It's the resonant frequency of your cartridge/arm combo. It's dependent on the compliance of the cartridge; ie how stiffly or loosely that tiny arm that is connected to the stylus moves.
Generally speaking, you use a high-compliance cartridge with a light tonearm and a low-compliance with a heavier arm. The idea is to make that resonance around 12 Hz, where there won't be any information on the record or the suspension's own resonance (if there is a suspension) will be lower than that (below 8 Hz). If that works out right, then there's not much to exicte the cartridge/tonarm's reasonance.
You might be able to fix it by switching to a different cartridge; a different tonearm would also help, but is kind of expensive unless you're already at the lunatic fringe and see that as a normal expenditure for audio.
It could also be "rumble" which is mechanical noise from the turntable's motor system. Capstan-driven turntables (basically, a puck) are usually bad for that, belt drive or direct drive should be better in that regard. If you have a record changer (you can stack records on it) or an inexpensive turntable it's probably capstan driven.
Most, if not all amps/recievers with a phono input also have a "rumble" filter; sometimes called things like "subsonic filter" or "low filter". That's supposed to take care of it. Some gear has it built into the RIAA equalization curve, so no switch on the front panel. Engage the filter if you have a button for it somewhere.
Yes, it's very unlikely that an LP record of music will have any information at 10Hz, for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, the resonant frequency of the cartridge will typically be somewhere around 8~15 Hz. Any information on the record that falls in this range will excite this resonance, causing all kinds of problems that basically could be summarized as bad stuff and bad sound. It's filtered out before it gets to the record mostly for this reason.
The actual resonant frequency varies based on the compliance of the cartridge's cantilever (the tiny "arm" the "needle" is attached to) and the tonearm's mass.
You actually want it around 10~12 Hz; below that and you probably will be in the turntable's suspension frequency (again, exiting the reasonance, bad sound and bad things, one common one is skipping when walking around the turntable, etc) while above that and you might have program material (low bass) excite it.
Secondly, low frequency sounds are fairly large when cut on a record, which means the grooves have to be spaced further apart. A music record with a LF cutoff of 20 Hz will be about 16 minutes long; 30 Hz will get one around 18 minutes and if you have any 25 minute records (yes, they made them) chances are it's a rock recording with no bass information below around 40Hz. The cutting engineer selects the cutoff frequency when they make the master, often boosting bass a little higher in frequency to make up for the lost true low info.
The lathe used to make the record master also has some physical limitations that limits exactly how wild you can get with LF volume and frequency.
It's possible to cut a test record of fairly short length with any of these low tones. You need an engineer who really knows his lathe and probably would involve manipulating the speeds of a master tape (if they even used one, it would be easier to feed a test tone right to the cutter) and the lathe.
For example record the tape at 30 inches per second, and for a 45 RPM LP-sized test record play the tape at 10 ips and cut at 15 RPM. (To get a clean 10 Hz on tape, you might have to record at faster than 30 ips, but whatever it takes).
Or send a 5Hz test tone and cut at 1/2 speed. Or some similar combo, whatever the engineer thinks is necessary and within his cutter's physical limits. Played back at 45 RPM you get the desired (correct) frequency. Vary the frequency and get a series of tones running from, say, 5 Hz to 20 Hz in 1 or 2 Hz increments.
Then you would play that record back and see exactly where the turntable's suspension and cartridge resonance frequencies are (knowing that will help fine-tune bass response, suseptibility to footfalls, and a few other things). That's about the only use for such low tones on an LP, and such records are rare.
"... Does this mean that its normal for CD's as gifts to be illegal in different countries?..."
No, it's not illegal to give a CD away anywhere.
What the quote referred to is the rights move with the CD. So, if you copy a CD and then sell or give the original away, you should either destroy the copy or include it with the transfer. To retain it without the original disk would be a violation of copyright law in NZ under the proposed law.
Apple uses the Fairplay DRM to support iTunes and the iPod together. Therefore it fails to meet the business model if you license Fairplay to other mp3 hardware vendors. If things change, then that might change. For now, that's the way it is.
What I don't understand is why Apple doesn't make the iPod capable of playing WMA files I don't see much criticism of other mp3 players, but their own controllers also support AAC. Similarly, they do not enable AAC support in most cases.
I can offer a hint as to why Apple doesn't support WMA. Firstly, along with Real Audio, Windows Media Player doesn't support QuickTime (some earlier versions are supported). Along with Ogg Vorbis, these are essentially the only formats not supported.
Secondly, support of WMA is a bit more than enabling it in software; by "a bit more" I mean the cutting of a check worth a few hundred grand every year to Microsoft.
For Windows software (ie iTunes for Windows and everything else that runs on a Windows OS) the license fee is waived. I don't think it's surprising that iTunes for Windows won't support a format that the iPod or iTunes for MacOS doesn't, though.
In every case, note that "enabling" is not the same as "disabling". Nothing is disabled, instead they are not (yet) implemented, and to enable them requires the cutting of checks.
I love this line: "... 4 cylinders means you only need 4 forged connecting rods and pistons and half the honing time...."
Honing time?
You can hone an engine in a couple of hours at home with a hand drill. 2, 4, 8 cylinders; it doesn't really matter. One night in the garage.
Now, the "300 HP from a 1600cc" engine, if it's honed at all, is honed on a precise tool with careful procedures in a machine shop. As is the line-boring, decking, and resizing of this and that. Who cares how long it takes? You just pay a bill.
The real time spent in any engine buildup, home or pro, is checking and measuring; which is closely related to careful assembly.
If you do it right, it doesn't take significantly longer no matter how many cylinders the engine has; A V-8 and an I-4 have the same number of main bearings (that would be 5 of 'em) and most of the operations are similar. It's not faster to degree in a cam on a 4-cylinder engine than on a V-8. Your Honda probably has two cams. (Hmmm, something that actually takes longer on a small high-performance engine. Whooda thunkit?).
