well, see over here, as a state employee in.fr, I make less than 30k net a year.
out of that, I pay about 3k in income tax, and another 1.5k in local taxes.
thing is, I don't have to worry about things like health insurance... when I go to the doctor, I present my state health insurance agency card, and off I go. same when I go to the pharmacy to pick up the goods... add to this, that my mother, who just came out from a double breast cancer also didn't have to pay a cent to be properly treated (including 4 or 5 surgeries)...
now, try to beat that with the current fucked up healthcare system you have in the US...
she would have had 1 maybe 2 surgeries, and it would have been spotted sooner. Free is not better. Especially when it comes to medicine.
First thing I thought about... Rev. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream".
I wonder what Dr. King would have thought about this line from Obama:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a Civilian National Security Force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
As a guy who spent a lot of time not being very pleased with civilian security forces, I do wonder what he'd think about a giant, powerful new one with a huge new bureaucracy slurping up gajillions of new dollars, operating inside the borders. Huge bureacracies and giant new security forces tend to look for something to do, and someone to do it to.
I knew he was socialist, but that is a blatant request to have government REALLY in people's business.
Congress passes the laws. Blame whatever party controls congress for any budget issues under any administration.
You can argue presidential pull all day, yet our system doesn't allow executive branch to pass bills into law. Veto only goes so far. If congress is either 2/3 one party, or can reasonably "convert enough for the majority, veto power is a non-power.
Blame those fat money grubbing assholes in congress.
Note: My opinion of congress may differ from yours, and is only an opinion.
I realize, from your posting as AC, that you must be a recognized authority. I am not, on the other hand. But jesus fucking christ, you moronic fucktard, you can't see a purpose behind higher sampling rates removing some of the audible stair-stepping from the waveform? Also, expanding dynamic range doesn't just expand the loudest and softest points, it gives more room for subtleties to be revealed in louder passages, coupled with higher resolution, you nitwit. Get the fuck out of your mom's basement, and go audition some classical recordings at these sample rates. Or are you going to tell me that 320 kilobit MP3 doesn't alter the sound. Dithering and compression, digital or analog, is NEVER without loss. There is no objective data you can present that can prove that 44.1 KHz is as fine a resolution as 96 KHz.
I hope you enjoyed receiving what you got. On top of that, I hope you eventually figure out just how ignorant you are by spouting off drivel about other people being IGNORANT when they are drilling your SUBJECTIVE positioning into the ground with INFORMED FACT.
Put more nicely:
Go take a serious listen to some complex music that is well recorded, at various available bit rates and depths. Having done this as well as run sound for live shows on solid PA gear (Yamaha, ASHLY, Crown, Audio technica, Mackie), I will tell you now that the most powerful, accurate, high end gear possible, coupled with 44.1/16 can't even get in the REALM of live. 96/24 is closer, but pales. The closer we get to reproducing a perfectly smooth waveform, at a solid depth, the closer we get to hearing and feeling what the artists are expressing to us. I realize this doesn't matter with mainstream music, but every time I hear "The girl with the weight of the world in her hands", by the indigo girls, among many other tracks from various artists, I am overwhelmed with a desire to hear it bigger, better, and with more of the presentation already given. If you gather enough string and wood instruments, it becomes real apparent that current CD standards simply cannot offer anything more than faint similarity to a live performance. Part of this may be limitations in microphone design, although I would be hard pressed to believe this, since lesser microphones get used for live play than recording usually.
Again, I have already compared. Even Billy Idol posts up better at 96/24.
Funny thing: I share your lack of interest in buying them. I disagree with your cited numbers, and with those that believe the format has nothing real to offer. Watching a subjectively good movie released in an HD format is a superior experience. You do not need a $4000 set and a home theatre room to see a difference. I was actually giving a summarized and probably overly simple list of who couldn't tell the difference. If you have an HDTV (after Feb, you will, or you'll effectively have a BIG doorstop soon enough), the difference between formats is as obvious as the difference between 640x480 and 1024x768, at a very bare minimum. I apologize for harshness, but you had to see some harsh coming... Best to ya!
