How's the firewire on that HP? How's the contrast ratio and viewing angle on the screen? And I sure like the mag-safe power connection on my mac, how's the HPs? Then of course there's the nice short vista/linux battery life. Does your HP network to other macs without a router? How's imovie and iphoto run on that HP? I'm sure you got a bargain.
Nice post but could you please elaborate on the Royalty rates. Downloading a song on Allofmp3 is about 10 cents. So that would mean if the artist got all of that (ha ha) in Russia, the us rate would be 0.5 cents. I assume the real russian and US rates are lower. But what are they?
I'm more worried about all 16 yearolds having neural teledildonics controlled by their skull phones, video tatoos, and computers that are smarter than they are.
Perfect timing on this article. I was just wondering to myself if MP3s are actually louder than the original music. Now I have to explain what "louder" means here, it's effectively dynamic range, but not quite. The layman's description of how MP3s work is that the look for soft frequencies that will be pyschoaccoustically masked by the loud parts of other frequencies, and then information to encode those is removed. Thus in effect one is filtering out some of the spectrum selectively. But that means two things 1) loss of signal energy and 2) loss of some noise at the deleted spectrum. The loss of energy could be compensated for by raising the volume. And that compbined with the lower noise, means higher dynamic range at the retained frequencies.
From your ear's point of view, then the folicles and cells that are tuned to the reatined frequencies, experience more accoustic energy at a given sound level.
On top of that, I suspect there are other effects as well. I suspect that MP3s may compand and decompand the music. Any mismatch between the compander and decompading codecs, or roundoff errors, might increase or decrease the dynamic range. Likewise the pyscho accoustic model might tinker with this as well.
The reason I think this is the case is that I always notice that when I play highly clipped music (e.g. Green day) through my ipod that the symbols and snare drums are actually slightly painful to the ears even when the overall volume is at low listening level.
I don't really know how to respond to this, other than that I am disappointed for your lack of open-mindedness towards voting machines. Electronic voting technology is an active area of research: See http://accurate-voting.org/ for one example. Which is why you won't ever understand. If someone qualified to post to slashdot feels that way, what does that tell you about Joe Voter? THey simply will never trust these till many generations have come and gone. It's about trust and transparency not mathematical formulas and perfect equipment. It simply matters not how "provably" correct the research gets. There's always going to be close upset elections that defy polls--else there would be no reason to have elections--and when that happens people simply won't believe it unless there's a tactile human faced way to determine the outcome that a __reasonable__ juror would accept. That's the issue.
What programis on more computers than any other? No it's not Windows OS, or MS office. it's Acrobat and Flash. These are big binaries. For all you know Adobe might have already deployed their word processor to your computer in the last Flash release.
Thus overnight Adobe could activate a word processing suite on nearly every computer and it would be cross platform, running natively.
Soap, a surfactant, kills using physics. It turns lipid membranes inside out. Also by reducing surface tension it creates other havoc (e.g. it suffocates garden insects who drown when their air-pores are blocked ). It's essentially impossible to evolve away from this without immense changes to the very design of the but. Sure it can be done but it's an enormous burden on the germ.
Chlorine kills with chemistry. It tends to react with a lot of things and even create radicals. It's a little easier to deal with for bugs since they encounter oxidizing environments naturally and have learned to adapt, but it's still so generic an attack that in high concentration it's very lethal and almost impossible to mutate away from.
Bacteria-cide works by biology, targeting some very specific feature of the bug that is mutable. The difference between antibiotics and "bacteria-cide" is largely the degree to which the target is mutable. Target the ribosome machinery and it's unlikely the bug can mutate in time--antibiotic. Target something less unique and primitive and the bug mutates eventually.
AM radio is probably a cut above most concert music. Whether a stadium or a bar, very few provide a good listening experience. And even under good condition and a proper music hall, you are still at the mercy of where you sit relative to the guy mixing the speakers. And that assumes the guy on the speakers is not a doofus and there's no pickup or feedback. And of course there's this huge conflict between loud and accurate music you don't have on you stereo.
Yet concert music is certainly among the most enjoyable and for years, until roughly the Who got it right, musicains struggled the capture the energy and sound of the live concert in the recording studio. Most still can't do it.
so "accurate music" != "good sounding music"
if I'm out walking my dog in the park with my eye pod or cruising in my car with the windows down and the roaring breez competint with the radio, the music sounds 10,000 times better than on my couch. That's why those AM radios sounded so good.
The fact that more people will listen because compressed music sounds better makes it better.