It all boils down to the fact that choosing an engine configuration (that is expected to perform at the near-but-not-quite-breaking-point long enough to win, or at a lazy pace for tens of thousands of hours) is dependent on a lot of factors.
Step 1: What is the goal? Step 2: Choose wisely.
Blueprint and assembly time is trivial in the long run. It varies as much when comparing two types of similar engines (say a Toyota R-22 and a turbo DOHC I-4) as it does when comparing two configurations (eg I-4 vs V-8).
I was having a drink with a legally blind Teacher's Assistant friend of mine Friday (the day before this hit Slashdot) after work. He's a die-hard Windows user, precisely because of the (yes, this is the right price) $1200 application mentioned briefly in the article, which he uses.
I was inundated with questions; the news was out so fast amongst those who need this functionality that they caught me off guard. I had heard a bit. He knew far more.
Trust me, there is real interest in this. He wanted to know what hardware to buy that would support OSX. He knew the beta was out and knew people running it, and liked the feedback he'd heard so far.
Skins are an expression of "Geek Love" for a product. If no-one loves your product, nobody skins it.
Do you need them? Nope. Should there be a default behavior that looks like most of your other apps? You bet.
But, if there is any merit to your product at all, sooner or later someone is going to want to skin it (or complain about not being able to). This, as a software developer/vendor, is a measure of your success.
If anyone gets that, then they will probably "get" that offering skins from the get-go is a way to fake that love. Companies love to fake the love. It's another tool to move the product, and to generate more consumer acceptance (however misplaced it may be).
It's the oldest trick in the book; fake the "cool" factor to cover up the weakness. Shallow, a waste of resources, a marketing sham, all of that. But the damn strategy works, especially if you have a competing target you can infer is now "uncool".
Does the product stand on it's own merits? Chances are it doesn't, or at least doesn't stand out as being vastly superior.
Let me get this straight: Divx5 and WMA9 and QT are very close in quality, they actually state that they basically can't tell the difference between Divx5 and WMA9, QT is 2x faster to render on Microsoft/x86 hardware than WMA, Divx5 is pretty speedy, while WMA9 was slowest of them all; and they conclude solely for compatibility on future hardware (like that's been written in stone) that everyone should use WMA9, and forget about the rest.
Gotta Love Ziff-Davis publishing. They give you the straight goods every time. Riiiiiight.
"... Given that one is clearly not the same as the other, the real question is, "Why is making money and making an effective OS the same?"..."
The article speaks quite a bit about how Microsoft if forced to build in back-compatibility in an inefficient manner. Every OS has to deal with back-compatibility to a certain extent, but consider how much more important it is to a company like Microsoft.
They have a business model that could easily be described as based on market share with both business users and home users "feeding" each other's compatibility needs. The business user many be more reluctant to upgrade than the home user because reliability, transition problems and cost have different consequences for both types, yet both have large numbers of current and legacy OS users.
Consider Linux. Upgrade issues remain, but cost is negligible with home users and can be attractive (or not; depends on too many things) to business users as well. However the OS itself (with the more modern code) is available and access to the software itself is not a significant cost issue. Thus, no absolute need for "kludges" to keep older OS's ( or more typically older paid programs from other vendors) running, while a significant number of truly ancient CPUs can also run an effective, compatible "family" *NIX Operating System and necessary software.
Microsoft got where it is on marketshare; it's maintaining it's current income on marketshare, and it pegs it's future on marketshare. It drives every effort from code to sales to lobbying. That marketshare requires users to implicitly agree to paid upgrades of MS and third party software.
Although a given Linux distro does have marketshare interests, a user that switches to a competitive Linux distro is not the end of the world; potential new users far exceed current users, the user hasn't really changed his way of working, and hasn't invested in new hardware. He's still there for future growth.
I think the cost of upgrading of the two OS's plays a significant role in the way they are coded, designed, and implemented. Linux advocates may be just a little blind to it, because it's not a consideration that drives the development process; Microsoft's corporate coders can never lose sight of it, and it does drive the code, design, and implementation.
From the article: "... Any report that we made a cash payment of seven figures is highly exaggerated, and it disappoints me that that quote is out there in the media," Marsh said. "The contract that we signed with SCO specifically prohibits any party from discussing the economics of the transaction. If you have an agreement that calls for certain aspects to be protected, then you would hope that that would be respected."..."
Like, SCO can read, understand, or comply with a contract; that they can be relied upon to disclose factual information, and that they're not in a media war. Give me a break. What the hell did you expect?
"... Apple at or near a loss, for whatever strange reason...."
Hitachi is making money off the drives they sell to Apple, in the quantities Apple is buying. It's called manufacturing.
The "part" you bought cost more in single, packaged, retail distribution channels just like any other part does; it's called retail.
Wanna buy a new car? Buy it in single parts, forget about the labour (we'll assume it's free) and you will have spent who-knows how many times more than a showroom example when you're done.
Want to manufacture cars? Buy it in quantity parts, factor in the labor, and it will still be cheaper than your one-off.
The wholesaler's markup on parts (let alone the retail markup) is about the same as a new car dealer's gross markup. Apple isn't even paying a wholesaler, but you did.
Unlike the original iPod (where Hitachi gave Apple a 1-year exclusive to the 5GB & later larger HDs, from spring 2001 to spring 2002, so that other manufacturers couldn't buy it initially and all prices were lower 1 year later than Apple paid at first in quantity) you can actually buy a 4GB drive retail; pretty much simultaneously with the introduction of the iPod mini.
So, instead of Apple paying down the cost to ramp up production by itself, like it did with the original iPod's drive, you just paid for some of it. By the way, thanks from all of us.
Technical analysis of the original iPod (reports cost thousands, I saw them at work) reveal Apple is pricing the iPod twice as low as normal manufacturing practice in electronics (parts cost is just over 50% of retail, compared to the 20~25% typical in consumer electronics); perhaps you're just a victim of Apple pricing lower than the norm in the industry. (I know it sounds crazy, but that's what the data reveals).
It is an "absolute defense" against libel. However, simply because it's true does not mean you can prove it, or that you didn't twist the truth to some extent to harm someone's reputation.