I see, and so you believe that saving miniscule amounts of cash now is better than having a forward compatible device? No thanks, I won't spend the money to get to a 1080 resolution, and have it outmoded 4 years from now. I will gladly fork over a few thousand for my forward looking set, and keep it 10 years, like I did the last one. I also drive an Audi. It's nearing 8 years old, and has been satisfying since day 1. I could've bought a Ford Focus, and never really been happy. I also would have had inferior brakes, less room, and pretty much zero luxury. This would have led to another purchase within 3 years. At that point, I would be paying more for less. While this scenario does not fully play out in terms of a television that can be obsolesced to the kids' rooms, it is an example of a value oriented buying tactic that works for me, yet runs counter to the Wal-Mart philosophy. I would much prefer a deal on a high value 1080p set, than to buy a commodity level set that brings me less enjoyment. Please remember that a television, especially a large screen set, is a -luxury- purchase, and therefore your enjoyment of it may reside in it's functionality, from a minimalist standpoint, but I cannot see any objective reason for buying a luxury item (the value of which is directly tied to your level of enjoyment) that does not promise longevity of said luxury.
I am reviewing the purchase of an AT&T tilt phone. Why? Because it represents a variety of future proofing features(Win Mobile6,32 GB SD card ability, 802.11 b/g, etc), coupled with functionality and luxury desired now.
Perhaps when we trounce on others for not being "frugal" we should maybe review just who is actually being frugal in the long term. 1080i is technically inferior. I don't like buying technically inferior in my luxury items.
Pathetic attack. Try using reasoning, and a small, teeny tiny bit of research. I haven't even looked, and will place my money on no less than 6 releases in one or both formats. DVD is anything but a spectacular picture quality. I suppose people willing to play their online games at 512x384 would enjoy DVD picture quality, or people that have never seen a movie in HD on a high quality setup.
In support of your statement, however, I am willing to bet that people who have never had a job, or are in a 3rd world country are very likely to agree that no movies are available to them in HD or Blue Ray. I am also willing to bet that since their Emerson VHS deck doesn't play any disc format on their 19 inch daewoo televison. they don't care. So which is it for you: trailer park in the desert, or a hut in the Sudan?
Quit trolling, and contribute.
1080i is 60 HALF frames per second. 1080p is 60 FULL frames, and output devices are now capable (see Sony Bravia XBR line) of producing 1080p in double rates, meaning 120 frames per second. 60 fields per second is not the same as 60 frames, and if you are stating that 1080p uses the same amount of data as a source, then you are assuming that the format uses the same data rates (possible, I have not researched), and further presuming that there is no discernible difference between 30, 60, and 120 frames per second. Subjectively, this is possible, but very unlikely. If the only difference in 1080p and 1080i were outputted frame rates, then some ingenius manufacturer would be selling 1080p sets at 1080i prices, within say $20 to cover electronics costs.
If I am incorrect in my understanding, then please enlighten me in exactly how interlaced and progressive are the same quality/quantity of base data.
As an audiophile that read High Fidelity magazine during the time frame of the digital "revolution", I will try to add something useful to all this. Sampling highly complex audio waveforms, to convert to a digital medium will involve some loss. Compression, digitally, or analog, involves dynamic range loss. This may actually be required in some music, to prevent clipping, or a total loss of the quieter passages. So both sampling and compression become necessary evils in a "digital" age. The sampling level, and level/TYPE of compression are the determinants for overall quality. Unless you listen to synth/pop music, in which case differences are usually minimal, as the source material lacks the subtle nuances, and wider dynamic range inherent in non-synthesized music.
Please bear in mind that the following, as well as the preceding are opinions and information subjective in nature, but largely true from an engineering and audiophile perspective.
In the 80's I remember reading up on the Compact Disc format. While 44,100 samples per second, with 65,535 levels of volume may sound like a lot, even as a teen ager, I was unimpressed. Audiophiles were pushing for 96 Kilobit sampling rates, to ensure a more accurate representation of the analog wave form. Many wanted greater bit depth as well, since inaccuracies in digital reproduction would be buried under the noise floor. What we got, as consumers, was the aforementioned 44.1KHz, 16 bit sampling. The best that we could do was use strong "smoothing" in the analog output stages, and try to hide the "edginess" many complained of in the sound. Producers would do a digital recording, analog, mixdown, and drop it to the digital medium, at the end. This method, while seemingly over complicating things, would typically soften the sound somewhat on less expensive gear. High end gear would use extremely expensive analog output stages, or qould pass the signal to a dedicated D/A converter. Overall, I have never been happy with the CD medium for critical listening, especially recordings involving the female voice, or very complex high frequency content with wide dynamic range. Think of "unplugged" sessions, or orchestral recordings, when picturing examples. fiddy Cent is not affected by the CD format's limitations.....
