ok, I also feel sorry for the musician, but for a second think about this from Ebay's point of view.
Somebody said that they get about 4,000,000 new auctions per day. How the heck are you gonna go through those and sort out the illegal stuff? Well, you write a program that looks for certain key characteristics. If it triggers, you throw out the posting and generate a message to the user. Is Ebay's scripts perfect? No. Are they useless? Probably not (note, the fact that you can find x number of illegal copies does not prove that the scripts are useless, since you don't know how many other copies were successfully removed).
So what if the script removes your listing even if it should not have? Well you will have to reply to the message you got and ask - this is what the guy did. Ebay personnel examined the matter and got back to him and apologized. The issue could have been over at this point, but the guy started to put up empty postings and postings with links to other commercial sites. These postings were (inconsistently) removed by Ebay's scripts, but that is not unreasonable.
People don't care about quality! If people cared about quality Microsoft would be out of business, Airlines would have decalred bankupcy years ago, and NO ONE would eat fast food.
Your assessment is too simplistic. People care about many things, one of which is quality. Furthermore, they have different wealth and different preferences.
The Microsoft example proves that you can sell low quality software if it is easy to use - it does not prove that it is impossible to sell high quality software.
Similarly, airlines sell first class and coach class seats. Some people eat at McDonald's and others at McCormick & Schmick's.
1 You don't have the time to watch while the program is being broadcast. Save it on the TIVO hard drive and see it later that night or two days after or whatever. Then delete.
2 You have a genuine interest in the program and want to save it for the future. Then save it on a disc, and don't overwrite it.
...and we've been really aggressive in arresting anybody who crosses security lines post September 11th... We do arrest journalists who refuse to reveal their sources, since there's a difference of opinion in the US between the journalist community and the legal community about when a journalist is obligated to reveal his sources.
These are probably key issues. After all, if the laws are really draconian but rarely change and everybody follows them, then there will be very few in prison - yet this is not indicative of freedom of press.
But if there are changes in execution of the laws or controversy about how they should be interpreted, that could cause a significant number of arrests even if the laws themselves are not that harsh.
By the way, what is that 'difference of opinion' more specifically? Anybody knows?
Using similar methods, the Club of Rome predicted in the early 1970s that the world would run out of oil by 1992. They and others also predicted that the West would be hopelessly overpopulated by... right around now. Both predictions have proven to be wildly inaccurate, but they got a lot of press at the time, and they were taken seriously by what passes for "intellectuals" (whose only measure of "truth" is how well a given story dovetails with their ideology).
In other words, this kind of nonsense is a great method for people like the WWF to solicit donations and get their names in the paper, but you shouldn't mistake it for meaningful information
I disagree with these analogies. This is not an extreme prediction that says that unless we take radical measure X, everything will suck in the future.
Rather, this is a description of how much it sucks already, specifically how small areas lack human footprint. The authors argue that these remaining areas 'provide a promising opportunity to conserve wildlife and wild places while minimizing conflicts with existing human structures and demands'.
Of course, the part I don't get, *why* can't it hit the Earth? In roughly the same orbit around the sun, a much smaller mass has to travel MUCH slower than the Earth to maintain that orbit
The first sentence is actually a very valid question. However, the question is not answered by pointing out the error of the second sentence, as a zillion posts have done by now.
After all, if the object has an orbit that is just infinitesimally different from Earth, one would think that it would hit us sooner or later. And would it not make sense that the object were attracted by Earth when it got somewhat closer?
The real reason that the object will never hit us has to do with complex three-body interactions (sun, earth, object) The motion of the smaller body is called libration: it repeatedly gains and falls back in its orbit relative to the larger body, but never approaches it. This situation exists in several other places in the solar system, for example the "Trojan asteroids", which orbit the Sun in the same orbit as Jupiter, but can never approach the giant planet very closely.
1) Nobody knows what might happen if these pigs somehow were released into the wild. A new species of 'super-pig' could potentionally cause wisespread damage if they escaped captivity
No.
2) Pigs are dirty, they typically roll in their own feces. This is not an appropriate animal to use for 'human' organs.
No. Having a dirty skin does not have any impact of the quality of the organ.
3) Using Pigs in such a fasion is inhumane. Nobody knows the pain these pigs could live with because we have set off certain gene sequences we should not have
Pigs that are used for food are treated very poorly, and go through great pains. If this really is a concern of yours, start by balking at that problem, which affects many orders of magnitude more pigs.
4) Pigs are not kosher, and Jewish or Moslems would not be able to benefit from these advances. That's alienting 1/5 of the planet right there from being able to benefit from this.
Is this a representative attitude of yours? If something cannot benefit everyone, then it should not be done? If such logic had been widely practiced we would still live in caves.
5) We are tampering with God's work. Pigs were created perfect the way they are, as are we. Toying with genes is tampering with God's perfect work and SHOULD not be done under any sane principals.
