The heat may be the problem being presented here, but the issue could be completely avoided if people spec out their cable installations properly to begin with, and use a little common sense. I don't care how much heat is generated, at 13mm, there's a good chance that the cable will shatter eventually anyway.
"According to EIA SP-2840A (a draft version of EIA-568-x) the minimum bend radius for UTP is 4 x cable outside diameter, about one inch. For multipair cables the minimum bending radius is 10 x outside diameter.
SP-2840A gives minimum bend radii for Type 1A Shielded Twisted Pair (100 Mb/s STP) of 7.5 cm (3-in) for non-plenum cable, 15 cm (6-in) for the stiffer plenum-rated kind.
For fiber optic cables not in tension, the minimum bend radius is 10 x diameter; cables loaded in tension may not be bent at less than 20 x diameter. SP-2840A states that no f/o cable will be bent on a radius less than 3.0 cm (1.18-in). ...
Some manufacturers recommendations differ from the above, so it is worth checking the spec sheet for the cable you plan to use."
I agree. It may not be so intuitive for copper, but c'mon, fiber is glass. Of course if you bend it too much there will be problems. When I used to install fiber cabling, we always used a larger bend radius than the standards required -- it just made sense. Not to mention the fact that if you include a service loop in the walls, every time you pull some more of the extra fiber out of the wall, you decrease the bend radius of the service loop.
Speaking of Uranus, the bluish planet reaches opposition on August 24 in Aquarius, about 8 west of Mars. It may be possible to see it with the naked eye. Tonight (August 4), Neptune will be in opposition in Copernicus, but probably not visible without a small telescope. The full moon is the 12th, and the Perseid meteor shower peaks on the 13th, with the best viewing time around an hour or two after sunset. Enjoy!
But I think the point still stands that the reason we're seeing so many transparent performers is that they aren't putting in a whole lot of thought.
I couldn't agree with you more. No matter how talented you may or may not be, if you don't put much real effort into your task, no matter what it may be, you aren't going to get superior results.
But both Bach and Mozart put in a lot of hard work... Mozart did just as much work as Beethoven, he just did it in his head while playing billiards or taking a walk.
And Bach had a lot of preparation before improvising. Most of that stuff is worked out in advance...by learning to transpose, invert, retrograde, or perform rhythmic and harmonic development.
Again, I can't disagree with you on this point. What I think I'm trying to say is that there is more to writing music than just melodic and harmonic devices that one can use almost mathematically. That's not to say that tools such as transposition, development, counterpoint, etc. aren't paramount to learning composition (performance, too). But perhaps I can explaing my point outside of music. I for one am entirely unable to draw anything. Coming from a family full of artists, I understand the tools and tricks of the trade -- different paints, brushes, canvases, the use of perspective, lighting, shadowing, etc. However, that doesn't, and can't, make up for the fact that I still can't draw. I believe the same goes for music, and that's what separates the best from the rest.
It's all technique that can be learned but you have to be clever and persistent. Having good resources doesn't hurt either. It's just that the devil is in the details; and the details are numerous and subtle to a point of being practically invisible.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. You can learn all the technique in the world, but if you can't apply what you've learned, you won't get anywhere. And yes, nothing makes up for practice. Not every performer is a theory genius, and not every theory student is a great performer. You do what you know, just like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and countless others have. One of the most talented jazz pianists I know can't read music. He learned by hanging around the Blue Note as a kid 40 years ago and watching and listening to the musicians perform relentlessly.
And not to completely babble on about the same thing over and over, I must say that I haven't really disagreed with anything said by anyone on this topic -- it's just a matter of me not expressing myself well enough, imho. But maybe not. All I know, to get back to the original topic, is that computers can compose mathematically, using all of the melodic and harmonic devices available, but the element of creativity is lost in the numbers. And that's what made Mozart, Bach, Beethoven and all the rest great.