So where does that leave guys like me? In an age when kids are being taught that 128 kilobit data rates for MP3 is "CD quality, and simple, convenient formats, and lossy compression are fully acceptable, I am apparently a minority. MP3 is based on removing "data" that is expected to not be perceived. This removal is applied in varying degrees, depending upon desired data rate, or a variable rate, with an upper limit. I find the trend towards acceptable loss, in an already compromising medium, to be anything else but acceptable. It only takes one listening session of any preferred music on CD format, with a comparison to MP3 encoding at 320 kilobits data rate, to see a huge difference. At 128 kilobit data rates, it gets plain embarrassing. All of this assumes at least mid range equipment. If you are comparing the two digital formats on a $200 rack system from Wal- Mart, or on your PC speaker setup, it may not show the huge disparity in quality.
All this being said, I hate the current CD format, and long for "albums to come out on DVD, with 96KHz or higher sampling, and 24/32 bit depth. While I have a custom D/A converter (PS Audio), and use B&W speakers, my total investment is WELL under $5000 for all of my gear. Perhaps when I cannot detect edginess or overall "grittiness" in the widely varying music I listen to, I will be happier with digital formats at the consumer level. I will never like the hack job that MP3 does to music.
My opinion. YMMV. Some restrictions may apply. See your doctor if this post causes an erection lasting longer than four hours.
While what you say is likely true, may I ask if you have looked into the FireGL line of cards, or perhaps a fast CPU/ large mem card, and emulation? I do not know about FireGL emulation, but Some NV cards have historically been able to load Quadro drivers using Rivatuner to emulate the quadro's bits in identifier, or some such. I would expect it to be slower, but CPUs are at quad core and counting, so emulation may be viable, depending upon if it still works.
While what you say is likely true, may I ask if you have looked into the FireGL line of cards, or perhaps a fast CPU/ large mem card, and emulation? I do not know about FireGL emulation, but Some NV cards have historically been able to load Quadro drivers using Rivatuner to emulate the quadro's bits in identifier, or some such. I would expect it to be slower, but CPUs are at quad core and counting, so emulation may be viable, depending upon if it still works.
Except there is an "event" when you push the needle to make up time. Below that, you have an exceptionally valid point. That point is related, I am sure to many accidents involving "white line fever", or general road fatigue. Much like any decision involving risks, you make an informed decision, and shore up any deficiencies, or it can be a bad decision.
Since Indy cars can and do haul down from 200MPH, I am thinking your limit -might- be related to pavement type, tire material, weather conditions, tire width, and brake system design. Not many people I know will go over 100 MPH on anything not equipped to do it. If you don't KNOW what your safety margin is, or fail to abide by it, then you've made a bad decision. Bad decisions kill, not speed.
I'd say he was spot- on. If YOU personally lack the reaction time visual acuity, and depth perception to drive at speed, in little to no traffic, then, by all means, don't. If YOUR vehicle lacks proper tires and brakes, don't. If your vehicle isn't up on a rack every 2000 miles, or if your alignment is of the slightest bit, DON'T. If you are driving a vehicle not suited for post 100 MPH speeds, or if weather is inclement, or you can't focus 100% of your attention, then for GOD'S SAKES, DON'T speed. If there is moderate to heavy traffic, or if you are not on a limited access roadway..... you guessed it.... don't speed.
Or should we all call in those police officers that routinely weave through traffic at 80 to 100, not signalling, with no lights, or sirens, too? I'm not judging anyone here. I think it is ridiculous to place someone with bald tires, a cigarette in their hand, driving a 98 honda with worn brakes in the same category as someone driving a modern, well maintained vehicle, with new aftermarket tires, and brakes. The second person having the presence of mind to NOT smoke while driving.
Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do. Sometimes speed, due to weather, or traffic, etc is a bad decision. The fact remains that driver error, not speed, is the root cause of nearly ALL accidents.
I responded to reaction time. I do not need adrenaline to respond in under 1/4 second. Also, adrenaline rush is only kicking in at heightened speeds, so if you are not DOING 120 MPH (or whatever speed induces a rush for you), the rush itself isn't there. I routinely drive 70 to 80 MPH, so around 120, heightening occurs.
I never defended an idiot running on no sleep. I am not going to RTFA, as i've already done a trip of over 800 miles in less than 10 hours. We had 3 people. the rotation was sleep/drive/lookout. We took care to ensure that we were not going to be sluggish in response.
