't rare at all. Californication, by the RHCP, is the normal whipping boy example of a horribly mastered album, but for rock albums it is getting to the point where clipping is the norm, not the exception.
No, it's not a step up. No-one has ever been able to reliably distinguish a 24/96 recording from it's downgraded 16/48 version in a properly conducted double-blind test.
It is absolutely necessary to oversample when acquiring data (since all analog filters have some roll-off), and it is good to use higher dynamic range when mixing to keep the repeated rounding errors below the noise floor. But once the final recording it is mastered, there is no benefit to distributing or listening to the result at higher than 16/48.
According to an article on TechCrunch, these three sites have a yearly profit (EBITDA) of $5 million. From what I've read the purchase price (3*profits + some) is typical of acquisitions of mature companies. It is neither insane dot-com buyout (expecting unrealistic growth), or clearance corner liquidation of assets (expecting to bleed it till it dies).
Most people responding to you have assumed you are referring to Apple. If that is the case, then you are late. Eolas already sued Apple back in October 2009, and they settled August 2011.
No, he is using them correctly, referring to the application, not the medium.
Music playback doesn't require low latency; it doesn't matter if there is a 500ms delay between when you press the play button and you hear the music. Because of this data is encoded in (relatively) large blocks to allow for as much compression as possible.
VoIP on the otherhand does require low latency (100ms max). Otherwise it is very difficult to carry on a conversation because otherwise if you were to speak during a silence, it may not still be silent when the signal gets to when the other person, so you constantly talk over one another. The other potential application, live interactive music, requires even lower latency for musicians to keep in sync with each other. For this reason Opus is designed to encode in small blocks of data to obtain better latency.
To me the biggest difference is that Vorbis was competing head on with a strongly entrenched codec (MP3) and it's official successor (AAC). Opus on the other-hand fills niche in the audio encoding world that doesn't have an established winner; that is high-quality low-latency codecs. This area has largely been driven by cellphone market, and has focused on encoding voice signals at toll-quality, that is as good as an analog long-distance signal (8kHz mono). There really hasn't been much focus on creating a low-latency codec that can encode full-band (music signals), and Opus does that incredibly well. It also sounds much better encoding speech at the bitrates that are used for VoIP (rather than the lower ones used by cellphones).
The internet community has never really been happy with the performance of ITU specified codecs that have been primarily used for SIP and other VoIP applications in the past, and there is no good reason from them not to support Opus. The patent grants are there, the vender support is there, and there is no real competitor codec worth mentioning. I'm convinced this will make much deeper inroads than Vorbis did.
There is often a third way to win an argument:
You bring a larger number of your audience over to your point of view than your opponent does.
If someone insists on having an argument rather than a discussion that pretty much means that there is no way they are going to change their mind anyway, and the only reason to talk to them at all is if other people are already listening to them and falling for what they are saying.
The idiot is a trade group which represents 70-80% of the worldwide maple syrup production, and whose warehouses exist for the sole purpose of stabilizing worldwide supply of maple syrup.
Oh, and it probably goes without saying, but the N800 doesn't have high enough hardware specs to run WebOS.
Here is the list of hardware supported by OpenEmbedded. It looks like N800 is the closest thing to a tablet on that list.
1) Yeah, so what I said only applies to grandfathered unlimited data plans.
2) I originally read it at GigaOm. The FCC press release is vague on the matter, but the full order and consent decree makes it more clear:
On June 28, 2012, Verizon Wireless modified its pricing plans to allow customers on usage-based plans to tether their devices without paying an additional fee, while customers on unlimited usage plans must continue to pay an additional fee to tether their devices.
No, that requirement was placed on new spectrum that was up for auction a while back. T-Mobile didn't end up with any of that spectrum so the rules don't apply to them. Furthermore, even for Verizon, they are only required to allow tethering on their capped data plans, not their (grandfathered) unlimited plans.
That ruling didn't apply to Verizon's unlimited data plans either, just their capped ones.
Nearly all advertizements pay per impression (view) not per click these days. Ads primarily exist to leave an impression, not to get an immediate response. That is why passive advertizements existed long before there was a way to interact with them like you can on the internet.
So by not loading ads you are decreasing the site's revenue regardless of whether you would have clicked them or not.
The context is they'd already had consensual sex and were sleeping together. On top of that we have no physical evidence that it even occurred except that she said so.
And the further context is that she repeated and consistently insisted that he used a condom when the had sex. He is accused of having unprotected sex with her without her consent, clearly knowing that it was against her wishes to do so. I don't care how many times they'd had consensual sex before, what he is accused of is still rape given that context.
Rhetorical question: do they have to interview murder suspects before filing charges?
Yes they do. Formally filing charges means something different in Sweden that the US and other places. In the US, if you can only detain someone for a limited time (usually a few days) if you don't file charges against them. Sweden has other stages in the legal process that occur before formal charges are filed that allow them to detain suspects for longer.
Swedish law only allows formal charges to be filed after he is extradited, and questioned. It is just a procedural difference, not one of substance.
Its not RAPE as most of the world defines it.
Yes it is. Among other things, he is a accused of having non-consensual sex with a sleeping woman. That is considered rape in the US, Australia, and all of the EU. The UK would not have extradited him if the actions he is accused of weren't a crime in the UK; read the Supreme Court's Extradition Judgement for more details.
1) The phone wasn't broadcasting data that the police happened to notice. They had the phone company send the phone commands querying it for it's precise precision (this is a feature that is required by law to be in phones for the purpose of e911). So this was an active search, not a happenstance observation.
2) Because this isn't a signal that just anyone can monitor, but rather one that requires explicit cooperation of the phone company to generate and access, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding that signal.
Those two facts essentially are the definition of when a search that requires a warrant.
It is certainly important to let and fund anyone who wants to call their self an "artist" to put junk into orbit. And far better to let this jerk, I mean artist, use the funds and the launch space to feel good about himself than to actually put micro-sats or other useful technology into space.
He didn't use your money, or any government funding, or force anyone to donate who didn't want to. Who are you to dictate how others choose to spend their resources?
Well OpenGL ES wasn't good enough for the desktop. In addition to removing a bunch of old cruft they also removed a bunch of advanced features that embedded systems at the time couldn't handle. OpenGL ES 3.0 improves the situation quite a bit, and is at least a proper subset of OpenGL 4.3, but is still missing important features needed to get the best performance out of games.
The nice thing about living near gorgeous outdoors is that you can enjoy it even when you need to be doing other things. During grad school people were always asking me why I was doing homework at a bar rather than socializing or having fun. Because it beats doing homework in the library, that's why. I had to do the homework regardless; this way I got to listen to great live music and have a pint while I was doing it.
None of Orbital's rockets come close to the capacity of the Falcon 9, which is why their CCDev entry was to be launched from an Atlas V, rather than one of their own. On top of that 3 out of the last 4 Taurus launches have failed. I've worked with Orbital before, and they are a great company (the polar opposite of Lockheed). I'll happily work them any time in the future, and wish them the best luck with Antares. But the fact is that SpaceX is getting more attention than Orbital now because they earned it by delivering better results.
That would be a good argument, until you look at NASA today instead of 40 years ago. NASA has not only the common pool of knowledge to work from, but concrete working designs to build off of, and still managed to spend way more on Ares and has far less to show for it than SpaceX.