I should have emphasized that sentence better. What I meant was that a composer like Mozart or Bach or Beethoven or any of that caliber composer could write wonderful music off the top of their head. The reworking was them striving for perfection. These composers didn't write music by analyzing chords and NCTs like many modern songwriters do. Great composers know harmony without having to say "oh, direct fifths - can't have that!" Parallel fifths, octaves, augmented fourths/diminished fifths, etc. aren't forbidden arbitrarily. They are forbidden in the rules of counterpoint because the aural effect of those devices is usually less than desirable. But that's not always the case - even Mozart wrote melodies using the interval of a tritone. It's a matter of proper usage. If it sounds good, what does theory matter? Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. weren't students of theory; they wrote what they heard. That's not to say that they didn't work on what they wrote, it's just that their success rate on the first go was phenomenal.
Oh, and as for Bach's 6-Part Fugue improv, in 1747 Bach visited King Frederich the Great of Prussia. The King, wanting to show off his new pianos (which were a new invention at the time), asked Bach to improv a 3-part fugue on a theme that the King wrote. Bach obliged. Then the King asked for a 6-Part fugue. Bach declined, instead improvising a 6-part fugue on a simpler theme. Some months later, Bach sent the king a Musical Offering, which included the 3-voice fugue he had improvised, ten canons, a trio sonata, and a 6-voice fugue, all on the royal theme.
Anyone can be George Harrison given the right tools and some time.
Music is, indeed, hard work. Jimi Hendrix is a fantastic example - no musical training, but plenty of practice, and he's one of the greatest musicians ever. However, hard work doesn't necessarily make you a composer. Perhaps a song writer, but no composer. (Yes, there is a difference.)
What makes all of the "great" composers so is that they never really needed to work anything out. Mozart could write entire compositions in days. And they were perfect. Perfect. Bach could sit at an organ and compose 6-part fugues off the top of his head. Beethoven labored, no doubt, but he was forced to -- he wasn't conforming to the musical ideas of the times. Like the Beatles in their time. Beethoven reinvented music, which was no easy task.
The same goes for performers. If you don't have it in you, no matter how hard you practice, study, work, etc, you'll never be great.
There's always going to be a rift between, say, Mozart and the Backstreet Boys. There's a fundamental difference between the two. The reason why classical music doesn't have the same appeal to the younger audience (in general) than "shitty teenage bands" is that classical music is too musical -- the complexity is too great for an untrained ear to really understand. On the other hand, that doesn't make new music bad.
Take, for example, the Beatles (oldies, yes, but new compared to Bach). Not all of their music has any musical merit other than that it's fun to listen to. Anyone can be George Harrison given the right tools and some time. Not everyone can be Beethoven.
However, that doesn't mean that you need to be a composer to know music. All of the musical training in the world doesn't make you a composer, per se. You need to know music. Listen to anything David Crosby ever wrote. That man knows music. Brian Wilson. All of the musical training in the world couldn't teach you how to write like them.
I agree that the artist should get paid. There's no reason why we can spend $5 for a hot dog at a baseball game, or $15 for popcorn and a soda at a movie, but we refuse to pay for music. The difference is, however, that music is more universal, especially since it is more readily available and easier to pirate than other things (it's pretty hard to steal a baseball game). That's not to say that some common ground can't be reached. Why not tax CR-R/RWs the same way that VHS tapes are, with a percentage of the proceeds of sales going to the recording industry? Or tack a tax onto ISP charges in exchange for the ability to download music? If my access charge went up a dollar or two a month so I could download music, you wouldn't hear any complaints from me.
Hmm. In my understanding, one volt is equal to the electric potential difference between two points on a conductor carrying a current of one amp with a power dissipation between the two points of one watt. Fine. But what then, exactly, is potential difference? I thought that it was the difference in charge between two points. Isn't that the same as electron density?
While these devices are only ion engines, I still think that it may be an interesting step towards discovering a true anti-gravity device. But I can't believe that electromagnatism and gravity can be unified at only a few kV of electricity. If that were the case, anti-gravity would have been discovered years ago. Besides, all voltage is is the difference in the number of electrons between two points. Perhaps at high enough voltages the gravitational attraction of the electrons at one point would cause some kind of anti-gravity effect at the opposite point, but I would assume that it would need to be a HUGE potential difference coupled with an extremely small device. Perhaps it isn't voltage at all that we need to look at to unify electromagnetism and gravity. If, that is, they can be unified at all.