The next time you are doing 65 MPH in your holier than thou state of mind, in your under-maintained car, or worse, SUV, and you answer that cell call, eat that food, or drink that drink (non alcoholic assumed), realize how hypocritical you are being, as you are posing JUST as much threat as someone in less traffic, doing 40 over your speed. If I have to argue that, then I will wait for YOU to gain some experience. And yes, once the brakes are applied, that M5 will likely stop in under 200 feet. I never assumed there was no delay in reacting to a need for stop. Seeing as the vast majority of accidents occur at below insane speeds, I am standing by my statement: Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do. Bad decisions like 120 in traffic. Bad decisions like drinking your mocha in traffic. Bad decisions like working 14 hours straight, then driving home tired, on wet pavement. While speed may enhance damage done, removing the driver-side elements from the equation greatly reduces the likelihood of an accident. I have never had an accident at speed. Nor has anyone i've known that does drive fast on occasion.
Perhaps it is best that idiots (apparently like the guy in the article) that drive impaired, or tools ( like any of us that smoke/drink/eat/do makeup while driving) that can't focus on the task at hand, NOT drive fast. Bad decisions.
Would this be your great grandfather's human reaction time? I am curious, as any time that I have done 120 plus MPH, my reaction time was affected by adrenaline, and my only focus was potential targets, and avoidance of them. Using your logic, All those first-person shooters I play should be totally similar in play, whether the latency is 10 ms or 100 ms. Even a butter smooth 100ms can be distractingly painful after playing in a 10 ms environ. With near 1 second reaction times, 90ms would be an intangible seeming amount of slop time. I have seldom played a shooter that gave you a full half second to cogitate on targets. You have less than 1/2 second to begin defensive maneuvers, identify the target as friend or foe, and fire, assist, or flee.
On the highway, you are in one mode: Avoid everything. Assuming dry pavement, That M5 likely would stop from 100 MPH in in under 200 feet. Less, if the vehicle is fully optimized for dry-only pavement.
Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do.
The original Half-Life can no longer authenticate to WON. This makes my $500 investment worth less than 10 coasters, as CDs have a hole in the middle. CD keys, and remote authentication, especially, are irritating. CD key, remote authentication via name and password, along with required E-mail address, PLUS various disk copy protections is just too damned much effort. I will just download the warez versions. 90% of the games out now are like ditzy blonde trophy wives: great to look at, and show off to your friends, but in the end, not much better than masturbating.
No pricing info. I know better than to believe there is ANY kind of bargain here. At least the company in the article lists the price of their product.
I have had experience with several single and dual processor servers and workstations, of various speeds and scsi/ide configurations. Two things were held in commom for all of them:
1) They all had some iteration of the 3C905B ethernet card in them.
2) They were all connected to Cisco 29i00 series switches that had to be set up at full duplex/100Mbit for both card AND switch to not fall back to half duplex.
Personally, I get better performance on a 10Mbit full duplex link than on a 100 Mbit half duplex.....
Actually, the difference is in dynamic range, and loss of low-level sounds during louder passages. At it's worst, compression gives a "radio" effect of a single vocalist having almost the exact same loudness as when the band kicks in with him, which is how compression is designed to work at an extreme... I have always disliked compression schemes that involved losses. Those losses are sometimes small or not readily noticed.
Incorrect. I worked at the HelpDesk of G.E. in Appliance Park, Kentucky, their central IT and server location, and different happened for me. I was on a COMMON mapped drive, provided(with FULL read and write permissions) for everyone in buuilding 4(IT), by default. The server was BLDG4USERS1. the pccommon directory is essentially a repository for temporary items from users of the system. Anything can be read or deleted by anyone. In this mapped drive, I found a folder, Jenne, which contained various items. Among these (yes I was on lunch, and had time) were router configurations, switch configs, and even weak encrypted enable passwords. When I approached the person I believe owned the folder (a GE network support person), he didn't seem concerned or alarmed. He did, however thank me. Since we were both in the break area (I know I was on break), I went on to divulge that I had also noticed his social security number in an expense report, apparently pre- filled, to expedite his filing of such reports. This took him by surprise, and he gave me an apparent sincere thanks. I had already approached my immediate supervisor about notifying him, but he had no solution, and no interest in doing so. I did not want to carry this clear up the chain of command, because, as a creative and enthusiastic person, I had made enough waves trying to get a Cisco CCNA/NP lab up and running. I lost my job. I was 'untrustworthy'. There are no hidden facts, i'm not slanting the story, and I can even see how snooping into a personal DRIVE could be real bad. This was a PUBLIC drive. I could've deleted his whole folder....
