IMNSHO, this comment is unfair. Your condemning the product because you don't like this 'second-rate "hi-fi" ' company, rather than the merits of the product.
Little or no technical details, controlled environments
True, but it's still under development. I've seen a demo of the system, and the movies accurately reflect my experience. I suspect we'll start to see technical details via professional society papers once the system is in production.
there's no way Bose has been working on this one piece of technology for 24 years.
24 years? I don't know, but I did see a demo of this 10 years ago.
you can bet they'll sell this technology for quite a bit more than average as well, where similar systems are currently optioned around $1000-$3000 depending on the make (ie, Porsche's system is more expensive than Chevy's, and I would expect Bose to be even more expensive than Porsche)
I won't argue that Bose's products are overpriced for the sound quality, but for some customers, they do have greater appeal than simply sound quality - for example, the WAF/SAF appeal for their acoustimass speakers is very high.
In any event, are there any videos that demonstrate the Porsche and GM systems? I like to compare the performance of the systems (well, as much as you can compare them in a video).
Besides, do you really trust a second-rate "hi-fi" (haha!) company to build the suspension for your car? I certainly wouldn't! Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Chevy, et al have been doing it for far longer, and have a much deeper wealth of automotive knowledge. I'll trust the experts on this one, rather than Bose.
Why not? Active vibration control and dynamics are based on the same mathematics as acoustics, so it's all related. I went to school to learn to make speakers and wound up becoming an expert on train ground-borne vibration
Of course as a noise & vibration guy, Bose's system interests me because it could help reduce wayside ground-borne vibration from auto traffic (and even railroad traffic if the price was sufficiently low). Yeah, it's a pipe dream, and if it does happen, it would be several decades, but every little bit helps.
I imagine that those values apply to the "typical" person with average hearing.
You're almost right. The OSHA levels are a compromise between levels that would affect the hearing of most people, and the economics of mitigating sound levels.
The OSHA guidelines are designed to protect 85% of the population. It's assumed that the OSHA limits won't protect the remaining 15% of the population, and that they will be entitled to financial compensation
I am getting sick of working with second rate 'quota' people. Particularly with the government they will put someone without the ability or experience to do a job but got the "Minority XXXX" points to land the job.
Similarly, I'm sick of working with second rate 'white' people. Particularly with the government they will put someone without the ability or experience to do a job but got the job because they knew someone, or because they were some CEO's son.
The first two don't have the word "icon" in them according to Mozilla's "Find" feature. If you're really talking about "Icons" (the crux of the Point and click concept).
The references I gave talk more about the general GUI concept as popularized by the Mac, but we can talk about icons specifically. First, what do we mean my icon? For this post, when I refer to an icon, I'm talking about a graphical representation of an object (file, text, etc) that can be maneuvered and manipulated using the mouse. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Xerox used icons to represent "actions" rather than "objects" (kinda like a toolbar). Unfortunately, I can't find the reference right now.
This source claims that " the Apple work extended PARC's considerably, adding windows that can be overlapped, manipulable icons and..." This source quotes an unnamed Lisa developer: "[the Xerox Star] didn't use icons at all..."
Now that's not to say the Xerox didn't come up with, and develop, the idea on their own - I'm just supplying evidence to counter the convential wisdom that Apple got all of their GUI ideas from PARC. I believe that Raskin, Tessler, and a lot of the PARC/Apple GUI people knew each other before the formation of PARC and Apple, and it was likely that they were all working off concepts they had researched in the 60's and early 70's. (of course that doesn't mean Apple didn't think they were stealing ideas - supposedly Mac programmers spent lots of time working on overlapping/self-repairing windows because they thought they saw that at PARC, but it turns out they didn't:)
Heck, even Jobs openly admits that at PARC, they showed him three things, and he was so blinded by the GUI that he didn't even notice the other two (OO programing, and networking).