"Eating cookies" and "loud sounds and flashing lights" aren't addictions. The article is talking about people who are addicted to information. In an article about sugar addiction, I found an interesting explanation, "Whatever the lab coats decide to call it, [they] know how sugar makes them feel. When they reach for another chocolate-chunk cookie, they say they're yielding to the tug of something deeper than a mere lack of willpower. They use the language of addiction because they consider themselves addicts." I think you're trying to compare apples to oranges. There are people who like to drink, and then there are people who like to drink. It's pretty obvious which ones have the problem, imho. No different for information addicts.
But is it really any more difficult than having to recompile kernel source or device drivers just to get the hardware to work properly? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not siding with Microsoft on this one; it's just a thought.
Cat 6 cable minimizes cross talk (both near-end and far-end) over similarly-configured Cat 5e solutions, just to name one. I'd name more, but I think that the TIA Cat 6 FAQ has a pretty good overview.
Cat 5e is more durable than cat 6? What, exactly, do you mean by this? In the long haul, a Cat 6 solution is cheaper. "'The benefits of category 6 vs. category 5e are eye-opening,' says Brian Celella, a lead electrical engineer for The Siemon Company and an active member of the TR-42 committee. 'For small additional investment, you can have a cabling infrastructure that will deliver significantly higher bandwidth and system performance. When weighed against the time end-users wait for processing or downloads - real productivity time - a category 6 system is actually less expensive than a category 5e system.'"
I say run cat 6. Not only do you get more performance, but with all the interference generated in the home (office, school, anywhere), you'd benefit from the tighter twists in cat 6 as opposed to cat 5e.
Probably about the same time that lazy parents will get it that the State will never be an adequate substitute for active, involved parental supervision.
It should be next to the chapter on "Why Photocopying Textbooks is Bad." Oh, wait, that would assume that the government gives schools enough money to buy textbooks so that they don't have to photocopy them. My bad.
Well, many times, after a law is passed Congress will re-review the law and propose changes to it at a later date. This is what happened in 1996 with the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which itself was an amendment of the Communications Act of 1934. With the CDA declared unconstitutional (Reno vs. ACLU), Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which has been declared unconstitutional twice (Reno vs. ACLU II, Ashcroft vs. ACLU).
The interesting thing in all of this is that during the initial CDA Supreme Court hearings, the Court found that some ludicrous percentage (%75+) of all Supreme Court case archives were blocked by filtering software. They also made that case that searches such as "breast cancer" and "mars exploration" would be blocked by the software. When will the courts get it straight?
Well, being a computer geek, musician and hockey player, I couldn't tell you which of the three makes my wrists hurt. But I can tell you what makes them feel better -- a little exercise.
I'm not even going to pretend that I'm an accomplished programmer -- I've been dabbling in programming for several years, and have a working knowledge of many of them. My perspective of programming is probably closer to the majority of programming students - those whom never become programmers in lieu of another field.
With that said, I'm always interested in what others have to say about languages from a professional point-of-view because I never went that far with it. I never knew that Java was employed on "very large Enterprise-scale systems" where C/C++ once reigned. I never properly thought of Java as a replacement for C/C++ -- I always thought it was in a completely separate arena. Guess I just never thought about it enough.
I agree with just about everything you said, but I must add something: It's easier to install MS Office, to add and remove options, to download updates. Now I'm not saying that I like Office, or even use it (although I do on occasion), but I still believe that on a whole, it is the easier of the products to use.
Slashdot Mirror
The heat may be the problem being presented here, but the issue could be completely avoided if people spec out their cable installations properly to begin with, and use a little common sense. I don't care how much heat is generated, at 13mm, there's a good chance that the cable will shatter eventually anyway.