Slashdot Mirror
well, see over here, as a state employee in .fr, I make less than 30k net a year.
out of that, I pay about 3k in income tax, and another 1.5k in local taxes.
thing is, I don't have to worry about things like health insurance... when I go to the doctor, I present my state health insurance agency card, and off I go. same when I go to the pharmacy to pick up the goods... add to this, that my mother, who just came out from a double breast cancer also didn't have to pay a cent to be properly treated (including 4 or 5 surgeries)...
now, try to beat that with the current fucked up healthcare system you have in the US...
she would have had 1 maybe 2 surgeries, and it would have been spotted sooner. Free is not better. Especially when it comes to medicine.
First thing I thought about ... Rev. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream".
I wonder what Dr. King would have thought about this line from Obama:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a Civilian National Security Force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
As a guy who spent a lot of time not being very pleased with civilian security forces, I do wonder what he'd think about a giant, powerful new one with a huge new bureaucracy slurping up gajillions of new dollars, operating inside the borders. Huge bureacracies and giant new security forces tend to look for something to do, and someone to do it to.
I knew he was socialist, but that is a blatant request to have government REALLY in people's business.
Congress passes the laws. Blame whatever party controls congress for any budget issues under any administration. You can argue presidential pull all day, yet our system doesn't allow executive branch to pass bills into law. Veto only goes so far. If congress is either 2/3 one party, or can reasonably "convert enough for the majority, veto power is a non-power. Blame those fat money grubbing assholes in congress. Note: My opinion of congress may differ from yours, and is only an opinion.
I realize, from your posting as AC, that you must be a recognized authority. I am not, on the other hand. But jesus fucking christ, you moronic fucktard, you can't see a purpose behind higher sampling rates removing some of the audible stair-stepping from the waveform? Also, expanding dynamic range doesn't just expand the loudest and softest points, it gives more room for subtleties to be revealed in louder passages, coupled with higher resolution, you nitwit. Get the fuck out of your mom's basement, and go audition some classical recordings at these sample rates. Or are you going to tell me that 320 kilobit MP3 doesn't alter the sound. Dithering and compression, digital or analog, is NEVER without loss. There is no objective data you can present that can prove that 44.1 KHz is as fine a resolution as 96 KHz. I hope you enjoyed receiving what you got. On top of that, I hope you eventually figure out just how ignorant you are by spouting off drivel about other people being IGNORANT when they are drilling your SUBJECTIVE positioning into the ground with INFORMED FACT. Put more nicely: Go take a serious listen to some complex music that is well recorded, at various available bit rates and depths. Having done this as well as run sound for live shows on solid PA gear (Yamaha, ASHLY, Crown, Audio technica, Mackie), I will tell you now that the most powerful, accurate, high end gear possible, coupled with 44.1/16 can't even get in the REALM of live. 96/24 is closer, but pales. The closer we get to reproducing a perfectly smooth waveform, at a solid depth, the closer we get to hearing and feeling what the artists are expressing to us. I realize this doesn't matter with mainstream music, but every time I hear "The girl with the weight of the world in her hands", by the indigo girls, among many other tracks from various artists, I am overwhelmed with a desire to hear it bigger, better, and with more of the presentation already given. If you gather enough string and wood instruments, it becomes real apparent that current CD standards simply cannot offer anything more than faint similarity to a live performance. Part of this may be limitations in microphone design, although I would be hard pressed to believe this, since lesser microphones get used for live play than recording usually. Again, I have already compared. Even Billy Idol posts up better at 96/24.
Funny thing:
I share your lack of interest in buying them. I disagree with your cited numbers, and with those that believe the format has nothing real to offer. Watching a subjectively good movie released in an HD format is a superior experience. You do not need a $4000 set and a home theatre room to see a difference. I was actually giving a summarized and probably overly simple list of who couldn't tell the difference. If you have an HDTV (after Feb, you will, or you'll effectively have a BIG doorstop soon enough), the difference between formats is as obvious as the difference between 640x480 and 1024x768, at a very bare minimum. I apologize for harshness, but you had to see some harsh coming... Best to ya!
