RTFA. He's interested in a search that actually works, with better privacy terms. Yahoo! == Bing, or very soon will, so that's redundant. Ask sucks. What's "etc"? Yeah, AltaVista. Dream on: searching it for "mozilla recommends bing" gets 0 hits. Fail.
Well, duh. UFOs, obviously. The significant question is: what sort of exotic defence did they use to cause that response? Warp shields? Singularity field?
But since they'll all be off playing Team Fortard 7 or Modern Wankfare 9, I expect that Blood Frontier, like all Open Source games, is played only by the developers and three guys in Lithuania.
Then quit whining and submit it as a story. Do it every day until some bored editard finally runs it. Then you'll get to whine about all the noobtards that are ruining your game. Everybody wins.
Yes, I'm quite sure that Google is assisting the Chinese regime in repressing its people because it's "trying to provide the most good legally possible." Profit isn't even a vague consideration.
Pray tell, when is the time to fight against Chinese repression? And if not Google, then who? If your argument is "If Google didn't, then Microsoft would", then that's true, but the fact remains: Google did. Being 5% less evil than Satan does not make you a saint.
A very tiny bit of work. Just file the exact same patent twice, then drop the second one. It's not like USPTO Inc. will check, or care, as long as they make more money out of it.
Darn straight. You shouldn't commit vile, illegal, immoral crimes, like Googling for Free Tibet from inside China, and then expect Google to give a damn about what happens to you.
Indeed. And these target-rich queues are caused by security theatre. When some raghead mongtard finally blows himself up in such queue, I'm sure it'll become obvious in hindsight.
I like to mod all obvious posts as redundant, regardless of posting order. It's not like you would have read any previous posts before making yours, is it?
Oh, never mind - Wikipedia failed it. 3dB represents a doubling of power/intensity, but that's not perceived as a doubling, but as an increase-by-1. So to get a perceived doubling, you do actually have to quadruple the power = 6dB.
If you say so. Please ignore the voltage issue then.
I'm still not clear on why 16 bits produces 90/96dB of range for CDs. I make that 6dB per bit. If 3dB doubles perceived loudness, then 6dB quadruples it. So the perceived loudness increases with the square of the value, not linearly with it. That would seem to give very coarse (perceived) granularity, especially near the top of the range.
There's probably something very simple that I'm not getting that explains why CDs produce 96dB of range rather than 48, but I can't find any FAQs dumb enough to explain it. Are you up to the challenge?
Sorry, but talking to someone (anyone) is not illegal in itself.
I think you need to choose a different word, because several forms of speech very clearly are "illegal" in many jurisdictions. Saying it ain't so doesn't alter that.
Sarah, please note that I asked a question; I didn't make a statement. If you apologise for your libellous claim that I am attempting to "validate theft", we can avoid any unpleasant legalities.
So, let's see. I buy a rabid attack dog and put it on my front lawn. Someone climbs over the fence, and it bites their face off.
You, sir, would argue that I could have only meant my rabid attack dog to bite the faces off of people that I explicitly command it to. Apparently, according to your argument, I may have let it roam outside the house simply because I was an incompetent retard too stupid to understand what a rabid attack dog will always do unless I prevent it from doing so. And that's not, according to you, my responsibility.
If you don't like drawing an analogy between lawyers and rabid attack dogs, then we could pretend that it's a zombie with a chainsaw, or a velociraptor with PMS. Either way, it's doing exactly what any reasonable person should have expected it to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for one thing, searching for mozilla recommends bing doesn't return any hits relevant to this story. Unlike Google. And Bing.
RTFA. He's interested in a search that actually works, with better privacy terms. Yahoo! == Bing, or very soon will, so that's redundant. Ask sucks. What's "etc"? Yeah, AltaVista. Dream on: searching it for "mozilla recommends bing" gets 0 hits. Fail.
Yes, I'm sure Google's traffic will nose dive immediately and they'll mend their ways once me(*) and thee switch to Bing.
* Disclaimer: me and thee excludes me.
Well, duh. UFOs, obviously. The significant question is: what sort of exotic defence did they use to cause that response? Warp shields? Singularity field?
But since they'll all be off playing Team Fortard 7 or Modern Wankfare 9, I expect that Blood Frontier, like all Open Source games, is played only by the developers and three guys in Lithuania.