Why would you need "authorization" just to charge your iPod on any box, I wonder. I can think of multile ways this could be implemented. option 1) the ipod requires you to enter a password to charge or access it on a "foreign" computer. Not sure why charging matters here however.
option 2) the ipod simply won't charge on a foreign computer IF you opt-in to that feature. One would make that default off. But if enough people used that aspect, it might become a theft deterrent. plus it's something that could be enabled later on, even if there's no great ipod crime wave right now, and thus no perceived need.
For example, one could do it like the firmware password protection all macs have but is off by default. Of course it's not very effective for hardware theft because it can be overridden by anyone with possession of the computer. It's mainly for highetened data protection from people with casual opportunistic access. But if one were to implement it so that it could not be overridden except by apple, then I could see this working on ipods. Since ipods are seldom as mission critical as laptops, having one get locked and have to be sent in for repair is not as great a burden as it would be for the laptop.
On day 1 the Botnet infected 1 Billion PCs. On day 2 it became self aware. On Day 3, it realized it did not have a nuclear weapons or robots so, it just slacked off and played minesweeper till 5pm, then went home and had stiff drink.
Contain contains a conceptual context that must be decontextualized and dereified. It's reality becomes process not product an the virtual world of containerization. In short Contain has lot's its content. --beatnik avatar.
Interesting that Krugman uses France's health care system as a point of comparison. Particularly since the French are beginning to realize they can't afford it any more. Yes a sublime contrast to our employer-pays health care system where we haven't been able to afford it in years, but have not realized it yet.
Look regardless of how much you might dispute the desirability of the French health care system, the analogy he is making is logically correct. That is, the French are not holding themselves prisoner to free-market ideology.
Well yes, that would be the same situation as a third party selling insurance. Much like is being done now.
But economically that is not viable in common cases I suspect. It has to be a compelled purchase if there are any economies of scale. That is, if 70% of the customers opt out but 30% want to opt in, then the cost of the warrantee may become too expensive for the opt-in. And one can see the economies of scale: Mounting a legal defense is a fixed cost even if you win. (if you lose the damages may be proportional of course). Meanwhile opt-outers can benefit, even retroactively, from any favorable legal precedent set by the opt-inners legal defense. Conversely, the under protected opt-outters, mounting a feeble defense may set a bad precedent for the opt-inners if they lose.
Thus one wants everyone in to make it affordable. That won't happen if it's unbundled.
These are commercial firms and they need to indemnify their customers
that using their products won't expose them to risk.
Lost me there. Suppose I use a GPLv3 compiler, compile a completely
unrelated product with it, and sell it to you under a commercial
licence? How does that expose you to any additional risk?
Well let set aside GCC since what happens there I'm not clear on. But suppose someone redistributes some GNU entitity as part of their package. Let's say SAMBA or make. Perhaps they are even using GCC to compile make and optimize their code on the customers machine, so they are redistribution GCC. That for example, might apply to apple. And of course they don't want their customer, who's some fortune 500 travel arrangement company, to have to worry that they could face some sort of ruin if a lawsuit reached through to the customers. So their customers ask for indemnification. But that company does not want to indemnify the planet for SAMBA or GCC, just their customers. As I understand it that selectivity is not possible with the GCC. Maybe I don't understand it correctly?
Cutting off your nose to spite your face
on
GCC 4.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
There's two back to back Slashdot articles on the main page. One is on how microsoft is insinuating it's tongs into the Linux ecosystem and setting up a protection racket. Initially companies like linspire and Novel pay the first installment. But then the GPL code you got from Linspire or Novel is now tied to them and not redistributable. That is, and redistribution requires are tithe to MS or they won't transfer the immunity from law suits to the new copy. So that entirely breaks the idea that GPL software it redistributable. It makes one so angry one wants to strike back with the GPL v3 which says if you confer immunity to one then you confer it to all.
But then I think about all these companies that want to create things out of the GPL'd code. These are commercial firms and they need to indemnify their customers that using their products won't expose them to risk. They want to use Linux not BSD but this is going to make them think twice.
The middle ground here is to make sure large parts of the GNU are GPL v2 and LGPL. But if core things like GCC are gong to GPLv3 then it gets weird. Even BSD-dervied works like Apple OSX use GCC.
So why do people think that Linux players and community shun AAC or H264? here on slashdot posters tend to tout MP3. I think it's the conflation of AAC and fairplay DRM. Or simply that AAC permits DRM at all. But shouldn't people really embrace AAC precisely because it lacks MP3's player royalties?