13mm is tremendously below the minimum bend radius spec. As per the Data Communications Cabling FAQ:
"According to EIA SP-2840A (a draft version of EIA-568-x) the minimum bend radius for UTP is 4 x cable outside diameter, about one inch. For multipair cables the minimum bending radius is 10 x outside diameter.
SP-2840A gives minimum bend radii for Type 1A Shielded Twisted Pair (100 Mb/s STP) of 7.5 cm (3-in) for non-plenum cable, 15 cm (6-in) for the stiffer plenum-rated kind.
For fiber optic cables not in tension, the minimum bend radius is 10 x diameter; cables loaded in tension may not be bent at less than 20 x diameter. SP-2840A states that no f/o cable will be bent on a radius less than 3.0 cm (1.18-in).
...
Some manufacturers recommendations differ from the above, so it is worth checking the spec sheet for the cable you plan to use."
I'm having a hard time saying this is surprising.
I agree. It may not be so intuitive for copper, but c'mon, fiber is glass. Of course if you bend it too much there will be problems. When I used to install fiber cabling, we always used a larger bend radius than the standards required -- it just made sense. Not to mention the fact that if you include a service loop in the walls, every time you pull some more of the extra fiber out of the wall, you decrease the bend radius of the service loop.
Speaking of Uranus, the bluish planet reaches opposition on August 24 in Aquarius, about 8 west of Mars. It may be possible to see it with the naked eye. Tonight (August 4), Neptune will be in opposition in Copernicus, but probably not visible without a small telescope. The full moon is the 12th, and the Perseid meteor shower peaks on the 13th, with the best viewing time around an hour or two after sunset. Enjoy!
But I think the point still stands that the reason we're seeing so many transparent performers is that they aren't putting in a whole lot of thought.
I couldn't agree with you more. No matter how talented you may or may not be, if you don't put much real effort into your task, no matter what it may be, you aren't going to get superior results.
But both Bach and Mozart put in a lot of hard work... Mozart did just as much work as Beethoven, he just did it in his head while playing billiards or taking a walk.
And Bach had a lot of preparation before improvising. Most of that stuff is worked out in advance...by learning to transpose, invert, retrograde, or perform rhythmic and harmonic development.
Again, I can't disagree with you on this point. What I think I'm trying to say is that there is more to writing music than just melodic and harmonic devices that one can use almost mathematically. That's not to say that tools such as transposition, development, counterpoint, etc. aren't paramount to learning composition (performance, too). But perhaps I can explaing my point outside of music. I for one am entirely unable to draw anything. Coming from a family full of artists, I understand the tools and tricks of the trade -- different paints, brushes, canvases, the use of perspective, lighting, shadowing, etc. However, that doesn't, and can't, make up for the fact that I still can't draw. I believe the same goes for music, and that's what separates the best from the rest.
It's all technique that can be learned but you have to be clever and persistent. Having good resources doesn't hurt either. It's just that the devil is in the details; and the details are numerous and subtle to a point of being practically invisible.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. You can learn all the technique in the world, but if you can't apply what you've learned, you won't get anywhere. And yes, nothing makes up for practice. Not every performer is a theory genius, and not every theory student is a great performer. You do what you know, just like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and countless others have. One of the most talented jazz pianists I know can't read music. He learned by hanging around the Blue Note as a kid 40 years ago and watching and listening to the musicians perform relentlessly.
And not to completely babble on about the same thing over and over, I must say that I haven't really disagreed with anything said by anyone on this topic -- it's just a matter of me not expressing myself well enough, imho. But maybe not. All I know, to get back to the original topic, is that computers can compose mathematically, using all of the melodic and harmonic devices available, but the element of creativity is lost in the numbers. And that's what made Mozart, Bach, Beethoven and all the rest great.
