I'm sorry, I just don't see how what I said was flame bait. Somebody asked why they were using Real Audio instead of MP3, and my answer was the streaming capabilities of Real. If it sounded like I was saying Real was better than MP3 or OGG, then I apologize for not being clearer in what I was saying.
Let me clarify my point: Real is a dedicated server/streaming solution. It's made by a company that is dedicated to providing that support. Ogg or MP3 is probably superior, but when you make a business decision, the company you're getting it from is a big consideration.
Just to be clear, I'm not sure if I can get a Treo with AT&T or not. I have made 0 inquiries about it. I haven't tried to because a long time ago I tried to go from Sprint to AT&T. Result? I had to buy a new phone from AT&T. Fortunately, I didn't mind at the time because the Sprint phone I had was crap. But this basically stuck the idea in my mind that if I don't get the phone through AT&T, I won't be able to use it.
The Treo's I've seen at Best Buy had 'Voice Stream' marked all around them. So I just shrugged and decided to wait. I really don't want to switch from AT&T, but I would like to get a PDA phone in the next 6 months or so.
Curious, though: Are there any AT&T customers with a Palm based phone?
"what if all the hubbaloo about connecting people via the Internet makes us less likely to like each other?"
Hmm. I used to spend waaaay too much free time on IRC. I visited austnet a lot and made quite a few friends. I've even been to Australia and met quite a few of the people I useta talk to.
That comment in the heading of this article kind of surprised me. I found the internet to be a better way to find out more about people. I was able to ask people questions on IRC that I just couldn't ask in real life. Persoanlly I think that lead to better understanding and to stronger friendships.
But you know, I think the NYT was talking about the media. The media has a way of rubbing people the wrong way. When I was in Australia, it was during Clinton's impeachment. Oh my... I could not get away from that, even in Austrlia! I could certainly imagine nobody thinking very highly of us when our president's in the news for being human, but there's missiles being fired in the middle east. That did get a little coverage, but not a whole lot.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think people will know each other better when talking 1 on 1, but you get the media involved, and I think their twisted values will taint everybody's opinions.
I think he had a valid point. This article really does get filed under 'Duh'. There's a difference between having a negative opinion and trying to be offensive.
Heh, I figured I'd get either funny or off-topic, wasn't expecting to get 'informative' points.
I honestly meant that as a joke. Seems like every time an article like this shows up on Slashdot, there's always somebody ready to say "whats the point?"
You are absolutely right. There are practical limits, though. You can only take the bits down so low before you have to contain the disk.
I think they sped up the CD's waaaay too much, though. Imagine if the disk flew apart inside your computer? It'd take out the CD-ROM. Fortunately, it's isolated. Although if that happened in my GameCube I'd be upset.
At this point I say: make better use of the bits on the CD.
"If I remember right, it seems like IBM was experimenting with trying to store data in some kind of cube using lasers."
You mean holographic memory? I remember that too... Curious what they could do with it today. A hologram holds a TON of data. A 2-d plane holds a number of images, just depends on the angle you're looking at it with.
If we're talking about the same thing, that's not exactly waht I'm talking about. (Although it is very interesting!) I was just thinking there's a way do that on a flat card with no moving parts.
I need to develop the idea more, though. Somebody in an earlier post illustrated some problems with it. Heh.
I got to thinking about the problems associated with mechanical drives, and it occured to me that there may be an alternative method that has no moving parts. Ever read about how your monitor works?
The way I understand it, a burst of energy (Proton?) is fired from a gun and electro-magentically guided to hit a phosphor on the screen, causing it to light up. The electro-magentic fields are timed to cause the energy to scan across the screen so fast your brain can't see the flicker.
Imagine if somebody invented a card that worked like that. It'd look like a credit card with a grid like surface on it. You side it in to a reader, and it uses a similar technique to set bits on the surface of the card. Then another beam is used to read data back off of it.
If this is possible, the advantage to it is that there are no moving parts, so it could easily last for years. If it's a read only medium like CD, then it is *not* succeptable to scratches or wear and tear.
What's the point? CD's are fast enough. I could get by with a 2X CD ROM, all I have to do is wait longer for the data!
Okay, sorry about that. I just wanted to do the obligatory "There's no practical value with this information" post so that I could get a +1 Informative.
I realize there are technical hurdles with this idea, but I think they are possible to overcome: use varying luminosity bits.
Right now what they use is On-Reflective Off-Non Reflective. If the laser was able to detect that some of the bits were at 50% reflectivity, then you'd have 2 bits of data for every bit of reflectivity on the surface.
If one were to get fancier, they could use multi-colored bits. Using 2 lasers instead of one, then one laser would read a different value than the other depending on how the surface reacted to the light. They may already be doing that today with DVD's, I'm not really sure. It's been a while since I read up on it.
I guess the real point to what I'm saying is that increasing the density of the data and the spin of the disk aren't the only two options.
I'm really hoping Mira (from MS) turns out like I imagine it will. I've been aching for a 'hand link' I can use for scheduling tv shows.