I was thinking specifically about the post I replied to; he used the example "child molester", and It seemed to me that "the truth" might not indemnify him in that case.
"Child molester" can mean many things; it doesn't have to refer specifically to sexual assault. Many people, however, see it and come to a single, unambiguous conclusion.
"Annoy continually or chronically" is one definition of "molest", and it may well be true an individual did so but did not commit a sexual offense.
You could claim that was the meaning of your statement, and that in that definition of "molest" it's perfectly true; but you will find the " tending to injure the reputation of the person and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule" come back to bite you, or the context of your statement means the courts reject your argument.
Similarly, there are many cases where the absolute truth is superseded by the false; often by the courts themselves. If a lie, for whatever reason, is legitimized by the court or government in a ruling or verdict (and this is not rare in libel cases by any means) it won't be an effective defense.
Libel cases are are some of the most sensational cases that come before a court and often hinge on definitions, intent, and consequences; "the truth" defense won't always save you.
It's far more common to find libel accusations in the UK than in North America; if you're interested that would be the place to look for case examples.
That's why I cautioned to choose your words carefully, avoid inflammatory language, and stick to things that can be easily proven. It will help defend you against the malicious/ridicule part necessary to convict, should they reject your "truth" defense.
Libel is false and malicious by definition. To answer your specific question ("can it be libel if it's true), yes it can. To ask the question you probably wanted to ask: "Can it be libel if it's fairly and accurately presented without prejudice, and it's true?" No, it can't. Be prepared to defend yourself and your facts; a supporting conviction would help. Careful how you phrase things.
"... (Duhaime's Law Dictionary) Georgia Code 51-5-1 G states: A libel is a false and malicious defamation of another, expressed in print, writing, pictures, or signs, tending to injure the reputation of the person and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. The publication of the libelous matter is essential to recovery. Section 51-5-3 further says: A libel is published as soon as it is communicated to any person other than the party libeled...."
Most jurisdictions would define it similarly. Check yours first.
You have a lot of choices for cooling, some elaborate, some not.
Anyone who really isn't interested in making a sound-damper box shouldn't bother reading the whole post; it's not that long but it's going to go over a bit too much to display in Slashdot's window.
This has worked for me. It's reasonably inexpensive and reasonably effective.
It all starts with a box; you may as well make is some kind of road case; it's not particularly more expensive to do so. Whatever, it's up to you.
Make the box reasonably large inside; air volume is one means to improve cooling. However, we really can't make the box large enough to be totally effective with air volume by itself; even a closet-sized box will show heat rise. Still, keep volume in mind; you don't want a lot of close tolerances here. I would suggest at least 3 inches all around the CPU, up to 4~6 if you can stand to do it that way. If you can, have air circulation underneath the case as well; it will help a lot with the cooling load the computer deals with (fan comes on much less).
Dampen the box with a sound deadening material. A "box inside a box" strategy works well here, although expanded foam-type insulation works OK for heat, it's less effective for sound dampening. Fibreglass batts are good for both, but are messy. Thus, isolate the FG from the inside.
You have an opportunity to reduce vibration-borne noise here as well; try having the inside box rest on something; foam or springs/rubber works. Not too bouncy.
You should securely mount the computer to the box; I'll leave the details up to you but essentially you don't want it to move. Strategically placed foam might be OK, bracing, zip ties if your Mac has handles, whatever you decide. Think about access to the computer when you want to take it out for maintenance, ugprades, or sitting on your desk when there's no music stuff going on. So, personally that rules out actually bolting the CPU to the case, at least for me.
You can acoustically vent the box to the immediate outside air to reduce sound transmission. This is hardly impossible, but a little tricky. It probably won't result in a totally silent CPU, but it may well be below whatever threshold you need to record. Lots of experimentation required, some acoustic theory would help.
I like short term use of a sealed box, mechanically dampened, with a door at front and back. The front door is essentially a full door, to allow optical drive access and moving the computer itself in and out. Seriously consider making the front of the box far enough away from the CPU so that an accidental hit of the eject key (on Macs) doesn't ram the disk tray against anything.
The back door is a smaller one; it's for access to ports. A plywood or whatever door; hinged vertically. Along the open side (ie opposite the hinge) have a means to let cables in and out. You can construct something simple out of discarded bicycle tubes; a 1" or so wide horizontal rubber "flap" that is open to the door means you can actually get in there to plug/unplug stuff, while the rubber allows cables runs to pass through while still sealing the box from the outside. A double flap or whatever might work better; foam can work, you figure it out.
Now for my short term location recording: I place a couple of those blue-green gell-type freezer thingys inside the case. Campers use 'em to keep stuff cool.. They reduce ambient temps in the case enough to allow the computer's fans to move cool air around and do the job. Last for a few hours, easy. The box is sealed to outside air and therefore is pretty damn quiet.
You can also take outside air (vented from somewhere outside your studio) to maintain a more permanent solution.
When you're done, you should have a case with a latching door at the front for access, closed the rest of the time for silence, and adequate cooling in short-term recording to keep your wallet cool. In a very general way its like a little 'fridge. Cable in-out shouldn't be a problem and ther
Low prices in an of themselves are not illegal. If you are a domestic producer (ie no trade issues) and have low prices (below, at, or very slightly above cost of production ) it's fine. It's unsustainable, and that situation is rare; but if so, it's not inherently illegal.
If that could be seen as anti-competitive behavior, for example an attempt to squeeze out other players and control a market, that is anti-competitive behavior but not price-fixing.
Same prices do not indicate collusion, and are not inherently illegal. When a market works as the economists predict, prices move in reaction to events but will be essentially similar if not identical at a given point in time. The obvious effect is it is difficult to determine, without any collusion evidence, that there is collusion at all. It might be perfectly normal and legal.
High prices may be gouging, but again are not illegal. Some industries (eg utilities) are regulated, usually because they are given natural monopolies in a local market. But, without such regulation, no crime; most industries are not regulated this way.