I should have emphasized that sentence better. What I meant was that a composer like Mozart or Bach or Beethoven or any of that caliber composer could write wonderful music off the top of their head. The reworking was them striving for perfection. These composers didn't write music by analyzing chords and NCTs like many modern songwriters do. Great composers know harmony without having to say "oh, direct fifths - can't have that!" Parallel fifths, octaves, augmented fourths/diminished fifths, etc. aren't forbidden arbitrarily. They are forbidden in the rules of counterpoint because the aural effect of those devices is usually less than desirable. But that's not always the case - even Mozart wrote melodies using the interval of a tritone. It's a matter of proper usage. If it sounds good, what does theory matter? Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. weren't students of theory; they wrote what they heard. That's not to say that they didn't work on what they wrote, it's just that their success rate on the first go was phenomenal.
Oh, and as for Bach's 6-Part Fugue improv, in 1747 Bach visited King Frederich the Great of Prussia. The King, wanting to show off his new pianos (which were a new invention at the time), asked Bach to improv a 3-part fugue on a theme that the King wrote. Bach obliged. Then the King asked for a 6-Part fugue. Bach declined, instead improvising a 6-part fugue on a simpler theme. Some months later, Bach sent the king a Musical Offering, which included the 3-voice fugue he had improvised, ten canons, a trio sonata, and a 6-voice fugue, all on the royal theme.
Anyone can be George Harrison given the right tools and some time.
Music is, indeed, hard work. Jimi Hendrix is a fantastic example - no musical training, but plenty of practice, and he's one of the greatest musicians ever. However, hard work doesn't necessarily make you a composer. Perhaps a song writer, but no composer. (Yes, there is a difference.)
What makes all of the "great" composers so is that they never really needed to work anything out. Mozart could write entire compositions in days. And they were perfect. Perfect. Bach could sit at an organ and compose 6-part fugues off the top of his head. Beethoven labored, no doubt, but he was forced to -- he wasn't conforming to the musical ideas of the times. Like the Beatles in their time. Beethoven reinvented music, which was no easy task.
The same goes for performers. If you don't have it in you, no matter how hard you practice, study, work, etc, you'll never be great.
There's always going to be a rift between, say, Mozart and the Backstreet Boys. There's a fundamental difference between the two. The reason why classical music doesn't have the same appeal to the younger audience (in general) than "shitty teenage bands" is that classical music is too musical -- the complexity is too great for an untrained ear to really understand. On the other hand, that doesn't make new music bad.
Take, for example, the Beatles (oldies, yes, but new compared to Bach). Not all of their music has any musical merit other than that it's fun to listen to. Anyone can be George Harrison given the right tools and some time. Not everyone can be Beethoven.
However, that doesn't mean that you need to be a composer to know music. All of the musical training in the world doesn't make you a composer, per se. You need to know music. Listen to anything David Crosby ever wrote. That man knows music. Brian Wilson. All of the musical training in the world couldn't teach you how to write like them.
Neither can technology.
Ear first, theory/performance second, technology later.
The March 2003 issue of Discover Magazine had a good article on music and swarm behavior. If you think hyperscore, etc. is neat, check this out!
"They've been doing that for years already. Haven't you been listening to any of today's hit songs?"
Yeah, but why would any real musician want to waste his/her talent on the Backstreet Boys anyway?
I agree that the artist should get paid. There's no reason why we can spend $5 for a hot dog at a baseball game, or $15 for popcorn and a soda at a movie, but we refuse to pay for music. The difference is, however, that music is more universal, especially since it is more readily available and easier to pirate than other things (it's pretty hard to steal a baseball game). That's not to say that some common ground can't be reached. Why not tax CR-R/RWs the same way that VHS tapes are, with a percentage of the proceeds of sales going to the recording industry? Or tack a tax onto ISP charges in exchange for the ability to download music? If my access charge went up a dollar or two a month so I could download music, you wouldn't hear any complaints from me.
Hmm. In my understanding, one volt is equal to the electric potential difference between two points on a conductor carrying a current of one amp with a power dissipation between the two points of one watt. Fine. But what then, exactly, is potential difference? I thought that it was the difference in charge between two points. Isn't that the same as electron density?
