Well I figure that even at 256Kbps they can record over 2 hours of music, so it seems unlikely that this is the reason they would not go up to 192 or even just 160.
And 128Kbps is woefully inadequate in some cases. Sure it sounds OK most of the time, but try a highly produced song - TLC's Unpretty springs to mind - and it sounds awful. The sound of the high-hat on that song sounded painfully bad right up to 192Kbps, and even then you can tell straight out that it's wrong.
I don't care if it meets your personal criteria for a "decent" number of users
OK, I've been slapped and rightly so. What I meant was that it will never reach even a fraction of the popularity of Napster, Gnutella, KaZaA, Morpheus etc. If it has what you want, then great - don't get me wrong, I think that it's a good idea.
What I was implying is that the hype surrounding the networks I mentioned above was due to their huge size and popularity; this hype is irrelevant for this network, as it caters for a (relatively) niche market.
Thanks for your response, it was enlightening (for those of you who got the wrong idea, I really was looking for comments about writeability, and not just starting a flamewar)
In fact, although it seems a little 'ungodly' I can see the appeal of the apostrophe to refer to a member variable. Of course, this would likely not work in C++ as the -> and . operator mean different things, so could not just be replaced. I can see how it would work nicely in Java however (*slap* Java uses . not -> there is no need for a pointer dereferencing operator in Java because of its pointer model)
Not too sure about using it to reference array elements though, it loses some of its English semantics, and there is a lot to be said for having one operator to do one thing.
I guess the most enlightening part of the response was about using it for interoperability. I guess you're right, it makes perfect sense for that; after spending the last week doing efficiency hacking, I was looking at the code from the wrong viewpoint;) On a second look, I particularly like the line:
tell application "Finder" Nice way to bring apps into context.
Anyway, enough rambling, but thanks for the info.
NB. I'll stick with bash for now...
A P2P file sharing network that can only be used for legal files is doomed to failure. Either it'll end up being used for copyrighted material illegally, or it'll never get a decent number of users.
Go ahead, claim that *everyone* uses filesharing for uncopyrighted material. Just at least admit to yourself that it's not true.
People tend to overuse the term BSOD. If you get a couple of BSODs and then return to the desktop, it was not a BSOD.
Install NT/2000, then play with your hardware while the computer is on. Then you'll see what a *real* BSOD looks like, and understand the 'Death' part.
Yikes! That is some urglee code. I mean come on, since when has code used a possessive apostrophe? It's just......wrong.
I'll grant it's wonderfully readable, but in people's experience, is it actually easy to write? I can imagine having difficulty remembering all of the exact 'easy-to-use' identifiers. Also, in some cases it seemed to match good grammar, whereas in other cases parts of verbs, plurals etc. were not used correctly. Is there a set of special cases you have to remember or what?
Since he was running Windows, his computer crashes...
Oh, my aching sides!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
*sigh*
When will you learn it's not funny anymore? When?
On a side note, have you noticed that he is seriously ugly, and his g/f is a whore? I mean really, look at the pics she proudly displays on her sites - clearly a lady of negotiable virtue.
Sounds like a bad idea to me. Centralised control is a good thing on occasion - at the moment we have kernel.org and a list of mirrors. I think this is a sweet spot between being too centralised (bandwidth problems) and too distributed (control problems)
So if we have a decentralised system (I assume you are inferring P2P style? If not, then surely the mirrors system is adequate?) how are we to stop people abusing the system? I could host a trojan version - where do people go to verify the MD5? How many people actually check MD5s? My point is that we need a trusted pool of servers; the truly paranoid can still check their MD5s against those at kernel.org, the rest of us can be assured that this is one of the trusted mirrors, and not a server owned by j03 133+ h4X0R.
I make it my mission to call you a fucking cocksucker every time you link to that dumb piece of shit software you somehow believe will become super-intelligent just because you run it.
Hey - maybe it'll get smarter faster if we upgrade to IE6!
Fucking cocksucker. Moderators, please check this fucker's posting history (hint: they're all the same) and obliterate him. -1 is not enough, get him IP banned by downmodding him many times.