So, sometimes a low/same/higher price is illegal, and sometimes a low/same/higher price is fine. Many consumers are confused by this, and this gives rise to wondering why "those guys" aren't getting sued or charged for what the consumer sees as a "ripoff". It could simply be a properly working free market (where prices are public information and you are free to react to a competitor's price change), or it could be one or another anti-competitive behavior.
Take a domestic market and add in export and import industries and it adds even more complexity, and brings up different rules regarding anti-competitive behavior, but it's not necessary to include international trade to understand price-fixing or monopolies.
It's not always cut-and-dried and can be difficult to investigate, let alone prosecute.
You don't need to give Apple or Roxio a penny to do that now, nor do you need to run a P2P app.
If you're curious, do a Google search (try perhaps "iTunes streaming audio" for too many links that explain it all) or download iTunes for Windows; it's right there on the opening window; hit the Radio button. Free streaming music that has nothing to do with the iTMS or even Apple. You can also use WinAmp or Windows Media Player version 7 or higher. Simple.
Applications that rip streaming audio to disk are pretty easy to find too.
Even if we assume no-one uses iTunes for Windows unless they want to access the iTMS and own an iPod, the application itself has one-click access to hundreds of streaming channels built in, for free. You don't need an iPod to use it on the desktop.
That ability has been part of iTunes since the first beta, about 4 years ago. To counter Napster's paid streaming model, all you have to do is say, well, look here, there it is, and it costs nothing. Now you decide if that's good enough, or if you want to pay $120 a year for something that might be marginally better (assuming it's better at all).
It might easily backfire on Roxio; people might become aware of streaming music via Napster's own marketing efforts, all Apple has to do is wait for Napster to spend some marketing money creating awareness, and then throw an ad or two mentioning how iTunes offers an alternative at no charge.
As you point out, this costs Apple nothing in hardware to support; the stations already exist and aren't even associated with Apple at all. They're not going away; streaming is here for good, and most of them are ad-free (that could change, but hasn't so far).
Roxio is bleeding red ink, and it's not a big company. They need consumers to embrace Napster sooner, not later. With a war chest of about $80 million and losses of $15 million a quarter, it better happen pretty damn quick, the rent-a-song model doesn't seem to me to be the saviour they hope it will be.
Am I just stupid, or is there some benefit to paid streaming? Exactly what added value do I get for $120/year over the hundreds, nay thousands, of streaming music stations I can get off the internet now?
Is there some advantage to picking my own songs (ie I'm doing the DJ work here) versus logging into an all-Blues or all-Jazz or all-whatever streaming audio feed and forgetting about music 'till I shut down?
Or does Napster offer an option to do that grunt work for you (which makes them exactly, and I mean exactly, the same as a free streaming radio station)?
Sorry, I just don't get it. My $120 still buys 6 to 12 CDs a year (depending on whether they're new releases or older albums) and I can have my choice of internet radio stations, many of whom broadcast at 128 kbps.
At least with the iTMS you can keep the songs; although I still bristle at paying anything for a lossy compressed version I'm not naeive enough to think that it's not good enough for many people.
But streaming music is free, free, free right now. What am I missing here?
Umm, I was using a bit (not much, mind you) of hyperbole there.
Sometimes I tell musicians that "it will explode if you look at it funny." The point being that people who are used to SM58's sometimes expect they can knock the mic stand over and any mic will take it. Some won't, and they're my microphones.
Some kid who saw one too many videos of the Who with Roger Daltry whipping the mic around like a rodeo cowboy can cost me a lot of money.
I'm not "ready to be a rock star" anymore now than when I was recording on a 3440 25 years ago. But, some bands have got record deals based on demo tapes and CDs I recorded for them. At that point, my work is done and done well.
Getting back on topic, Audacity is a decent entry-level tool on Linux, although I was disappointed to read the release note on buggy 96K support.
Mac and Windows users have alternatives, like Bias Peak ME or ProTools Free (both are free, stripped down versions of commercial tools and all three will do the job if you're not too demanding).
None are substitutes for the better quality paid apps yet, but they do have a place in a musician's arsenal of tools. Audacity did recognize my RME soundcard right away, that's a good start.
When Corel discontinued Mac support (v3.5.x was the last release, note that version numbers differ on the Mac and Windows ports) they released the program for free, as in a free download. They stripped the entire registration out of it; just install and run.
Corel no longer has the download but if you hunt around you can find it on college servers; it is getting harder to find though. You need to apply one upgrade patch and then you can run it; the patch usually is in the same ftp directory.
Works fine in Classic mode, or anything from System7 to OS9.
As per the somewhat well known "measure the speed of light with a microwave and some chocolate" experiments, exactly where the heat is concentrated in a microwave oven is related to it's frequency; a typical value is 2.5GHz which provides nodes spaced roughly 6CM (about 2.4 inches) apart.
Since a bill is less than 4.8" across, you will have a burn spot across the short side. A US Bill is about 6" in length (or roughly 15cm) so we would expect 2 burn holes along the long length, spaced 6cm apart.
I don't think it would be difficult to place "Andrew Jackson's eye" right under the node with a bit of experimentation. What happened to the other node is a matter of conjecture; perhaps he placed some object that absorbed microwave energy on the bills above that expected node, or perhaps there is something about the dense ink or metal strip that heats up faster, meaning he had to pull them as soon as AJ's eye caught. Leave them in long enough and both nodes would show up.
Relevant info on speed of light/microwave/chocolate:
Slashdot Mirror
It's the resonant frequency of your cartridge/arm combo. It's dependent on the compliance of the cartridge; ie how stiffly or loosely that tiny arm that is connected to the stylus moves.
Generally speaking, you use a high-compliance cartridge with a light tonearm and a low-compliance with a heavier arm. The idea is to make that resonance around 12 Hz, where there won't be any information on the record or the suspension's own resonance (if there is a suspension) will be lower than that (below 8 Hz). If that works out right, then there's not much to exicte the cartridge/tonarm's reasonance.