While these devices are only ion engines, I still think that it may be an interesting step towards discovering a true anti-gravity device. But I can't believe that electromagnatism and gravity can be unified at only a few kV of electricity. If that were the case, anti-gravity would have been discovered years ago. Besides, all voltage is is the difference in the number of electrons between two points. Perhaps at high enough voltages the gravitational attraction of the electrons at one point would cause some kind of anti-gravity effect at the opposite point, but I would assume that it would need to be a HUGE potential difference coupled with an extremely small device. Perhaps it isn't voltage at all that we need to look at to unify electromagnetism and gravity. If, that is, they can be unified at all.
How can they say they have the disease contained if they say, in their next breath, that they expect it to come back again?
"Eating cookies" and "loud sounds and flashing lights" aren't addictions. The article is talking about people who are addicted to information. In an article about sugar addiction, I found an interesting explanation, "Whatever the lab coats decide to call it, [they] know how sugar makes them feel. When they reach for another chocolate-chunk cookie, they say they're yielding to the tug of something deeper than a mere lack of willpower. They use the language of addiction because they consider themselves addicts." I think you're trying to compare apples to oranges. There are people who like to drink, and then there are people who like to drink. It's pretty obvious which ones have the problem, imho. No different for information addicts.
But is it really any more difficult than having to recompile kernel source or device drivers just to get the hardware to work properly? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not siding with Microsoft on this one; it's just a thought.
Cat 6 cable minimizes cross talk (both near-end and far-end) over similarly-configured Cat 5e solutions, just to name one. I'd name more, but I think that the TIA Cat 6 FAQ has a pretty good overview.
Cat 5e is more durable than cat 6? What, exactly, do you mean by this? In the long haul, a Cat 6 solution is cheaper. "'The benefits of category 6 vs. category 5e are eye-opening,' says Brian Celella, a lead electrical engineer for The Siemon Company and an active member of the TR-42 committee. 'For small additional investment, you can have a cabling infrastructure that will deliver significantly higher bandwidth and system performance. When weighed against the time end-users wait for processing or downloads - real productivity time - a category 6 system is actually less expensive than a category 5e system.'"
I say run cat 6. Not only do you get more performance, but with all the interference generated in the home (office, school, anywhere), you'd benefit from the tighter twists in cat 6 as opposed to cat 5e.
Probably about the same time that lazy parents will get it that the State will never be an adequate substitute for active, involved parental supervision.
Amen.
Can I write to them on paper I pirated from the library?
It should be next to the chapter on "Why Photocopying Textbooks is Bad." Oh, wait, that would assume that the government gives schools enough money to buy textbooks so that they don't have to photocopy them. My bad.
Well, many times, after a law is passed Congress will re-review the law and propose changes to it at a later date. This is what happened in 1996 with the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which itself was an amendment of the Communications Act of 1934. With the CDA declared unconstitutional (Reno vs. ACLU), Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which has been declared unconstitutional twice (Reno vs. ACLU II, Ashcroft vs. ACLU).
The interesting thing in all of this is that during the initial CDA Supreme Court hearings, the Court found that some ludicrous percentage (%75+) of all Supreme Court case archives were blocked by filtering software. They also made that case that searches such as "breast cancer" and "mars exploration" would be blocked by the software. When will the courts get it straight?
Well, being a computer geek, musician and hockey player, I couldn't tell you which of the three makes my wrists hurt. But I can tell you what makes them feel better -- a little exercise.
I'm not even going to pretend that I'm an accomplished programmer -- I've been dabbling in programming for several years, and have a working knowledge of many of them. My perspective of programming is probably closer to the majority of programming students - those whom never become programmers in lieu of another field.
With that said, I'm always interested in what others have to say about languages from a professional point-of-view because I never went that far with it. I never knew that Java was employed on "very large Enterprise-scale systems" where C/C++ once reigned. I never properly thought of Java as a replacement for C/C++ -- I always thought it was in a completely separate arena. Guess I just never thought about it enough.
I agree with just about everything you said, but I must add something: It's easier to install MS Office, to add and remove options, to download updates. Now I'm not saying that I like Office, or even use it (although I do on occasion), but I still believe that on a whole, it is the easier of the products to use.