Oh, sure, downmod me too, but *not* before Sgt. Prick has been IP banned.
Why the fuck is it scary to bombard belongings with "the radioactive equivalent of 825 million chest X-rays"?
Surely your high school physics gives you enough knowledge about different types of radiation ("What?!? You mean there's not just one like those '50s B movies implied") that you're not expecting your packages to get a half-life?
As a point of interest, many foodstuffs are irradiated before transport to kill all sorts of bugs - It doesn't scare the hell out of me.
The only way this irradiation is scary is in the sense that I am scared to have expensive electronics damaged.
RE Your message body:
I was given this as a quiz in my HCI course at university. I haveto say that once the answers were known it really gave us a lot to think about - it rarely occurs to you to think about the time it takes a user to think about and then actually perform a motion to a locaion on the screen (and to disagree with another poster, the time taken to think about a move is not insignificant, i can take th best part of a second)
RE Your sig:
My word processor was written by a team of developers at Microsoft. You find me a word processor written by Knuth that is as functional and I will be your bitch forever.
PS. I am pissed as a fart. Anything offensive or disagreeable should be ignored.
It's not like you can fix it yourself since you are not allowed to see and modify the code.
99.5% of [insert open source app here] users cannot 'fix it themselves' either, because they don't have the technical knowledge of every package in a system, or they don't have time to fix it. The more likely a person is to be able to fix a security exploit on a production machine, the more it would cost for their time.
I agree in theory that open source wins here, but in practice the vast majority of people are reliant on patches supplied by distributors.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, 4 options. You forgot the 'I predict these posts' post. That about wraps it up for possible posts.
I guess this counts as a crapflood - my previous post as AC must have counted as a troll.
Honestly, I want an intelligent discussion (see posting history). But if this is the subject material then hell, what's a boy to do but troll?
Well I figure that even at 256Kbps they can record over 2 hours of music, so it seems unlikely that this is the reason they would not go up to 192 or even just 160.
And 128Kbps is woefully inadequate in some cases. Sure it sounds OK most of the time, but try a highly produced song - TLC's Unpretty springs to mind - and it sounds awful. The sound of the high-hat on that song sounded painfully bad right up to 192Kbps, and even then you can tell straight out that it's wrong.
________Is lost in the goatse guy's ass
What I was implying is that the hype surrounding the networks I mentioned above was due to their huge size and popularity; this hype is irrelevant for this network, as it caters for a (relatively) niche market.
I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere...
Thanks for your response, it was enlightening (for those of you who got the wrong idea, I really was looking for comments about writeability, and not just starting a flamewar)
;) On a second look, I particularly like the line:
In fact, although it seems a little 'ungodly' I can see the appeal of the apostrophe to refer to a member variable. Of course, this would likely not work in C++ as the -> and . operator mean different things, so could not just be replaced. I can see how it would work nicely in Java however (*slap* Java uses . not -> there is no need for a pointer dereferencing operator in Java because of its pointer model)
Not too sure about using it to reference array elements though, it loses some of its English semantics, and there is a lot to be said for having one operator to do one thing.
I guess the most enlightening part of the response was about using it for interoperability. I guess you're right, it makes perfect sense for that; after spending the last week doing efficiency hacking, I was looking at the code from the wrong viewpoint
tell application "Finder"
Nice way to bring apps into context.
Anyway, enough rambling, but thanks for the info.
NB. I'll stick with bash for now...
A P2P file sharing network that can only be used for legal files is doomed to failure. Either it'll end up being used for copyrighted material illegally, or it'll never get a decent number of users.
Go ahead, claim that *everyone* uses filesharing for uncopyrighted material. Just at least admit to yourself that it's not true.
Cmder, one is curious. Are you actually Klerck? If so, why have I not seen you post as Klerck in ages - has your account been silenced for good?
If you are not Klerck, but a Klerc-a-like, can you (or anyone) enlighten me as to the fate of dearest Klerck?
People tend to overuse the term BSOD. If you get a couple of BSODs and then return to the desktop, it was not a BSOD.