You might be able to fix it by switching to a different cartridge; a different tonearm would also help, but is kind of expensive unless you're already at the lunatic fringe and see that as a normal expenditure for audio.
It could also be "rumble" which is mechanical noise from the turntable's motor system. Capstan-driven turntables (basically, a puck) are usually bad for that, belt drive or direct drive should be better in that regard. If you have a record changer (you can stack records on it) or an inexpensive turntable it's probably capstan driven.
Most, if not all amps/recievers with a phono input also have a "rumble" filter; sometimes called things like "subsonic filter" or "low filter". That's supposed to take care of it. Some gear has it built into the RIAA equalization curve, so no switch on the front panel. Engage the filter if you have a button for it somewhere.
Yes, it's very unlikely that an LP record of music will have any information at 10Hz, for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, the resonant frequency of the cartridge will typically be somewhere around 8~15 Hz. Any information on the record that falls in this range will excite this resonance, causing all kinds of problems that basically could be summarized as bad stuff and bad sound. It's filtered out before it gets to the record mostly for this reason.
The actual resonant frequency varies based on the compliance of the cartridge's cantilever (the tiny "arm" the "needle" is attached to) and the tonearm's mass.
You actually want it around 10~12 Hz; below that and you probably will be in the turntable's suspension frequency (again, exiting the reasonance, bad sound and bad things, one common one is skipping when walking around the turntable, etc) while above that and you might have program material (low bass) excite it.
Secondly, low frequency sounds are fairly large when cut on a record, which means the grooves have to be spaced further apart. A music record with a LF cutoff of 20 Hz will be about 16 minutes long; 30 Hz will get one around 18 minutes and if you have any 25 minute records (yes, they made them) chances are it's a rock recording with no bass information below around 40Hz. The cutting engineer selects the cutoff frequency when they make the master, often boosting bass a little higher in frequency to make up for the lost true low info.
The lathe used to make the record master also has some physical limitations that limits exactly how wild you can get with LF volume and frequency.
It's possible to cut a test record of fairly short length with any of these low tones. You need an engineer who really knows his lathe and probably would involve manipulating the speeds of a master tape (if they even used one, it would be easier to feed a test tone right to the cutter) and the lathe.
For example record the tape at 30 inches per second, and for a 45 RPM LP-sized test record play the tape at 10 ips and cut at 15 RPM. (To get a clean 10 Hz on tape, you might have to record at faster than 30 ips, but whatever it takes).
Or send a 5Hz test tone and cut at 1/2 speed. Or some similar combo, whatever the engineer thinks is necessary and within his cutter's physical limits. Played back at 45 RPM you get the desired (correct) frequency. Vary the frequency and get a series of tones running from, say, 5 Hz to 20 Hz in 1 or 2 Hz increments.
Then you would play that record back and see exactly where the turntable's suspension and cartridge resonance frequencies are (knowing that will help fine-tune bass response, suseptibility to footfalls, and a few other things). That's about the only use for such low tones on an LP, and such records are rare.
" ... MS office does export to PDF, as long as you're using Mac Office. ..."
OSX exports to PDF. It works with any relevant application.
Claiming it has something (anything) to do with Office is absurd.
" ... Does this mean that its normal for CD's as gifts to be illegal in different countries? ..."
No, it's not illegal to give a CD away anywhere.
What the quote referred to is the rights move with the CD. So, if you copy a CD and then sell or give the original away, you should either destroy the copy or include it with the transfer. To retain it without the original disk would be a violation of copyright law in NZ under the proposed law.
AAC with FairPlay is different than AAC alone.
Apple uses the Fairplay DRM to support iTunes and the iPod together. Therefore it fails to meet the business model if you license Fairplay to other mp3 hardware vendors. If things change, then that might change. For now, that's the way it is.
What I don't understand is why Apple doesn't make the iPod capable of playing WMA files
I don't see much criticism of other mp3 players, but their own controllers also support AAC. Similarly, they do not enable AAC support in most cases.
I can offer a hint as to why Apple doesn't support WMA. Firstly, along with Real Audio, Windows Media Player doesn't support QuickTime (some earlier versions are supported). Along with Ogg Vorbis, these are essentially the only formats not supported.
Secondly, support of WMA is a bit more than enabling it in software; by "a bit more" I mean the cutting of a check worth a few hundred grand every year to Microsoft.
For Windows software (ie iTunes for Windows and everything else that runs on a Windows OS) the license fee is waived. I don't think it's surprising that iTunes for Windows won't support a format that the iPod or iTunes for MacOS doesn't, though.
In every case, note that "enabling" is not the same as "disabling". Nothing is disabled, instead they are not (yet) implemented, and to enable them requires the cutting of checks.
Microsoft WM Licensing
I love this line: ... 4 cylinders means you only need 4 forged connecting rods and pistons and half the honing time. ..."
"
Honing time?
You can hone an engine in a couple of hours at home with a hand drill. 2, 4, 8 cylinders; it doesn't really matter. One night in the garage.
Now, the "300 HP from a 1600cc" engine, if it's honed at all, is honed on a precise tool with careful procedures in a machine shop. As is the line-boring, decking, and resizing of this and that. Who cares how long it takes? You just pay a bill.
The real time spent in any engine buildup, home or pro, is checking and measuring; which is closely related to careful assembly.
If you do it right, it doesn't take significantly longer no matter how many cylinders the engine has; A V-8 and an I-4 have the same number of main bearings (that would be 5 of 'em) and most of the operations are similar. It's not faster to degree in a cam on a 4-cylinder engine than on a V-8. Your Honda probably has two cams. (Hmmm, something that actually takes longer on a small high-performance engine. Whooda thunkit?).
It all boils down to the fact that choosing an engine configuration (that is expected to perform at the near-but-not-quite-breaking-point long enough to win, or at a lazy pace for tens of thousands of hours) is dependent on a lot of factors.
Step 1: What is the goal?
Step 2: Choose wisely.