I see, and so you believe that saving miniscule amounts of cash now is better than having a forward compatible device? No thanks, I won't spend the money to get to a 1080 resolution, and have it outmoded 4 years from now. I will gladly fork over a few thousand for my forward looking set, and keep it 10 years, like I did the last one. I also drive an Audi. It's nearing 8 years old, and has been satisfying since day 1. I could've bought a Ford Focus, and never really been happy. I also would have had inferior brakes, less room, and pretty much zero luxury. This would have led to another purchase within 3 years. At that point, I would be paying more for less. While this scenario does not fully play out in terms of a television that can be obsolesced to the kids' rooms, it is an example of a value oriented buying tactic that works for me, yet runs counter to the Wal-Mart philosophy. I would much prefer a deal on a high value 1080p set, than to buy a commodity level set that brings me less enjoyment. Please remember that a television, especially a large screen set, is a -luxury- purchase, and therefore your enjoyment of it may reside in it's functionality, from a minimalist standpoint, but I cannot see any objective reason for buying a luxury item (the value of which is directly tied to your level of enjoyment) that does not promise longevity of said luxury.
I am reviewing the purchase of an AT&T tilt phone. Why? Because it represents a variety of future proofing features(Win Mobile6,32 GB SD card ability, 802.11 b/g, etc), coupled with functionality and luxury desired now.
Perhaps when we trounce on others for not being "frugal" we should maybe review just who is actually being frugal in the long term.
1080i is technically inferior. I don't like buying technically inferior in my luxury items.
Pathetic attack. Try using reasoning, and a small, teeny tiny bit of research. I haven't even looked, and will place my money on no less than 6 releases in one or both formats. DVD is anything but a spectacular picture quality. I suppose people willing to play their online games at 512x384 would enjoy DVD picture quality, or people that have never seen a movie in HD on a high quality setup. In support of your statement, however, I am willing to bet that people who have never had a job, or are in a 3rd world country are very likely to agree that no movies are available to them in HD or Blue Ray. I am also willing to bet that since their Emerson VHS deck doesn't play any disc format on their 19 inch daewoo televison. they don't care. So which is it for you: trailer park in the desert, or a hut in the Sudan? Quit trolling, and contribute.
1080i is 60 HALF frames per second. 1080p is 60 FULL frames, and output devices are now capable (see Sony Bravia XBR line) of producing 1080p in double rates, meaning 120 frames per second. 60 fields per second is not the same as 60 frames, and if you are stating that 1080p uses the same amount of data as a source, then you are assuming that the format uses the same data rates (possible, I have not researched), and further presuming that there is no discernible difference between 30, 60, and 120 frames per second. Subjectively, this is possible, but very unlikely. If the only difference in 1080p and 1080i were outputted frame rates, then some ingenius manufacturer would be selling 1080p sets at 1080i prices, within say $20 to cover electronics costs. If I am incorrect in my understanding, then please enlighten me in exactly how interlaced and progressive are the same quality/quantity of base data.
As an audiophile that read High Fidelity magazine during the time frame of the digital "revolution", I will try to add something useful to all this. Sampling highly complex audio waveforms, to convert to a digital medium will involve some loss. Compression, digitally, or analog, involves dynamic range loss. This may actually be required in some music, to prevent clipping, or a total loss of the quieter passages. So both sampling and compression become necessary evils in a "digital" age. The sampling level, and level/TYPE of compression are the determinants for overall quality. Unless you listen to synth/pop music, in which case differences are usually minimal, as the source material lacks the subtle nuances, and wider dynamic range inherent in non-synthesized music. Please bear in mind that the following, as well as the preceding are opinions and information subjective in nature, but largely true from an engineering and audiophile perspective. In the 80's I remember reading up on the Compact Disc format. While 44,100 samples per second, with 65,535 levels of volume may sound like a lot, even as a teen ager, I was unimpressed. Audiophiles were pushing for 96 Kilobit sampling rates, to ensure a more accurate representation of the analog wave form. Many wanted greater bit depth as well, since inaccuracies in digital reproduction would be buried under the noise floor. What we got, as consumers, was the aforementioned 44.1KHz, 16 bit sampling. The best that we could do was use strong "smoothing" in the analog output stages, and try to hide the "edginess" many complained of in the sound. Producers would do a digital recording, analog, mixdown, and drop it to the digital medium, at the end. This method, while seemingly over complicating things, would typically soften the sound somewhat on less expensive gear. High end gear would use extremely expensive analog output stages, or qould pass the signal to a dedicated D/A converter. Overall, I have never been happy with the CD medium for critical listening, especially recordings involving the female voice, or very complex high frequency content with wide dynamic range. Think of "unplugged" sessions, or orchestral recordings, when picturing examples. fiddy Cent is not affected by the CD format's limitations..... So where does that leave guys like me? In an age when kids are being taught that 128 kilobit data rates for MP3 is "CD quality, and simple, convenient formats, and lossy compression are fully acceptable, I am apparently a minority. MP3 is based on removing "data" that is expected to not be perceived. This removal is applied in varying degrees, depending upon desired data rate, or a variable rate, with an upper limit. I find the trend towards acceptable loss, in an already compromising medium, to be anything else but acceptable. It only takes one listening session of any preferred music on CD format, with a comparison to MP3 encoding at 320 kilobits data rate, to see a huge difference. At 128 kilobit data rates, it gets plain embarrassing. All of this assumes at least mid range equipment. If you are comparing the two digital formats on a $200 rack system from Wal- Mart, or on your PC speaker setup, it may not show the huge disparity in quality. All this being said, I hate the current CD format, and long for "albums to come out on DVD, with 96KHz or higher sampling, and 24/32 bit depth. While I have a custom D/A converter (PS Audio), and use B&W speakers, my total investment is WELL under $5000 for all of my gear. Perhaps when I cannot detect edginess or overall "grittiness" in the widely varying music I listen to, I will be happier with digital formats at the consumer level. I will never like the hack job that MP3 does to music. My opinion. YMMV. Some restrictions may apply. See your doctor if this post causes an erection lasting longer than four hours.