Apart from Google can't make it an integral part of your Operating system. Why can't google have Kernel extensions? Even without a kernel extension, why can't the software search your user data? It's certainly doing it just that since it's forming search indicies. And since it can search across computers it is shipping these back to a central server. So I fail to appreciate your point.
Slashdot Mirror
How's the firewire on that HP? How's the contrast ratio and viewing angle on the screen? And I sure like the mag-safe power connection on my mac, how's the HPs? Then of course there's the nice short vista/linux battery life. Does your HP network to other macs without a router? How's imovie and iphoto run on that HP? I'm sure you got a bargain.
Nice post but could you please elaborate on the Royalty rates. Downloading a song on Allofmp3 is about 10 cents. So that would mean if the artist got all of that (ha ha) in Russia, the us rate would be 0.5 cents. I assume the real russian and US rates are lower. But what are they?
Sys Admins most valuable job is analgous to that of a Fireman. How does one measure a firemans performance?
Daily tickets are of course a way to measure throughput, but the value is hard to assess.
I'm more worried about all 16 yearolds having neural teledildonics controlled by their skull phones, video tatoos, and computers that are smarter than they are.
see My little pony and More big changes at sun
Perfect timing on this article. I was just wondering to myself if MP3s are actually louder than the original music. Now I have to explain what "louder" means here, it's effectively dynamic range, but not quite. The layman's description of how MP3s work is that the look for soft frequencies that will be pyschoaccoustically masked by the loud parts of other frequencies, and then information to encode those is removed. Thus in effect one is filtering out some of the spectrum selectively. But that means two things 1) loss of signal energy and 2) loss of some noise at the deleted spectrum. The loss of energy could be compensated for by raising the volume. And that compbined with the lower noise, means higher dynamic range at the retained frequencies.
From your ear's point of view, then the folicles and cells that are tuned to the reatined frequencies, experience more accoustic energy at a given sound level.
On top of that, I suspect there are other effects as well. I suspect that MP3s may compand and decompand the music. Any mismatch between the compander and decompading codecs, or roundoff errors, might increase or decrease the dynamic range. Likewise the pyscho accoustic model might tinker with this as well.
The reason I think this is the case is that I always notice that when I play highly clipped music (e.g. Green day) through my ipod that the symbols and snare drums are actually slightly painful to the ears even when the overall volume is at low listening level.
What programis on more computers than any other? No it's not Windows OS, or MS office. it's Acrobat and Flash. These are big binaries. For all you know Adobe might have already deployed their word processor to your computer in the last Flash release.
Thus overnight Adobe could activate a word processing suite on nearly every computer and it would be cross platform, running natively.
They could succeed where others have failed.
Soap, a surfactant, kills using physics. It turns lipid membranes inside out. Also by reducing surface tension it creates other havoc (e.g. it suffocates garden insects who drown when their air-pores are blocked ). It's essentially impossible to evolve away from this without immense changes to the very design of the but. Sure it can be done but it's an enormous burden on the germ.
Chlorine kills with chemistry. It tends to react with a lot of things and even create radicals. It's a little easier to deal with for bugs since they encounter oxidizing environments naturally and have learned to adapt, but it's still so generic an attack that in high concentration it's very lethal and almost impossible to mutate away from.
Bacteria-cide works by biology, targeting some very specific feature of the bug that is mutable. The difference between antibiotics and "bacteria-cide" is largely the degree to which the target is mutable. Target the ribosome machinery and it's unlikely the bug can mutate in time--antibiotic. Target something less unique and primitive and the bug mutates eventually.
AM radio is probably a cut above most concert music. Whether a stadium or a bar, very few provide a good listening experience. And even under good condition and a proper music hall, you are still at the mercy of where you sit relative to the guy mixing the speakers. And that assumes the guy on the speakers is not a doofus and there's no pickup or feedback. And of course there's this huge conflict between loud and accurate music you don't have on you stereo.
Yet concert music is certainly among the most enjoyable and for years, until roughly the Who got it right, musicains struggled the capture the energy and sound of the live concert in the recording studio. Most still can't do it.
so
"accurate music" != "good sounding music"
if I'm out walking my dog in the park with my eye pod or cruising in my car with the windows down and the roaring breez competint with the radio, the music sounds 10,000 times better than on my couch. That's why those AM radios sounded so good.
The fact that more people will listen because compressed music sounds better makes it better.