Blueprint and assembly time is trivial in the long run. It varies as much when comparing two types of similar engines (say a Toyota R-22 and a turbo DOHC I-4) as it does when comparing two configurations (eg I-4 vs V-8).
I was having a drink with a legally blind Teacher's Assistant friend of mine Friday (the day before this hit Slashdot) after work. He's a die-hard Windows user, precisely because of the (yes, this is the right price) $1200 application mentioned briefly in the article, which he uses.
I was inundated with questions; the news was out so fast amongst those who need this functionality that they caught me off guard. I had heard a bit. He knew far more.
Trust me, there is real interest in this. He wanted to know what hardware to buy that would support OSX. He knew the beta was out and knew people running it, and liked the feedback he'd heard so far.
Skins are an expression of "Geek Love" for a product. If no-one loves your product, nobody skins it.
Do you need them? Nope. Should there be a default behavior that looks like most of your other apps? You bet.
But, if there is any merit to your product at all, sooner or later someone is going to want to skin it (or complain about not being able to). This, as a software developer/vendor, is a measure of your success.
If anyone gets that, then they will probably "get" that offering skins from the get-go is a way to fake that love. Companies love to fake the love. It's another tool to move the product, and to generate more consumer acceptance (however misplaced it may be).
It's the oldest trick in the book; fake the "cool" factor to cover up the weakness. Shallow, a waste of resources, a marketing sham, all of that. But the damn strategy works, especially if you have a competing target you can infer is now "uncool".
Does the product stand on it's own merits? Chances are it doesn't, or at least doesn't stand out as being vastly superior.
But, you can skin it!! Coooool.
... to support a foregone conclusion.
Let me get this straight:
Divx5 and WMA9 and QT are very close in quality, they actually state that they basically can't tell the difference between Divx5 and WMA9, QT is 2x faster to render on Microsoft/x86 hardware than WMA, Divx5 is pretty speedy, while WMA9 was slowest of them all; and they conclude solely for compatibility on future hardware (like that's been written in stone) that everyone should use WMA9, and forget about the rest.
Gotta Love Ziff-Davis publishing. They give you the straight goods every time. Riiiiiight.
" ... Given that one is clearly not the same as the other, the real question is, "Why is making money and making an effective OS the same?" ..."
The article speaks quite a bit about how Microsoft if forced to build in back-compatibility in an inefficient manner. Every OS has to deal with back-compatibility to a certain extent, but consider how much more important it is to a company like Microsoft.
They have a business model that could easily be described as based on market share with both business users and home users "feeding" each other's compatibility needs. The business user many be more reluctant to upgrade than the home user because reliability, transition problems and cost have different consequences for both types, yet both have large numbers of current and legacy OS users.
Consider Linux. Upgrade issues remain, but cost is negligible with home users and can be attractive (or not; depends on too many things) to business users as well. However the OS itself (with the more modern code) is available and access to the software itself is not a significant cost issue. Thus, no absolute need for "kludges" to keep older OS's ( or more typically older paid programs from other vendors) running, while a significant number of truly ancient CPUs can also run an effective, compatible "family" *NIX Operating System and necessary software.
Microsoft got where it is on marketshare; it's maintaining it's current income on marketshare, and it pegs it's future on marketshare. It drives every effort from code to sales to lobbying. That marketshare requires users to implicitly agree to paid upgrades of MS and third party software.
Although a given Linux distro does have marketshare interests, a user that switches to a competitive Linux distro is not the end of the world; potential new users far exceed current users, the user hasn't really changed his way of working, and hasn't invested in new hardware. He's still there for future growth.
I think the cost of upgrading of the two OS's plays a significant role in the way they are coded, designed, and implemented. Linux advocates may be just a little blind to it, because it's not a consideration that drives the development process; Microsoft's corporate coders can never lose sight of it, and it does drive the code, design, and implementation.
From the article: ... Any report that we made a cash payment of seven figures is highly exaggerated, and it disappoints me that that quote is out there in the media," Marsh said. "The contract that we signed with SCO specifically prohibits any party from discussing the economics of the transaction. If you have an agreement that calls for certain aspects to be protected, then you would hope that that would be respected." ..."
"
Like, SCO can read, understand, or comply with a contract; that they can be relied upon to disclose factual information, and that they're not in a media war. Give me a break. What the hell did you expect?
" ... Apple at or near a loss, for whatever strange reason. ..."
Hitachi is making money off the drives they sell to Apple, in the quantities Apple is buying. It's called manufacturing.
The "part" you bought cost more in single, packaged, retail distribution channels just like any other part does; it's called retail.
Wanna buy a new car? Buy it in single parts, forget about the labour (we'll assume it's free) and you will have spent who-knows how many times more than a showroom example when you're done.
Want to manufacture cars? Buy it in quantity parts, factor in the labor, and it will still be cheaper than your one-off.
The wholesaler's markup on parts (let alone the retail markup) is about the same as a new car dealer's gross markup. Apple isn't even paying a wholesaler, but you did.
Unlike the original iPod (where Hitachi gave Apple a 1-year exclusive to the 5GB & later larger HDs, from spring 2001 to spring 2002, so that other manufacturers couldn't buy it initially and all prices were lower 1 year later than Apple paid at first in quantity) you can actually buy a 4GB drive retail; pretty much simultaneously with the introduction of the iPod mini.
So, instead of Apple paying down the cost to ramp up production by itself, like it did with the original iPod's drive, you just paid for some of it. By the way, thanks from all of us.
Technical analysis of the original iPod (reports cost thousands, I saw them at work) reveal Apple is pricing the iPod twice as low as normal manufacturing practice in electronics (parts cost is just over 50% of retail, compared to the 20~25% typical in consumer electronics); perhaps you're just a victim of Apple pricing lower than the norm in the industry. (I know it sounds crazy, but that's what the data reveals).
It is an "absolute defense" against libel. However, simply because it's true does not mean you can prove it, or that you didn't twist the truth to some extent to harm someone's reputation.
I was thinking specifically about the post I replied to; he used the example "child molester", and It seemed to me that "the truth" might not indemnify him in that case.
