Some of the better normalizations actually just tack on a data field in the ID3 (or equivalent) that says "bump it up some" or "lower it this much" instead of actually performing the normalization themselves. That way you don't run into the problem you mention, which is a valid concern. The playback devices just have to look for and be able to interpret this information and the user should have the ability to enable/disable it too.
I wouldn't say it "evens out the volume". It makes the gap between quiet and loud much smaller (a "thinner" signal, if you will) then pumps amplitude into the whole thing (volume level) so that you don't get much/any clipping. The result is a louder signal that is NOT the same as what was recorded.
Yes, many people and many systems can't tell the difference. A casual listener listening to terrestrial radio in a car hasn't a chance in h*** of noticing; the degradation of the signal from other means makes this just noise. If you have a nice home system and actually enjoy LISTENING to the music then you probably can tell the difference.
This irks me almost as much as the whole "sell music in MP3 format" talk. MP3 is a lossy format, by definition, and is NOT the same music as recorded and particularly at 128k is very noticeable in any halfway decent environment. 256k is better, but I do NOT want a lossy format as my only choice for digital audio!
And now virus makers and phishers team up to hack your local copy of "safe" sites. "Why yes, young man, www.sitibank.com IS the right address."
The problem, as always, is trusting the data. If you request it from a known source via a secure channel you're good. Once you save it you expose it to other attacks.
IE7, freshly installed this morning, on XP SP2 reports not vulnerable. Perhaps it was already patched, or the exposure is more limited than the post implies...
Not an MS fan, but truth and accuracy are always good.
Make me WANT to watch your commercials and I might and I won't be pissed off doing so. Just don't MAKE me watch your commercials. Subtle difference, no?
imagine you're coding something that's perfectly acceptable and legal today. If it's deemed illegal next year, would you be still punishable?
Well, if you continued to sell it or make it readily available after learning it had become illegal then I'd say you were in trouble. I do not think you would be punishable for actions taken that were legal when taken, but I'm no lawyer [if you were punishable, I'm all for moving to another country;)]
My original point was that if you know something's coming down the pipe, legal issue-wise, then putting a server in the US to do business in the US is a calculated risk. It would be more cautious to find another country to host and manage the enterprise rather than risk having all your effort be for naught.
No, it sounds like you shouldn't have servers in the US nor receive funds in the US if you are doing something the US does (or may in the near future) consider illegal. The question of whether or not the actions are illegal or should be illegal is totally separate.
Fire up your offshore servers, folks. Hmm, maybe I should invest in some of those ventures now?
Not to agree with much of the lawsuit and all, but it sounds like there are some valid reasons for a judge to go ahead with US jurisdiction. Servers physically located in country, funds sent from in country, funds received in country... Sounds like a "presence" existed in the country.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of the better normalizations actually just tack on a data field in the ID3 (or equivalent) that says "bump it up some" or "lower it this much" instead of actually performing the normalization themselves. That way you don't run into the problem you mention, which is a valid concern. The playback devices just have to look for and be able to interpret this information and the user should have the ability to enable/disable it too.
I wouldn't say it "evens out the volume". It makes the gap between quiet and loud much smaller (a "thinner" signal, if you will) then pumps amplitude into the whole thing (volume level) so that you don't get much/any clipping. The result is a louder signal that is NOT the same as what was recorded.
Yes, many people and many systems can't tell the difference. A casual listener listening to terrestrial radio in a car hasn't a chance in h*** of noticing; the degradation of the signal from other means makes this just noise. If you have a nice home system and actually enjoy LISTENING to the music then you probably can tell the difference.
This irks me almost as much as the whole "sell music in MP3 format" talk. MP3 is a lossy format, by definition, and is NOT the same music as recorded and particularly at 128k is very noticeable in any halfway decent environment. 256k is better, but I do NOT want a lossy format as my only choice for digital audio!
And now virus makers and phishers team up to hack your local copy of "safe" sites. "Why yes, young man, www.sitibank.com IS the right address."
The problem, as always, is trusting the data. If you request it from a known source via a secure channel you're good. Once you save it you expose it to other attacks.
IE7, freshly installed this morning, on XP SP2 reports not vulnerable. Perhaps it was already patched, or the exposure is more limited than the post implies...
Not an MS fan, but truth and accuracy are always good.
Make me WANT to watch your commercials and I might and I won't be pissed off doing so. Just don't MAKE me watch your commercials. Subtle difference, no?
From article:
"In those 20 days, this one computer received 5 million connection requests from spammers, and sent 18 million spam messages," said Cranton.
That amount of data was impossible to analyze, so..."
So, seems 18 million records is too much for poor little SQL Server, hmm? I bet Oracle could help, or maybe MySQL/PostgreSQL.
imagine you're coding something that's perfectly acceptable and legal today. If it's deemed illegal next year, would you be still punishable?
;)]
Well, if you continued to sell it or make it readily available after learning it had become illegal then I'd say you were in trouble. I do not think you would be punishable for actions taken that were legal when taken, but I'm no lawyer [if you were punishable, I'm all for moving to another country
My original point was that if you know something's coming down the pipe, legal issue-wise, then putting a server in the US to do business in the US is a calculated risk. It would be more cautious to find another country to host and manage the enterprise rather than risk having all your effort be for naught.
No, it sounds like you shouldn't have servers in the US nor receive funds in the US if you are doing something the US does (or may in the near future) consider illegal. The question of whether or not the actions are illegal or should be illegal is totally separate.
Fire up your offshore servers, folks. Hmm, maybe I should invest in some of those ventures now?
Not to agree with much of the lawsuit and all, but it sounds like there are some valid reasons for a judge to go ahead with US jurisdiction. Servers physically located in country, funds sent from in country, funds received in country... Sounds like a "presence" existed in the country.
Now as for DMCA, don't get me started...