But you have to look at the context of the trip: the GUI was new to Jobs, but not to Raskin. Raskin convinced Jobs to go on the trip, not to "discover" the GUI, but because Jobs kept trying to kill the Mac project, and Raskin wanted him to see an implementation of a GUI so he could see for himself that it wasn't a waste of time.
You also have to look at the context of the interview: Jobs was cementing his status as "Father of the Macintosh." Raskin had a few comments on the interview (Search for "Raskin" and then scroll up a little bit), and later Cringley acknowledged Raskin's contributions.
I don't see anything that leads me to believe that Apple didn't get the idea of a GUI directly from PARC.
For example, I have two different Sony Ericsson phones (the T3something and the T610, one for Europe and one for the USA), and if a call is coming through, then the keypad unlocks enough for me to say "yes, I want to take the call." Then when the call is going on, the keypad is fully unlocked, and then right when the call ends, it goes back to being locked.
I actually have the T616 (AT&T's version of the T610, bluetooth rocks!). The problem I have with answering calls on this phone is that "Yes" soft key (in response to "Do you want to answer this call?") takes a second to respond. So what sometimes happens is that I get a call, and I press the "Yes" button. Nothing happens for a second, so I press it again, just in time for the "Yes" to switch to "Hold." Now my caller is on hold and has no idea what's going on, and usually hangs up before I release the hold.
It's not something that happens a lot, but it's one of those annoying things that happens right when it's essential for me to answer the call. In my experience, these types of things don't happen with flip phones.
Basically, it comes down to a question from me: Should I look for a bluetooth enabled phone for my next cell phone?
It depends. It's very convenient for synching with your computer or other devices.
I've found it invaluable for communicating with equipment that I leave out in the field for sound measurements. Rather then needing direct access to the locked case to check on sound levels (which often interferes with the measurement), I can walk to within ~30ft of my monitor, whip out my Sony-Ericsson T616, and check its status. This is a custom use, but using toys like Sailing Clicker, you may be able to come up with various other uses.
I know the reputation that clamshells have (and it's at least partially deserved) but having owned a variety of phones (flip phones and otherwise) IMO clamshells absolutely cannot be beat for convenience.
One big issue I have is that I do a lot of travel, and depend on my cell phone for client communications. That means being able to answer the phone quickly when a client or contact calls (frequently I find that if I miss a call, it may be *days* before I can contact that client again).
The thing I like about flip phones is that you open it to take a call, and close it to finish the calls. With non-flip phones, you can leave the keyboard unlocked to take calls, but then you have to deal with accidently dialing people when the phone is in your pocket or bag. Or, you can lock the keyboard, but that gets in the way when you want to make a call, or want to receive a call and you can't forget the unlock combination or the "quick key" to answer the call.
My next phone will most definitely be a flip phone.
Usually the last stop on any line has a crossover, that enables the train to switch directions in order to service the opposite direction. wasn't there in the movie.
Not to mention that 1) brakes on trains are fail-safe devices, and 2) NYCT, like most transit agencies, can trip brakes externally to stop runaway trains, but hey, it's movie:)
Maybe for older folks whose hearing has degraded somewhat. People usually cite an upper limit of around 20kHz.
20 kHz is usually cited as the high-end of human hearing, but it's pretty well understood that 15-16 kHz is the max for most people except very young children.
I can certainly hear a tone at 20kHz, from a good tone generator (not a cheap one with harmonic interference.)
Yeah, but what is the level of the tone versus mid-frequencies? I can hear a 20 kHz tone in my right ear when the volume is cranked up, but it winds up being about a 20 dB gain versus a reference frequency of 1 kHz.
If they actually did mean 165 dBa, then the interior would be 205 dBa, which is about the same experience as pressing your ear against the main gun of a battleship as it fires, i.e. pop go the eardrums.
I know you're being facetious, but for the record, the max SPL limit you can have on Earth (at sea level) 180 dB.