"Child molester" can mean many things; it doesn't have to refer specifically to sexual assault. Many people, however, see it and come to a single, unambiguous conclusion.
"Annoy continually or chronically" is one definition of "molest", and it may well be true an individual did so but did not commit a sexual offense.
You could claim that was the meaning of your statement, and that in that definition of "molest" it's perfectly true; but you will find the " tending to injure the reputation of the person and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule" come back to bite you, or the context of your statement means the courts reject your argument.
Similarly, there are many cases where the absolute truth is superseded by the false; often by the courts themselves. If a lie, for whatever reason, is legitimized by the court or government in a ruling or verdict (and this is not rare in libel cases by any means) it won't be an effective defense.
Libel cases are are some of the most sensational cases that come before a court and often hinge on definitions, intent, and consequences; "the truth" defense won't always save you.
It's far more common to find libel accusations in the UK than in North America; if you're interested that would be the place to look for case examples.
That's why I cautioned to choose your words carefully, avoid inflammatory language, and stick to things that can be easily proven. It will help defend you against the malicious/ridicule part necessary to convict, should they reject your "truth" defense.
Libel is false and malicious by definition.
... (Duhaime's Law Dictionary) Georgia Code 51-5-1 G states: A libel is a false and malicious defamation of another, expressed in print, writing, pictures, or signs, tending to injure the reputation of the person and exposing him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. The publication of the libelous matter is essential to recovery. Section 51-5-3 further says: A libel is published as soon as it is communicated to any person other than the party libeled. ..."
To answer your specific question ("can it be libel if it's true), yes it can.
To ask the question you probably wanted to ask:
"Can it be libel if it's fairly and accurately presented without prejudice, and it's true?"
No, it can't.
Be prepared to defend yourself and your facts; a supporting conviction would help. Careful how you phrase things.
"
Most jurisdictions would define it similarly. Check yours first.
HFS+ appeared for the first time in OS8.1.
You have a lot of choices for cooling, some elaborate, some not.
Anyone who really isn't interested in making a sound-damper box shouldn't bother reading the whole post; it's not that long but it's going to go over a bit too much to display in Slashdot's window.
This has worked for me. It's reasonably inexpensive and reasonably effective.
It all starts with a box; you may as well make is some kind of road case; it's not particularly more expensive to do so. Whatever, it's up to you.
Make the box reasonably large inside; air volume is one means to improve cooling. However, we really can't make the box large enough to be totally effective with air volume by itself; even a closet-sized box will show heat rise. Still, keep volume in mind; you don't want a lot of close tolerances here. I would suggest at least 3 inches all around the CPU, up to 4~6 if you can stand to do it that way. If you can, have air circulation underneath the case as well; it will help a lot with the cooling load the computer deals with (fan comes on much less).
Dampen the box with a sound deadening material. A "box inside a box" strategy works well here, although expanded foam-type insulation works OK for heat, it's less effective for sound dampening. Fibreglass batts are good for both, but are messy. Thus, isolate the FG from the inside.
You have an opportunity to reduce vibration-borne noise here as well; try having the inside box rest on something; foam or springs/rubber works. Not too bouncy.
You should securely mount the computer to the box; I'll leave the details up to you but essentially you don't want it to move. Strategically placed foam might be OK, bracing, zip ties if your Mac has handles, whatever you decide. Think about access to the computer when you want to take it out for maintenance, ugprades, or sitting on your desk when there's no music stuff going on. So, personally that rules out actually bolting the CPU to the case, at least for me.
You can acoustically vent the box to the immediate outside air to reduce sound transmission. This is hardly impossible, but a little tricky. It probably won't result in a totally silent CPU, but it may well be below whatever threshold you need to record. Lots of experimentation required, some acoustic theory would help.
I like short term use of a sealed box, mechanically dampened, with a door at front and back. The front door is essentially a full door, to allow optical drive access and moving the computer itself in and out. Seriously consider making the front of the box far enough away from the CPU so that an accidental hit of the eject key (on Macs) doesn't ram the disk tray against anything.
The back door is a smaller one; it's for access to ports. A plywood or whatever door; hinged vertically. Along the open side (ie opposite the hinge) have a means to let cables in and out. You can construct something simple out of discarded bicycle tubes; a 1" or so wide horizontal rubber "flap" that is open to the door means you can actually get in there to plug/unplug stuff, while the rubber allows cables runs to pass through while still sealing the box from the outside. A double flap or whatever might work better; foam can work, you figure it out.
Now for my short term location recording: I place a couple of those blue-green gell-type freezer thingys inside the case. Campers use 'em to keep stuff cool.. They reduce ambient temps in the case enough to allow the computer's fans to move cool air around and do the job. Last for a few hours, easy. The box is sealed to outside air and therefore is pretty damn quiet.
You can also take outside air (vented from somewhere outside your studio) to maintain a more permanent solution.
When you're done, you should have a case with a latching door at the front for access, closed the rest of the time for silence, and adequate cooling in short-term recording to keep your wallet cool. In a very general way its like a little 'fridge. Cable in-out shouldn't be a problem and ther
Low prices in an of themselves are not illegal. If you are a domestic producer (ie no trade issues) and have low prices (below, at, or very slightly above cost of production ) it's fine. It's unsustainable, and that situation is rare; but if so, it's not inherently illegal.
If that could be seen as anti-competitive behavior, for example an attempt to squeeze out other players and control a market, that is anti-competitive behavior but not price-fixing.
Same prices do not indicate collusion, and are not inherently illegal. When a market works as the economists predict, prices move in reaction to events but will be essentially similar if not identical at a given point in time. The obvious effect is it is difficult to determine, without any collusion evidence, that there is collusion at all. It might be perfectly normal and legal.
High prices may be gouging, but again are not illegal. Some industries (eg utilities) are regulated, usually because they are given natural monopolies in a local market. But, without such regulation, no crime; most industries are not regulated this way.