I've been tinkering with the idea of using a Pocket PC + 802.11 and a custom VB app to talk to my computers. I wanted to do things like set an alarm, record a show, have my TV automatically turn on to CNN at 7am, etc.
Building on this idea, I wanted to turn a spare computer into a 'voice recognition box'. MS has a free Speech SDK you can download and play with. I so loved the idea of saying 'Quantum Leap' and have my TV/Monitor start playing the next episode I haven't watched yet.:)
Hmm well okay, I kind of figured people'd instantly know what I'm talking about. Turning your head causes your eyes to re-focus. If you're going back and forth from TV to PC, it sucks. It's not fun for the neck and it's not fun for the eyes.
"Seriously, I just don't think the peace of mind is worth the hassle of the portable phone."
I have one instead of a landline. It's kind of neat when:
- You can call anywhere in the country without extra cost (AT&T One-Rate)
- Your phone number travels with you
- Your phone number MOVES with you. (i've moved 3 times in the last 2 years, same #. All I had to change was my mailing address.)
- You get beeped when you get a voice mail.
I also use it occasionally for email. I bought a little keyboard doodad for it. Works great when my computer's down, but I'd never use it in lieu of my computer.
I forgot to mention one of the other benefits of my setup at home: travelling.
When I went to Siggraph last year, I dumped a bunch of shows I hadn't watched yet to my laptop and took off to LA. While I was there, the trade-show just wiped me out every night. I really wasn't up to floating around town looking for something exciting to do. Instead I laid in bed watching shows I *wanted to watch* on my laptop.
That's pretty cool considering that every time I stay in a hotel, there's never anything interesting on TV.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't HTTP streaming mean that if you fall under the required bitrate that you'll get broken up music?
If so, does M3u have server support for changing bitrates during a change in net conditions?
I'm sorry, I just don't see how what I said was flame bait. Somebody asked why they were using Real Audio instead of MP3, and my answer was the streaming capabilities of Real. If it sounded like I was saying Real was better than MP3 or OGG, then I apologize for not being clearer in what I was saying.
Let me clarify my point: Real is a dedicated server/streaming solution. It's made by a company that is dedicated to providing that support. Ogg or MP3 is probably superior, but when you make a business decision, the company you're getting it from is a big consideration.
"Um, have you ever been to mp3.com [mp3.com]?"
Um, did you catch my comment where I said "but consider that Real is a big player in this space."?
Probably because you can start listening nearly instantly, vs. waiting for the whole file to download first.
Also, Real has some nice streaming features. They can dynamically change the bitrate of the audio depending on your ability to download it.
I have no doubt that MP3 or OGG could be used to do the same thing, but consider that Real is a big player in this space.
Just to be clear, I'm not sure if I can get a Treo with AT&T or not. I have made 0 inquiries about it. I haven't tried to because a long time ago I tried to go from Sprint to AT&T. Result? I had to buy a new phone from AT&T. Fortunately, I didn't mind at the time because the Sprint phone I had was crap. But this basically stuck the idea in my mind that if I don't get the phone through AT&T, I won't be able to use it.
The Treo's I've seen at Best Buy had 'Voice Stream' marked all around them. So I just shrugged and decided to wait. I really don't want to switch from AT&T, but I would like to get a PDA phone in the next 6 months or so.
Curious, though: Are there any AT&T customers with a Palm based phone?
"what if all the hubbaloo about connecting people via the Internet makes us less likely to like each other?"
Hmm. I used to spend waaaay too much free time on IRC. I visited austnet a lot and made quite a few friends. I've even been to Australia and met quite a few of the people I useta talk to.
That comment in the heading of this article kind of surprised me. I found the internet to be a better way to find out more about people. I was able to ask people questions on IRC that I just couldn't ask in real life. Persoanlly I think that lead to better understanding and to stronger friendships.
But you know, I think the NYT was talking about the media. The media has a way of rubbing people the wrong way. When I was in Australia, it was during Clinton's impeachment. Oh my... I could not get away from that, even in Austrlia! I could certainly imagine nobody thinking very highly of us when our president's in the news for being human, but there's missiles being fired in the middle east. That did get a little coverage, but not a whole lot.
I guess what I'm saying is that I think people will know each other better when talking 1 on 1, but you get the media involved, and I think their twisted values will taint everybody's opinions.
I think he had a valid point. This article really does get filed under 'Duh'. There's a difference between having a negative opinion and trying to be offensive.
Frankly, I agree with him.
Somebody modded the parent post here down as off-topic. Would a moderator please re-read the post?
a.) It was on topic
b.) It was funny
Q: What's the best way to speed up your connection?
A: Run less data through it.
I can write an article about this if Slashdot is interested.
Funny thing is I was actually thinking that, and then 'corrected' myself.
I blame lack of sleep!
HEh! ya got the Mst3k reference!
Now im off to build a helmet with an airbag...