While what you say is likely true, may I ask if you have looked into the FireGL line of cards, or perhaps a fast CPU/ large mem card, and emulation? I do not know about FireGL emulation, but Some NV cards have historically been able to load Quadro drivers using Rivatuner to emulate the quadro's bits in identifier, or some such. I would expect it to be slower, but CPUs are at quad core and counting, so emulation may be viable, depending upon if it still works.
While what you say is likely true, may I ask if you have looked into the FireGL line of cards, or perhaps a fast CPU/ large mem card, and emulation? I do not know about FireGL emulation, but Some NV cards have historically been able to load Quadro drivers using Rivatuner to emulate the quadro's bits in identifier, or some such. I would expect it to be slower, but CPUs are at quad core and counting, so emulation may be viable, depending upon if it still works.
Except there is an "event" when you push the needle to make up time. Below that, you have an exceptionally valid point. That point is related, I am sure to many accidents involving "white line fever", or general road fatigue. Much like any decision involving risks, you make an informed decision, and shore up any deficiencies, or it can be a bad decision.
Since Indy cars can and do haul down from 200MPH, I am thinking your limit -might- be related to pavement type, tire material, weather conditions, tire width, and brake system design. Not many people I know will go over 100 MPH on anything not equipped to do it. If you don't KNOW what your safety margin is, or fail to abide by it, then you've made a bad decision. Bad decisions kill, not speed.
I'd say he was spot- on. If YOU personally lack the reaction time visual acuity, and depth perception to drive at speed, in little to no traffic, then, by all means, don't. If YOUR vehicle lacks proper tires and brakes, don't. If your vehicle isn't up on a rack every 2000 miles, or if your alignment is of the slightest bit, DON'T. If you are driving a vehicle not suited for post 100 MPH speeds, or if weather is inclement, or you can't focus 100% of your attention, then for GOD'S SAKES, DON'T speed. If there is moderate to heavy traffic, or if you are not on a limited access roadway..... you guessed it.... don't speed. Or should we all call in those police officers that routinely weave through traffic at 80 to 100, not signalling, with no lights, or sirens, too? I'm not judging anyone here. I think it is ridiculous to place someone with bald tires, a cigarette in their hand, driving a 98 honda with worn brakes in the same category as someone driving a modern, well maintained vehicle, with new aftermarket tires, and brakes. The second person having the presence of mind to NOT smoke while driving. Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do. Sometimes speed, due to weather, or traffic, etc is a bad decision. The fact remains that driver error, not speed, is the root cause of nearly ALL accidents.
