Stereo gave us a soundstage, and surround is incompatible with that. To mic a band properly for surround, either the singer would be behind you, or if you invert it, the drums would be.
I don't think you understand how it supposed to be *PROPERLY* done.
The whole idea of Quadaphonic and then later surround sound, was to reproduce the way people hear in real life. You don't only hear the music coming off the stage. You also hear the sound that is reflected off the walls beside and behind you. Quad or surround has nothing to do with microphone placement. You record everything normally. Then when mixing, you put some sound into the side and rear channels to simulate real life hearing. That's how it's *SUPPOSED* to be done. Unfortunately, people treat Quad and Surround as just another gimmick, with sounds zooming between speakers -- just like the annoying 3D movies with stuff constantly zooming at the camera for no reason.
he internet existed first (pure text), and porn didn't join the party until the mid-90s when the graphical web was taking off.
I was downloading porn from usenet newsgroups starting in 1987. Sure, there was no snazzy Windows GUI and it was all uuencoded text that I had to decode into pictures. But in 1987 that was pretty cool and exciting.
If Microsoft had to re-imburse businesses for all the hours lost and wasted dealing with the steaming pile of crap (aka Windows 95) they would have been bankrupted years ago.
If we leave everything to the cheapest and most affordable existing technology (so that the poor could afford it), we will never get out of being slaves to oil. Having energy/vehicles too cheaply is what is keeping us in all this mess.
No. The "problem" is that gasoline is superior to other energy sources. For example, as pointed out in the article, the specific energy of batteries (energy per kilogram of weight) is only 1% of the specific energy of gasoline. Until another energy source is developed that is comparable to gasoline then the use of gasoline/diesel burning vehicles will continue.
You need to make up your mind. You either want people to be able to use the pictures or you don't. Do you want to make money from your pictures? If the answer is yes, then you don't put them under a license that allows people to use them for free. If the answer is no, then you let people use the pictures and stop bitching about it. It's really that simple.
If you make the pictures available for free and someone else is making money, so what?
those "newly" discovered mineral resources could be worth trillions to the right corporation to exploit them. What, you thought our presence there was to fight the Taliban and spread "democracy"?
Nobody with half a brain ever believed that the war in Afghanistan was "to fight the Taliban and spread democracy". But that's beside the point.
Nobody is going to be getting any of that trillion dollars worth of minerals any time soon. Maybe never. Afghanistan has absolutely no infrastructure and even the most optimistic estimates say it would take decades. Of course, before you can even start doing that you have the problem of the inane lunatics who couldn't care less about about minerals, peace, prosperity, democracy or anything else, and only care about killing anyone who doesn't share their insane lunatic ideology. After 9 years and $300 Billion the U.S. has made no progress in changing this. In other words, if you're hoping to open a big Lithium mine, don't hold your breath.
Nuclear energy is probably the best chance we have are breaking our addiction to oil. Nuclear energy is also relatively clean.
Sorry, but neither of these is true. I'm no environmentalist, but I see several problems with nuclear power.
First, the nuclear power industry has a terrible track record with regard to things like performing proper maintenance and basic honesty (ie, lying and covering up problems).
Second, nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean. Every nuclear plant ever built has been extremely expensive and this cost is passed on to consumers as higher electricity rates. Although nuclear power may not generate air pollution like a conventional (coal) power plant, it generates something just as bad or worse -- radioactive waste that we still don't know how to deal with. We can't even built containers that will last more than a few decades without falling apart. France, long a world leader in nuclear power, is now getting first hand experience with this problem as buried nuclear waste is beginning to leak out, and in at least one case, threatening a famous vineyard.
Third, only 1% of the electricity is the U.S. is generated using. Nuclear power will have absolutely no effect on our consumption of oil.
Fourth, and maybe most telling of all, is the Obama administration's recently proposal of $8 Billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear power industry. Translation -- nuclear power is such a bad investment that nobody wants to give them any money.