Unfortunately, since the website doesn't give distances for those sound levels, these data are pretty much useless. It's a mistake that many sources make when they try to help us "relate" to sound levels.
Is that lawnmower right next to you? In the neighbor's yard? In the next state?
It's 65dBa at 500 feet. Since loudness decreases/increases quadratically
Warrax_666 makes a good point. (and to answer your question, sound usually decays at a rate of 10*log10(D/Dref) for line-sources and 20*log10(D/Dref) for point sources, although ground absorption and atmospheric absorption can cause more rapid attenuation in certain circumstances).
65 dBA at 500 feet translates to 85 dBA at 50 ft (assuming point source propagation, which is probably reasonable).
For comparison:
Locomotive idling @ 50 ft: 80 dBA
Bus idling @ 50 ft: 75 dBA
Automobile @ 50 ft, 50 mph: 70 dBA
Diesel locomotive @ 50 ft, 50 mph: 92 dBA
Transit train (electric) @ 50 ft, 50 mph: 86 dBA
Train horn @ 50 ft: 105 dBA
So in short, it's louder than cars traveling at 50 mph, but not as bad as a train horn. Also keep in mind that if the flying car is, well, flying, there won't be anything to shield the noise from the vehicle, and that may make it louder than normal cars in practice.
Personally, I don't think apple is trying to hide anything, they are just assuming that calling it a "a pre-authentication, remotely exploitable stack buffer overflow" would confuse consumers. The knowledgebase article contains all the info a technical person would need to find out more.
Speaking of "full disclosure" - the criticism came from @stake, which is a vendor to Microsoft and fired one of their employees for criticizing Microsoft in a report.:)
Even if they were small, they could be useful (if they were energy efficient)
The Ben & Jerry's Flash presentation notes that the thermoacoustic cooling process they developed was "efficient." I'm not real familiar with their process (other than what's presented in the linked articles), but I do know that loudspeakers are generally very inefficient - a very "efficient" loudspeaker may translate 1% of an electric watt into an acoustic watt. The rest of the energy goes to heating the voice coil.
Now it could be that normal refrigeration methods are even more inefficient, or that the thermoacoustic cooling process benefits from the use of the inert gas as a propagation medium. But it's probably not a panacea yet.
It says that the noise can only be generated inside the chamber. But I bet it will still make a pretty loud bang when it cracks.
Probably not. The 173 dB is a measure of the sound pressure. Pressure is force divided by area - in this case, it's a force generated by a transducer over the limited area inside the device. If the enclosure breaks, the area goes to infinity, the sound pressure is significantly reduced.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent is referring to Airport Extreme (specifically the client cards), not Airport Express, they're two different (but related) products.
That said, is the Airport software part of Darwin?
IMNSHO, this comment is unfair. Your condemning the product because you don't like this 'second-rate "hi-fi" ' company, rather than the merits of the product.
Little or no technical details, controlled environmentsTrue, but it's still under development. I've seen a demo of the system, and the movies accurately reflect my experience. I suspect we'll start to see technical details via professional society papers once the system is in production.
there's no way Bose has been working on this one piece of technology for 24 years.24 years? I don't know, but I did see a demo of this 10 years ago.
you can bet they'll sell this technology for quite a bit more than average as well, where similar systems are currently optioned around $1000-$3000 depending on the make (ie, Porsche's system is more expensive than Chevy's, and I would expect Bose to be even more expensive than Porsche)I won't argue that Bose's products are overpriced for the sound quality, but for some customers, they do have greater appeal than simply sound quality - for example, the WAF/SAF appeal for their acoustimass speakers is very high.
In any event, are there any videos that demonstrate the Porsche and GM systems? I like to compare the performance of the systems (well, as much as you can compare them in a video).