Install NT/2000, then play with your hardware while the computer is on. Then you'll see what a *real* BSOD looks like, and understand the 'Death' part.
Yikes! That is some urglee code. I mean come on, since when has code used a possessive apostrophe? It's just......wrong.
I'll grant it's wonderfully readable, but in people's experience, is it actually easy to write? I can imagine having difficulty remembering all of the exact 'easy-to-use' identifiers. Also, in some cases it seemed to match good grammar, whereas in other cases parts of verbs, plurals etc. were not used correctly. Is there a set of special cases you have to remember or what?
*sigh*
When will you learn it's not funny anymore? When?
On a side note, have you noticed that he is seriously ugly, and his g/f is a whore? I mean really, look at the pics she proudly displays on her sites - clearly a lady of negotiable virtue.
Ah yes, but look at it this way:
-1:7
0:1
1:1
2:0
3:0
4:0
5:0
That's a 6:1 troll ratio! Could set a new record.
Sounds like a bad idea to me. Centralised control is a good thing on occasion - at the moment we have kernel.org and a list of mirrors. I think this is a sweet spot between being too centralised (bandwidth problems) and too distributed (control problems)
So if we have a decentralised system (I assume you are inferring P2P style? If not, then surely the mirrors system is adequate?) how are we to stop people abusing the system? I could host a trojan version - where do people go to verify the MD5? How many people actually check MD5s? My point is that we need a trusted pool of servers; the truly paranoid can still check their MD5s against those at kernel.org, the rest of us can be assured that this is one of the trusted mirrors, and not a server owned by j03 133+ h4X0R.
Hey - my acct works again!
Scooby-Doo jumped the shark when Scrappy-Doo appeared.
"A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man" - Jebediah Springfield
I make it my mission to call you a fucking cocksucker every time you link to that dumb piece of shit software you somehow believe will become super-intelligent just because you run it.
Hey - maybe it'll get smarter faster if we upgrade to IE6!
Fucking cocksucker. Moderators, please check this fucker's posting history (hint: they're all the same) and obliterate him. -1 is not enough, get him IP banned by downmodding him many times.
Oh, sure, downmod me too, but *not* before Sgt. Prick has been IP banned.
</rant>
Did Jon Katz' friend tell you in a chain email?
More props to ringbarer. Some seriously good philosophical FPs going on there.
/.
But the real reason you deserve praise is your name/sig - got to be the best I've ever seen on
Keep up the good work.
Why the fuck is it scary to bombard belongings with "the radioactive equivalent of 825 million chest X-rays"?
Surely your high school physics gives you enough knowledge about different types of radiation ("What?!? You mean there's not just one like those '50s B movies implied") that you're not expecting your packages to get a half-life?
As a point of interest, many foodstuffs are irradiated before transport to kill all sorts of bugs - It doesn't scare the hell out of me.
The only way this irradiation is scary is in the sense that I am scared to have expensive electronics damaged.
RE Your message body:
I was given this as a quiz in my HCI course at university. I haveto say that once the answers were known it really gave us a lot to think about - it rarely occurs to you to think about the time it takes a user to think about and then actually perform a motion to a locaion on the screen (and to disagree with another poster, the time taken to think about a move is not insignificant, i can take th best part of a second)
RE Your sig:
My word processor was written by a team of developers at Microsoft. You find me a word processor written by Knuth that is as functional and I will be your bitch forever.
PS. I am pissed as a fart. Anything offensive or disagreeable should be ignored.
Easy - you just show them the balance sheet of an OSS company that is making mone...Ah. I get your point.
Yeah! LOL and sure is on with am George W Bush have rigged time too!
Try on have preview button with time attempt at next.
You are such a prick.
Moderators: the option you're looking for is Insightful - you know he's a prick too
Will wonders never cease?
99.5% of [insert open source app here] users cannot 'fix it themselves' either, because they don't have the technical knowledge of every package in a system, or they don't have time to fix it. The more likely a person is to be able to fix a security exploit on a production machine, the more it would cost for their time.
I agree in theory that open source wins here, but in practice the vast majority of people are reliant on patches supplied by distributors.