The biggest problem with coal is air pollution. There is technology available to reduce pollution to negligible levels, but nobody wants to use it because it's "too expensive". Instead of flushing a few Billion down the toilet with nuclear power, we could put that money into clean coal technology.
Signing documents, adding notes, adding addendum, filling out forms, etc. There is more to PDF's then text.
It's called Acrobat READER and it is supposed to be for READING PDF files. It is completely inappropriate for it to be able to WRITE anything. Adding extra crap is the reason that it has so many security flaws.
Yes, it's true, the record companies are evil, corrupt scumbags. But the musicians are not without blame. They accepted these one-sided contracts that pay the record companies everything and them nothing. And that is the sad irony of it all. Many (most?) musicians are so desperate to become rich famous rock-stars that they will blindly sign anything put in front of them. As a result the only way they can make any money is from touring -- and they really don't need the record company for that.
You will be able to install a third party theora codec for ie. You will presumably be able to get a firefox plugin for h.264. Chrome supports both. Opera users can install a different browser.
I guess I'm just dense. But I still don't understand the big deal about HTML5 and how it makes Flash go away. Yes, I hate Flash, but HTML 5 doesn't magically play video all by itself. You still have to have some sort of player/codec installed on your computer. Everyone doesn't have h264, theora or whatever. Almost everyone has Flash. I fail to understand how HTML 5 changes this.
the Gmail design team is now working on is the ability to drag files from the desktop into the browser.
Wow. How innovative. I used to upload files to my FTP site by dragging them into Netscape Navigator. 10 years ago. (One of the features they unfortunately removed from the Mozilla browsers).
Congress could fix this. They're the ones that broke it in the first place.
No, congress needs to fix what the courts have broken. The ability to patent software and business processes is strictly the result of court decisions.
I'm not sure why you'd want ECC ram in a desktop, unless it's some sort business critical machine that you're willing to spend 5 or 6 times what a normal desktop costs.
This may have been true at one time, but ECC RAM is no longer that expensive. I just looked at prices on Newegg:
8 GB DDR3 $214.99
8 GB DDR3 ECC $274.99
In some cases, depending on the brand and the speed, ECC is actually *CHEAPER*.
Slashdot Mirror
How about a link to something that actually contains some information
Wow. Very cool idea. Unfortunately it's only the lame, sucky, douchebag bands that do this sort of thing.
I don't think you understand how it supposed to be *PROPERLY* done.
The whole idea of Quadaphonic and then later surround sound, was to reproduce the way people hear in real life. You don't only hear the music coming off the stage. You also hear the sound that is reflected off the walls beside and behind you. Quad or surround has nothing to do with microphone placement. You record everything normally. Then when mixing, you put some sound into the side and rear channels to simulate real life hearing. That's how it's *SUPPOSED* to be done. Unfortunately, people treat Quad and Surround as just another gimmick, with sounds zooming between speakers -- just like the annoying 3D movies with stuff constantly zooming at the camera for no reason.
You assume that the Fry's staff knows more than the average consumer, which is usually not the case.
I was downloading porn from usenet newsgroups starting in 1987. Sure, there was no snazzy Windows GUI and it was all uuencoded text that I had to decode into pictures. But in 1987 that was pretty cool and exciting.
They don't do anything if you don't use them.
If Microsoft had to re-imburse businesses for all the hours lost and wasted dealing with the steaming pile of crap (aka Windows 95) they would have been bankrupted years ago.
Sorry Jesper, but you are wrong. I just tried it and the problem HAS NOT been fixed as of 4:47pm EST today.
Today's "net generation" doesn't even understand how magnets work
Based on the number of flaws, I would call it "Problematic Document Format".
No. The "problem" is that gasoline is superior to other energy sources. For example, as pointed out in the article, the specific energy of batteries (energy per kilogram of weight) is only 1% of the specific energy of gasoline. Until another energy source is developed that is comparable to gasoline then the use of gasoline/diesel burning vehicles will continue.