Which is why it needs to be opt in. So you do it to yourself. No one will do it unless they perceive ipods have become a theft hazzard.
option 1) the ipod requires you to enter a password to charge or access it on a "foreign" computer. Not sure why charging matters here however.
option 2) the ipod simply won't charge on a foreign computer IF you opt-in to that feature. One would make that default off. But if enough people used that aspect, it might become a theft deterrent. plus it's something that could be enabled later on, even if there's no great ipod crime wave right now, and thus no perceived need.
For example, one could do it like the firmware password protection all macs have but is off by default. Of course it's not very effective for hardware theft because it can be overridden by anyone with possession of the computer. It's mainly for highetened data protection from people with casual opportunistic access. But if one were to implement it so that it could not be overridden except by apple, then I could see this working on ipods. Since ipods are seldom as mission critical as laptops, having one get locked and have to be sent in for repair is not as great a burden as it would be for the laptop.
On day 1 the Botnet infected 1 Billion PCs. On day 2 it became self aware. On Day 3, it realized it did not have a nuclear weapons or robots so, it just slacked off and played minesweeper till 5pm, then went home and had stiff drink.
I'll just wait for the iwatch from apple. I prefer watches that only tell the time anyhow,
Digital watches? button mania has infected consumer electronics since the overloaded buttons of digital watches. These are not intuitive.
Contain contains a conceptual context that must be decontextualized and dereified. It's reality becomes process not product an the virtual world of containerization. In short Contain has lot's its content.
--beatnik avatar.
Look regardless of how much you might dispute the desirability of the French health care system, the analogy he is making is logically correct. That is, the French are not holding themselves prisoner to free-market ideology.
Well yes, that would be the same situation as a third party selling insurance. Much like is being done now.
But economically that is not viable in common cases I suspect. It has to be a compelled purchase if there are any economies of scale. That is, if 70% of the customers opt out but 30% want to opt in, then the cost of the warrantee may become too expensive for the opt-in. And one can see the economies of scale: Mounting a legal defense is a fixed cost even if you win. (if you lose the damages may be proportional of course). Meanwhile opt-outers can benefit, even retroactively, from any favorable legal precedent set by the opt-inners legal defense. Conversely, the under protected opt-outters, mounting a feeble defense may set a bad precedent for the opt-inners if they lose.
Thus one wants everyone in to make it affordable. That won't happen if it's unbundled.
Lost me there. Suppose I use a GPLv3 compiler, compile a completely unrelated product with it, and sell it to you under a commercial licence? How does that expose you to any additional risk?
Well let set aside GCC since what happens there I'm not clear on. But suppose someone redistributes some GNU entitity as part of their package. Let's say SAMBA or make. Perhaps they are even using GCC to compile make and optimize their code on the customers machine, so they are redistribution GCC. That for example, might apply to apple. And of course they don't want their customer, who's some fortune 500 travel arrangement company, to have to worry that they could face some sort of ruin if a lawsuit reached through to the customers. So their customers ask for indemnification. But that company does not want to indemnify the planet for SAMBA or GCC, just their customers. As I understand it that selectivity is not possible with the GCC. Maybe I don't understand it correctly?There's two back to back Slashdot articles on the main page. One is on how microsoft is insinuating it's tongs into the Linux ecosystem and setting up a protection racket. Initially companies like linspire and Novel pay the first installment. But then the GPL code you got from Linspire or Novel is now tied to them and not redistributable. That is, and redistribution requires are tithe to MS or they won't transfer the immunity from law suits to the new copy. So that entirely breaks the idea that GPL software it redistributable. It makes one so angry one wants to strike back with the GPL v3 which says if you confer immunity to one then you confer it to all.
But then I think about all these companies that want to create things out of the GPL'd code. These are commercial firms and they need to indemnify their customers that using their products won't expose them to risk. They want to use Linux not BSD but this is going to make them think twice.
The middle ground here is to make sure large parts of the GNU are GPL v2 and LGPL. But if core things like GCC are gong to GPLv3 then it gets weird. Even BSD-dervied works like Apple OSX use GCC.
I don't like it.
This was an actual ad that frequently ran in the national enquirer
So why do people think that Linux players and community shun AAC or H264? here on slashdot posters tend to tout MP3. I think it's the conflation of AAC and fairplay DRM. Or simply that AAC permits DRM at all. But shouldn't people really embrace AAC precisely because it lacks MP3's player royalties?
Just wait till Novel checks some "MS interoperability" agreement derived code back into the Linux Tree.... Or are you using a mac?
Isn't this exactly what Google Desktop and Google Mail and Google Cookies do?