Then quit whining and submit it as a story. Do it every day until some bored editard finally runs it. Then you'll get to whine about all the noobtards that are ruining your game. Everybody wins.
Since the US adopted a policy of only fighting wars against tiny Orientals or half-starved Arabs, they're already 40% stronger than the opposition.
Hypotheses for what? The post 1941 warming? How about the same explanation as for the medieaval warm period? i.e. We have no Goddamn idea.
Yes, I'm quite sure that Google is assisting the Chinese regime in repressing its people because it's "trying to provide the most good legally possible." Profit isn't even a vague consideration.
Pray tell, when is the time to fight against Chinese repression? And if not Google, then who? If your argument is "If Google didn't, then Microsoft would", then that's true, but the fact remains: Google did. Being 5% less evil than Satan does not make you a saint.
A very tiny bit of work. Just file the exact same patent twice, then drop the second one. It's not like USPTO Inc. will check, or care, as long as they make more money out of it.
Darn straight. You shouldn't commit vile, illegal, immoral crimes, like Googling for Free Tibet from inside China, and then expect Google to give a damn about what happens to you.
Indeed. And these target-rich queues are caused by security theatre. When some raghead mongtard finally blows himself up in such queue, I'm sure it'll become obvious in hindsight.
I like to mod all obvious posts as redundant, regardless of posting order. It's not like you would have read any previous posts before making yours, is it?
...run mostly by Scotsmen.
And I think it's just charming that you believe that has any bearing on de facto legality, despite the profusion of evidence to the contrary.
Oh, never mind - Wikipedia failed it. 3dB represents a doubling of power/intensity, but that's not perceived as a doubling, but as an increase-by-1. So to get a perceived doubling, you do actually have to quadruple the power = 6dB.
If you say so. Please ignore the voltage issue then.
I'm still not clear on why 16 bits produces 90/96dB of range for CDs. I make that 6dB per bit. If 3dB doubles perceived loudness, then 6dB quadruples it. So the perceived loudness increases with the square of the value, not linearly with it. That would seem to give very coarse (perceived) granularity, especially near the top of the range.
There's probably something very simple that I'm not getting that explains why CDs produce 96dB of range rather than 48, but I can't find any FAQs dumb enough to explain it. Are you up to the challenge?
If I give you a loaded gun, have I committed murder?
I think you need to choose a different word, because several forms of speech very clearly are "illegal" in many jurisdictions. Saying it ain't so doesn't alter that.
Can you clear something up? Where does this ~6 dB per bit ratio come from?
IIRC, a doubling in perceived loudness is only ~3bB, so if you interpret each bit as a doubling in loudness, that gets you a dynamic range of 48bB.
If you double your voltage for each bit, that gets you ~6 dB per bit, or >90bB of range, but then you're quadrupling perceived loudness per bit.
So hell, I'll multiply my voltage by 4 for each bit, or 12dB. I've just got 192 dB of dynamic range from 16 bits!
If not, why not. Show your working for extra credit.
Not so clear. The jury is still out - not literally though, since the dynamic linking issue hasn't yet been tried in court.
Sarah, please note that I asked a question; I didn't make a statement. If you apologise for your libellous claim that I am attempting to "validate theft", we can avoid any unpleasant legalities.
Question: aren't you therefore stealing $15 (or $30 for Blu-Ray) from the distributor by not paying the full 0-day retail price?
No, you say? But why not? After all, you're apparently stealing $20 from them if you pay $0 for it, so why aren't you stealing $15 if you pay $5?
Let's throw that question open to any distributor executives or their lawyers who happen to be wandering by.
Well, I guess whoring your own clumsily written anti-aggregator OpEd to an aggregator site is one way to get traffic and survive in the Google age.
So, let's see. I buy a rabid attack dog and put it on my front lawn. Someone climbs over the fence, and it bites their face off.
You, sir, would argue that I could have only meant my rabid attack dog to bite the faces off of people that I explicitly command it to. Apparently, according to your argument, I may have let it roam outside the house simply because I was an incompetent retard too stupid to understand what a rabid attack dog will always do unless I prevent it from doing so. And that's not, according to you, my responsibility.
If you don't like drawing an analogy between lawyers and rabid attack dogs, then we could pretend that it's a zombie with a chainsaw, or a velociraptor with PMS. Either way, it's doing exactly what any reasonable person should have expected it to do.