You need to make up your mind. You either want people to be able to use the pictures or you don't. Do you want to make money from your pictures? If the answer is yes, then you don't put them under a license that allows people to use them for free. If the answer is no, then you let people use the pictures and stop bitching about it. It's really that simple.
If you make the pictures available for free and someone else is making money, so what?
Nobody with half a brain ever believed that the war in Afghanistan was "to fight the Taliban and spread democracy". But that's beside the point.
Nobody is going to be getting any of that trillion dollars worth of minerals any time soon. Maybe never. Afghanistan has absolutely no infrastructure and even the most optimistic estimates say it would take decades. Of course, before you can even start doing that you have the problem of the inane lunatics who couldn't care less about about minerals, peace, prosperity, democracy or anything else, and only care about killing anyone who doesn't share their insane lunatic ideology. After 9 years and $300 Billion the U.S. has made no progress in changing this. In other words, if you're hoping to open a big Lithium mine, don't hold your breath.
Sorry, but neither of these is true. I'm no environmentalist, but I see several problems with nuclear power.
First, the nuclear power industry has a terrible track record with regard to things like performing proper maintenance and basic honesty (ie, lying and covering up problems).
Second, nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean. Every nuclear plant ever built has been extremely expensive and this cost is passed on to consumers as higher electricity rates. Although nuclear power may not generate air pollution like a conventional (coal) power plant, it generates something just as bad or worse -- radioactive waste that we still don't know how to deal with. We can't even built containers that will last more than a few decades without falling apart. France, long a world leader in nuclear power, is now getting first hand experience with this problem as buried nuclear waste is beginning to leak out, and in at least one case, threatening a famous vineyard.
Third, only 1% of the electricity is the U.S. is generated using. Nuclear power will have absolutely no effect on our consumption of oil.
Fourth, and maybe most telling of all, is the Obama administration's recently proposal of $8 Billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear power industry. Translation -- nuclear power is such a bad investment that nobody wants to give them any money.
The biggest problem with coal is air pollution. There is technology available to reduce pollution to negligible levels, but nobody wants to use it because it's "too expensive". Instead of flushing a few Billion down the toilet with nuclear power, we could put that money into clean coal technology.
It's called Acrobat READER and it is supposed to be for READING PDF files. It is completely inappropriate for it to be able to WRITE anything. Adding extra crap is the reason that it has so many security flaws.
Yes. You left out goatse.cx
Yes, it's true, the record companies are evil, corrupt scumbags. But the musicians are not without blame. They accepted these one-sided contracts that pay the record companies everything and them nothing. And that is the sad irony of it all. Many (most?) musicians are so desperate to become rich famous rock-stars that they will blindly sign anything put in front of them. As a result the only way they can make any money is from touring -- and they really don't need the record company for that.
Instead of crap done in Flash, we can now have crap done in HTML 5.
+6 Funny and Insightful at the same time
I guess I'm just dense. But I still don't understand the big deal about HTML5 and how it makes Flash go away. Yes, I hate Flash, but HTML 5 doesn't magically play video all by itself. You still have to have some sort of player/codec installed on your computer. Everyone doesn't have h264, theora or whatever. Almost everyone has Flash. I fail to understand how HTML 5 changes this.
Wow. How innovative. I used to upload files to my FTP site by dragging them into Netscape Navigator. 10 years ago. (One of the features they unfortunately removed from the Mozilla browsers).
No, congress needs to fix what the courts have broken. The ability to patent software and business processes is strictly the result of court decisions.
" UK Gov't To Review Hundreds of Websites, Axe Many of Them"
Axe them? Axe them what?
I would prefer that Google didn't put a browser on my phone that contains a "terrible vulnerability".
This may have been true at one time, but ECC RAM is no longer that expensive. I just looked at prices on Newegg:
8 GB DDR3 $214.99
8 GB DDR3 ECC $274.99
In some cases, depending on the brand and the speed, ECC is actually *CHEAPER*.