Besides, do you really trust a second-rate "hi-fi" (haha!) company to build the suspension for your car? I certainly wouldn't! Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Chevy, et al have been doing it for far longer, and have a much deeper wealth of automotive knowledge. I'll trust the experts on this one, rather than Bose.Why not? Active vibration control and dynamics are based on the same mathematics as acoustics, so it's all related. I went to school to learn to make speakers and wound up becoming an expert on train ground-borne vibration
Of course as a noise & vibration guy, Bose's system interests me because it could help reduce wayside ground-borne vibration from auto traffic (and even railroad traffic if the price was sufficiently low). Yeah, it's a pipe dream, and if it does happen, it would be several decades, but every little bit helps.
You're almost right. The OSHA levels are a compromise between levels that would affect the hearing of most people, and the economics of mitigating sound levels.
The OSHA guidelines are designed to protect 85% of the population. It's assumed that the OSHA limits won't protect the remaining 15% of the population, and that they will be entitled to financial compensation
,Similarly, I'm sick of working with second rate 'white' people. Particularly with the government they will put someone without the ability or experience to do a job but got the job because they knew someone, or because they were some CEO's son.
Seriously.
Thus speaketh the Anonymous Coward
The references I gave talk more about the general GUI concept as popularized by the Mac, but we can talk about icons specifically. First, what do we mean my icon? For this post, when I refer to an icon, I'm talking about a graphical representation of an object (file, text, etc) that can be maneuvered and manipulated using the mouse. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Xerox used icons to represent "actions" rather than "objects" (kinda like a toolbar). Unfortunately, I can't find the reference right now.
This source claims that " the Apple work extended PARC's considerably, adding windows that can be overlapped, manipulable icons and..." This source quotes an unnamed Lisa developer: "[the Xerox Star] didn't use icons at all..."
Now that's not to say the Xerox didn't come up with, and develop, the idea on their own - I'm just supplying evidence to counter the convential wisdom that Apple got all of their GUI ideas from PARC. I believe that Raskin, Tessler, and a lot of the PARC/Apple GUI people knew each other before the formation of PARC and Apple, and it was likely that they were all working off concepts they had researched in the 60's and early 70's. (of course that doesn't mean Apple didn't think they were stealing ideas - supposedly Mac programmers spent lots of time working on overlapping/self-repairing windows because they thought they saw that at PARC, but it turns out they didn't:)
Heck, even Jobs openly admits that at PARC, they showed him three things, and he was so blinded by the GUI that he didn't even notice the other two (OO programing, and networking).But you have to look at the context of the trip: the GUI was new to Jobs, but not to Raskin. Raskin convinced Jobs to go on the trip, not to "discover" the GUI, but because Jobs kept trying to kill the Mac project, and Raskin wanted him to see an implementation of a GUI so he could see for himself that it wasn't a waste of time.
You also have to look at the context of the interview: Jobs was cementing his status as "Father of the Macintosh." Raskin had a few comments on the interview (Search for "Raskin" and then scroll up a little bit), and later Cringley acknowledged Raskin's contributions.
I don't see anything that leads me to believe that Apple didn't get the idea of a GUI directly from PARC.Go read Michael S. Malone's Infinite Loop:How Apple, The World's Most Insanely Great Computer Company Went Insane . It goes into great detail about the origins of the Mac.
As I posted earlier, it didn't quite happen that way, at least for Apple.
No they didn't.
I actually have the T616 (AT&T's version of the T610, bluetooth rocks!). The problem I have with answering calls on this phone is that "Yes" soft key (in response to "Do you want to answer this call?") takes a second to respond. So what sometimes happens is that I get a call, and I press the "Yes" button. Nothing happens for a second, so I press it again, just in time for the "Yes" to switch to "Hold." Now my caller is on hold and has no idea what's going on, and usually hangs up before I release the hold.
It's not something that happens a lot, but it's one of those annoying things that happens right when it's essential for me to answer the call. In my experience, these types of things don't happen with flip phones.
It depends. It's very convenient for synching with your computer or other devices.