Ah, so I'm right, it will work! hehe
Lol. Thanks man, glad to know that it's been done. Now we need drives with more than one laser.
Heh, I figured I'd get either funny or off-topic, wasn't expecting to get 'informative' points.
:) *Watches his Karma roller-coaster*
I honestly meant that as a joke. Seems like every time an article like this shows up on Slashdot, there's always somebody ready to say "whats the point?"
Oh well.
You are absolutely right. There are practical limits, though. You can only take the bits down so low before you have to contain the disk.
I think they sped up the CD's waaaay too much, though. Imagine if the disk flew apart inside your computer? It'd take out the CD-ROM. Fortunately, it's isolated. Although if that happened in my GameCube I'd be upset.
At this point I say: make better use of the bits on the CD.
"If I remember right, it seems like IBM was experimenting with trying to store data in some kind of cube using lasers."
You mean holographic memory? I remember that too... Curious what they could do with it today. A hologram holds a TON of data. A 2-d plane holds a number of images, just depends on the angle you're looking at it with.
If we're talking about the same thing, that's not exactly waht I'm talking about. (Although it is very interesting!) I was just thinking there's a way do that on a flat card with no moving parts.
I need to develop the idea more, though. Somebody in an earlier post illustrated some problems with it. Heh.
I got to thinking about the problems associated with mechanical drives, and it occured to me that there may be an alternative method that has no moving parts. Ever read about how your monitor works?
The way I understand it, a burst of energy (Proton?) is fired from a gun and electro-magentically guided to hit a phosphor on the screen, causing it to light up. The electro-magentic fields are timed to cause the energy to scan across the screen so fast your brain can't see the flicker.
Imagine if somebody invented a card that worked like that. It'd look like a credit card with a grid like surface on it. You side it in to a reader, and it uses a similar technique to set bits on the surface of the card. Then another beam is used to read data back off of it.
If this is possible, the advantage to it is that there are no moving parts, so it could easily last for years. If it's a read only medium like CD, then it is *not* succeptable to scratches or wear and tear.
Whatcha think, sirs?
What's the point? CD's are fast enough. I could get by with a 2X CD ROM, all I have to do is wait longer for the data!
Okay, sorry about that. I just wanted to do the obligatory "There's no practical value with this information" post so that I could get a +1 Informative.
I realize there are technical hurdles with this idea, but I think they are possible to overcome: use varying luminosity bits.
Right now what they use is On-Reflective Off-Non Reflective. If the laser was able to detect that some of the bits were at 50% reflectivity, then you'd have 2 bits of data for every bit of reflectivity on the surface.
If one were to get fancier, they could use multi-colored bits. Using 2 lasers instead of one, then one laser would read a different value than the other depending on how the surface reacted to the light. They may already be doing that today with DVD's, I'm not really sure. It's been a while since I read up on it.
I guess the real point to what I'm saying is that increasing the density of the data and the spin of the disk aren't the only two options.
"What's the point? I can do the same thing if I just do more work." -- that's what I hear when people question things like this.
Careful, you might find yourself watching the Happy Little Elves....
I just wanted to thank you for posting that. :) The monkeygadget.com site's really cool!
What's an LIRC remote? *Curious*
:)
I'm really hoping Mira (from MS) turns out like I imagine it will. I've been aching for a 'hand link' I can use for scheduling tv shows.
I've been tinkering with the idea of using a Pocket PC + 802.11 and a custom VB app to talk to my computers. I wanted to do things like set an alarm, record a show, have my TV automatically turn on to CNN at 7am, etc.
Building on this idea, I wanted to turn a spare computer into a 'voice recognition box'. MS has a free Speech SDK you can download and play with. I so loved the idea of saying 'Quantum Leap' and have my TV/Monitor start playing the next episode I haven't watched yet.
Hmm well okay, I kind of figured people'd instantly know what I'm talking about. Turning your head causes your eyes to re-focus. If you're going back and forth from TV to PC, it sucks. It's not fun for the neck and it's not fun for the eyes.
It's not a matter of laziness.
"Seriously, I just don't think the peace of mind is worth the hassle of the portable phone."
I have one instead of a landline. It's kind of neat when:
- You can call anywhere in the country without extra cost (AT&T One-Rate)
- Your phone number travels with you
- Your phone number MOVES with you. (i've moved 3 times in the last 2 years, same #. All I had to change was my mailing address.)
- You get beeped when you get a voice mail.
I also use it occasionally for email. I bought a little keyboard doodad for it. Works great when my computer's down, but I'd never use it in lieu of my computer.
I forgot to mention one of the other benefits of my setup at home: travelling.
When I went to Siggraph last year, I dumped a bunch of shows I hadn't watched yet to my laptop and took off to LA. While I was there, the trade-show just wiped me out every night. I really wasn't up to floating around town looking for something exciting to do. Instead I laid in bed watching shows I *wanted to watch* on my laptop.
That's pretty cool considering that every time I stay in a hotel, there's never anything interesting on TV.