I responded to reaction time. I do not need adrenaline to respond in under 1/4 second. Also, adrenaline rush is only kicking in at heightened speeds, so if you are not DOING 120 MPH (or whatever speed induces a rush for you), the rush itself isn't there. I routinely drive 70 to 80 MPH, so around 120, heightening occurs. I never defended an idiot running on no sleep. I am not going to RTFA, as i've already done a trip of over 800 miles in less than 10 hours. We had 3 people. the rotation was sleep/drive/lookout. We took care to ensure that we were not going to be sluggish in response. The next time you are doing 65 MPH in your holier than thou state of mind, in your under-maintained car, or worse, SUV, and you answer that cell call, eat that food, or drink that drink (non alcoholic assumed), realize how hypocritical you are being, as you are posing JUST as much threat as someone in less traffic, doing 40 over your speed. If I have to argue that, then I will wait for YOU to gain some experience. And yes, once the brakes are applied, that M5 will likely stop in under 200 feet. I never assumed there was no delay in reacting to a need for stop. Seeing as the vast majority of accidents occur at below insane speeds, I am standing by my statement: Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do. Bad decisions like 120 in traffic. Bad decisions like drinking your mocha in traffic. Bad decisions like working 14 hours straight, then driving home tired, on wet pavement. While speed may enhance damage done, removing the driver-side elements from the equation greatly reduces the likelihood of an accident. I have never had an accident at speed. Nor has anyone i've known that does drive fast on occasion. Perhaps it is best that idiots (apparently like the guy in the article) that drive impaired, or tools ( like any of us that smoke/drink/eat/do makeup while driving) that can't focus on the task at hand, NOT drive fast. Bad decisions.
Would this be your great grandfather's human reaction time? I am curious, as any time that I have done 120 plus MPH, my reaction time was affected by adrenaline, and my only focus was potential targets, and avoidance of them. Using your logic, All those first-person shooters I play should be totally similar in play, whether the latency is 10 ms or 100 ms. Even a butter smooth 100ms can be distractingly painful after playing in a 10 ms environ. With near 1 second reaction times, 90ms would be an intangible seeming amount of slop time. I have seldom played a shooter that gave you a full half second to cogitate on targets. You have less than 1/2 second to begin defensive maneuvers, identify the target as friend or foe, and fire, assist, or flee. On the highway, you are in one mode: Avoid everything. Assuming dry pavement, That M5 likely would stop from 100 MPH in in under 200 feet. Less, if the vehicle is fully optimized for dry-only pavement. Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do.
The original Half-Life can no longer authenticate to WON. This makes my $500 investment worth less than 10 coasters, as CDs have a hole in the middle. CD keys, and remote authentication, especially, are irritating. CD key, remote authentication via name and password, along with required E-mail address, PLUS various disk copy protections is just too damned much effort. I will just download the warez versions. 90% of the games out now are like ditzy blonde trophy wives: great to look at, and show off to your friends, but in the end, not much better than masturbating.
No pricing info. I know better than to believe there is ANY kind of bargain here. At least the company in the article lists the price of their product.
I have had experience with several single and dual processor servers and workstations, of various speeds and scsi/ide configurations. Two things were held in commom for all of them: 1) They all had some iteration of the 3C905B ethernet card in them. 2) They were all connected to Cisco 29i00 series switches that had to be set up at full duplex/100Mbit for both card AND switch to not fall back to half duplex. Personally, I get better performance on a 10Mbit full duplex link than on a 100 Mbit half duplex.....
Actually, the difference is in dynamic range, and loss of low-level sounds during louder passages. At it's worst, compression gives a "radio" effect of a single vocalist having almost the exact same loudness as when the band kicks in with him, which is how compression is designed to work at an extreme... I have always disliked compression schemes that involved losses. Those losses are sometimes small or not readily noticed.
Incorrect. I worked at the HelpDesk of G.E. in Appliance Park, Kentucky, their central IT and server location, and different happened for me. I was on a COMMON mapped drive, provided(with FULL read and write permissions) for everyone in buuilding 4(IT), by default. The server was BLDG4USERS1. the pccommon directory is essentially a repository for temporary items from users of the system. Anything can be read or deleted by anyone. In this mapped drive, I found a folder, Jenne, which contained various items. Among these (yes I was on lunch, and had time) were router configurations, switch configs, and even weak encrypted enable passwords. When I approached the person I believe owned the folder (a GE network support person), he didn't seem concerned or alarmed. He did, however thank me. Since we were both in the break area (I know I was on break), I went on to divulge that I had also noticed his social security number in an expense report, apparently pre- filled, to expedite his filing of such reports. This took him by surprise, and he gave me an apparent sincere thanks. I had already approached my immediate supervisor about notifying him, but he had no solution, and no interest in doing so. I did not want to carry this clear up the chain of command, because, as a creative and enthusiastic person, I had made enough waves trying to get a Cisco CCNA/NP lab up and running. I lost my job. I was 'untrustworthy'. There are no hidden facts, i'm not slanting the story, and I can even see how snooping into a personal DRIVE could be real bad. This was a PUBLIC drive. I could've deleted his whole folder....