I've found it invaluable for communicating with equipment that I leave out in the field for sound measurements. Rather then needing direct access to the locked case to check on sound levels (which often interferes with the measurement), I can walk to within ~30ft of my monitor, whip out my Sony-Ericsson T616, and check its status. This is a custom use, but using toys like Sailing Clicker, you may be able to come up with various other uses.
I know the reputation that clamshells have (and it's at least partially deserved) but having owned a variety of phones (flip phones and otherwise) IMO clamshells absolutely cannot be beat for convenience.
One big issue I have is that I do a lot of travel, and depend on my cell phone for client communications. That means being able to answer the phone quickly when a client or contact calls (frequently I find that if I miss a call, it may be *days* before I can contact that client again).
The thing I like about flip phones is that you open it to take a call, and close it to finish the calls. With non-flip phones, you can leave the keyboard unlocked to take calls, but then you have to deal with accidently dialing people when the phone is in your pocket or bag. Or, you can lock the keyboard, but that gets in the way when you want to make a call, or want to receive a call and you can't forget the unlock combination or the "quick key" to answer the call.
My next phone will most definitely be a flip phone.
Not to mention that 1) brakes on trains are fail-safe devices, and 2) NYCT, like most transit agencies, can trip brakes externally to stop runaway trains, but hey, it's movie :)
20 kHz is usually cited as the high-end of human hearing, but it's pretty well understood that 15-16 kHz is the max for most people except very young children.
I can certainly hear a tone at 20kHz, from a good tone generator (not a cheap one with harmonic interference.)
Yeah, but what is the level of the tone versus mid-frequencies? I can hear a 20 kHz tone in my right ear when the volume is cranked up, but it winds up being about a 20 dB gain versus a reference frequency of 1 kHz.
Relax, it was a joke - hence the smiley. Life's too short to get worked up over a cartoon.
Oh yeah? Compare this with this. They even got downtown in the right place :)
(I know, I know, but the resemblance is striking!)
I know you're being facetious, but for the record, the max SPL limit you can have on Earth (at sea level) 180 dB.
Unfortunately, since the website doesn't give distances for those sound levels, these data are pretty much useless. It's a mistake that many sources make when they try to help us "relate" to sound levels.
Is that lawnmower right next to you? In the neighbor's yard? In the next state?
Warrax_666 makes a good point. (and to answer your question, sound usually decays at a rate of 10*log10(D/Dref) for line-sources and 20*log10(D/Dref) for point sources, although ground absorption and atmospheric absorption can cause more rapid attenuation in certain circumstances).
65 dBA at 500 feet translates to 85 dBA at 50 ft (assuming point source propagation, which is probably reasonable).
For comparison:
So in short, it's louder than cars traveling at 50 mph, but not as bad as a train horn. Also keep in mind that if the flying car is, well, flying, there won't be anything to shield the noise from the vehicle, and that may make it louder than normal cars in practice.
A comment in response to the Scobleizer blog said it best:
Huh? This was debunked a long time ago.
Answered here.
The Ben & Jerry's Flash presentation notes that the thermoacoustic cooling process they developed was "efficient." I'm not real familiar with their process (other than what's presented in the linked articles), but I do know that loudspeakers are generally very inefficient - a very "efficient" loudspeaker may translate 1% of an electric watt into an acoustic watt. The rest of the energy goes to heating the voice coil.
Now it could be that normal refrigeration methods are even more inefficient, or that the thermoacoustic cooling process benefits from the use of the inert gas as a propagation medium. But it's probably not a panacea yet.
A loudspeaker is a simple mechanical (well, electro-mechanical) device!
.Probably not. The 173 dB is a measure of the sound pressure. Pressure is force divided by area - in this case, it's a force generated by a transducer over the limited area inside the device. If the enclosure breaks, the area goes to infinity, the sound pressure is significantly reduced.
Could you share your impressions about the sound quality of the various formats?