So, sometimes a low/same/higher price is illegal, and sometimes a low/same/higher price is fine. Many consumers are confused by this, and this gives rise to wondering why "those guys" aren't getting sued or charged for what the consumer sees as a "ripoff". It could simply be a properly working free market (where prices are public information and you are free to react to a competitor's price change), or it could be one or another anti-competitive behavior.
Take a domestic market and add in export and import industries and it adds even more complexity, and brings up different rules regarding anti-competitive behavior, but it's not necessary to include international trade to understand price-fixing or monopolies.
It's not always cut-and-dried and can be difficult to investigate, let alone prosecute.
OK, I give.
How do I feign surprise?
You don't need to give Apple or Roxio a penny to do that now, nor do you need to run a P2P app.
If you're curious, do a Google search (try perhaps "iTunes streaming audio" for too many links that explain it all) or download iTunes for Windows; it's right there on the opening window; hit the Radio button. Free streaming music that has nothing to do with the iTMS or even Apple. You can also use WinAmp or Windows Media Player version 7 or higher. Simple.
Applications that rip streaming audio to disk are pretty easy to find too.
Even if we assume no-one uses iTunes for Windows unless they want to access the iTMS and own an iPod, the application itself has one-click access to hundreds of streaming channels built in, for free. You don't need an iPod to use it on the desktop.
That ability has been part of iTunes since the first beta, about 4 years ago. To counter Napster's paid streaming model, all you have to do is say, well, look here, there it is, and it costs nothing. Now you decide if that's good enough, or if you want to pay $120 a year for something that might be marginally better (assuming it's better at all).
It might easily backfire on Roxio; people might become aware of streaming music via Napster's own marketing efforts, all Apple has to do is wait for Napster to spend some marketing money creating awareness, and then throw an ad or two mentioning how iTunes offers an alternative at no charge.
As you point out, this costs Apple nothing in hardware to support; the stations already exist and aren't even associated with Apple at all. They're not going away; streaming is here for good, and most of them are ad-free (that could change, but hasn't so far).
Roxio is bleeding red ink, and it's not a big company. They need consumers to embrace Napster sooner, not later. With a war chest of about $80 million and losses of $15 million a quarter, it better happen pretty damn quick, the rent-a-song model doesn't seem to me to be the saviour they hope it will be.
Am I just stupid, or is there some benefit to paid streaming? Exactly what added value do I get for $120/year over the hundreds, nay thousands, of streaming music stations I can get off the internet now?
Is there some advantage to picking my own songs (ie I'm doing the DJ work here) versus logging into an all-Blues or all-Jazz or all-whatever streaming audio feed and forgetting about music 'till I shut down?
Or does Napster offer an option to do that grunt work for you (which makes them exactly, and I mean exactly, the same as a free streaming radio station)?
Sorry, I just don't get it. My $120 still buys 6 to 12 CDs a year (depending on whether they're new releases or older albums) and I can have my choice of internet radio stations, many of whom broadcast at 128 kbps.
At least with the iTMS you can keep the songs; although I still bristle at paying anything for a lossy compressed version I'm not naeive enough to think that it's not good enough for many people.
But streaming music is free, free, free right now. What am I missing here?
Umm, I was using a bit (not much, mind you) of hyperbole there.
Sometimes I tell musicians that "it will explode if you look at it funny." The point being that people who are used to SM58's sometimes expect they can knock the mic stand over and any mic will take it. Some won't, and they're my microphones.
Some kid who saw one too many videos of the Who with Roger Daltry whipping the mic around like a rodeo cowboy can cost me a lot of money.
I'm not "ready to be a rock star" anymore now than when I was recording on a 3440 25 years ago. But, some bands have got record deals based on demo tapes and CDs I recorded for them. At that point, my work is done and done well.
Getting back on topic, Audacity is a decent entry-level tool on Linux, although I was disappointed to read the release note on buggy 96K support.
Mac and Windows users have alternatives, like Bias Peak ME or ProTools Free (both are free, stripped down versions of commercial tools and all three will do the job if you're not too demanding).
None are substitutes for the better quality paid apps yet, but they do have a place in a musician's arsenal of tools. Audacity did recognize my RME soundcard right away, that's a good start.
" ... unless the standard for recording is *far* higher than for live performances, it just seems that musicians are getting overcharged. ..."
Bingo.
Live performing requires rugged microphones. Workhorses like the Shures mentioned earlier are preferred.
A Neumann will explode if you blow on it. Send in for repair. Spend $2000.
But, there is no comparison in the sound.
When Corel discontinued Mac support (v3.5.x was the last release, note that version numbers differ on the Mac and Windows ports) they released the program for free, as in a free download. They stripped the entire registration out of it; just install and run.
Corel no longer has the download but if you hunt around you can find it on college servers; it is getting harder to find though. You need to apply one upgrade patch and then you can run it; the patch usually is in the same ftp directory.
Works fine in Classic mode, or anything from System7 to OS9.
As per the somewhat well known "measure the speed of light with a microwave and some chocolate" experiments, exactly where the heat is concentrated in a microwave oven is related to it's frequency; a typical value is 2.5GHz which provides nodes spaced roughly 6CM (about 2.4 inches) apart.
/ 29 0903_4.htm
/ 29 0903.htm
Since a bill is less than 4.8" across, you will have a burn spot across the short side. A US Bill is about 6" in length (or roughly 15cm) so we would expect 2 burn holes along the long length, spaced 6cm apart.
I don't think it would be difficult to place "Andrew Jackson's eye" right under the node with a bit of experimentation. What happened to the other node is a matter of conjecture; perhaps he placed some object that absorbed microwave energy on the bills above that expected node, or perhaps there is something about the dense ink or metal strip that heats up faster, meaning he had to pull them as soon as AJ's eye caught. Leave them in long enough and both nodes would show up.
Relevant info on speed of light/microwave/chocolate:
http://physics.about.com/cs/opticsexperiments/a
If you want to start at the beginning (no real reason; page 4 has all you need) it's:
http://physics.about.com/cs/opticsexperiments/a