Pigs, the way they are, were created by man, through millenia of genetic manipulation (specifically, selective breeding). Sorry, the harm has already been done.
Reading a book on the computer screen is the pits.
That's the issue, isn't it. But what will happen the day when there are screen that are as comfortable to read from as books? Clearly this is only a matter of time. Maybe not soon, but it is bound to happen.
Then what?
Especially in education there will probably be a substantial increase in free literature. Especially in basic subjects there will be excellent free alternatives available.
For mainstream books the issue is more thorny. Naively you would think that publishing houses will loose all their power, and that authors started letting peope download their stuff at rates much, much lower than what would be paid for the book in a store. For some reason though, this did not happen to music. I wonder if publishing houses are as powerful and united as RIAA...
Sure, our knowledge of Mars 3.5 billion years ago is probably pretty sketchy. However, we don't have to know that much to figure out which parts of today's Earth are the best approximation. I think we can be pretty confident that a very high altitude (dry, cold, thinner atmosphere) is better than a very low one (moist, warm, thick atmosphere).
If the state normally votes 55/45 on a given issue...
The reason that this is often the case is that the two parties often have very similar agendas. Sure, your 11% might get the final say between two alternatives. But it seems unlikely that one of those two alternatives is an utter removal of the state government. It is only possible to use the position tip the scales over from one popular position to another - it is not possible to push through an independent and controverisal agenda.
Man versus computer makes no sense, because there are some things where they beat us period (arithmetic, say) and others where we beat them period (anything besides arithmetic, really). The only reason computers are smart is because they are *programmed* to be that way, and that is not a testament to the machine so much as to the ability of those who programmed it.
This is a pretty thorny issue. If the winning computer does it through a really clever program, then you are right. But what if it is just a really simple program, and a lot of computational power? Then the credit can hardly be given to the computer scientist.
Also, we are starting to see systems that are not programmed much at all, rather some pretty general neural networks are set up, and then the computer gets to try to interact with the environment through trial and error. COG from the MIT media lab was set up in this way. These systems can outperform humans in many things other than arithmetic - and they are getting more and more powerful. If the computer scientists sets up the neural network, and the computer teaches itself how to do something, can we give all the credit to the scientist? I think not.
Excuse me for my lack of knowledge on the subject, but why can't a game tree for chess be made?
You are absolutely right - this is basically how chess programs work. As many other have pointed out, it is impossible to calculate all the moves for a game. But contrary to some posts, the strategy is not meaningless. The computer will make a game tree say 5 moves ahead, then discard all of the inplausible moves, and go down another couple of levels (there is, of course, a lot of thinking that goes into specifying exactly which paths should be discarded and a lot of other details)
And wouldn't it be a matter of time before it is impossible to beat a computer at chess?
Yes, this is exactly what has happened. Only a few people in the world can deal with a computer that evaluates all possible moves 5 or more steps ahead.
I think it would be more interesting to see a chess program modeled after a neural network, that learns as humans do, via reinforcement. Or is it that these programs already do use neural networks to learn, rather than being strictly coded to follow a certain series of moves based on initial conditions?
Basically, this is how they work today (they use some nifty tricks too, but this is not far off):
1 Imagine each possible move
2 For each possible move evaluate each possible opponent move
3 GOTO 1 until you run into your computational limit
Take the path that gives you the best position, assuming that your opponent also will always move to get the best position
The neural network apporach does not work very well for this type of problem. Neural networks learn by example. However, it is unrealistic to demonstrate every possible chess move to a network. Furthermore, in observing a game, it is very difficult for the network to figure out what is a good move and what is a bad one. For example, one could set up a network so that it recognizes a good move every time a piece is taken from the opponent. But such a network would always get lured by opponents willing to sacrifice pieces to get in a superior position. And clearly one cannot tell the network that all moves in a winning game were good, and all moves in the loosing game were bad. This is much to simplistic.
Stealth Fighter, fine. It is amlmost exclusively used for bombing missions, as was the case at this time.
I am sure you are absoultely right about the rather lucky and haphazard way in which it was shot down, but this still contradicts your original statement, right?
Serbia didn't even have the resources to detect conventional aircraft, let alone shoot them down
Of course, Afghanistan or Serbia didn't even have the resources to detect conventional aircraft, let alone shoot them down
Yes they did, and in Serbia they surprised everyone by taking down a Stealth bomber with such conventional equipment (proving that the technology doesn't make the plane invulnerable).
Enemy radar and AA sites are the first targets for American bombing in any military action So using stealth technology in these conflicts. would have been pointless.
Quite the contrary, it is during such initial attacks that stealth technology is the most valuable. Thus stealth bombers were instrumental in taking out radar and AA in Afghanistan. After that their stealthiness was not needed (but their advanced targeting systems were).
I've heard that it can easily be made obsolete by using lower frequency radar, or heat-sensitive infrared radar systems. In any case, the enemy need only make a comparatively tiny investment in radar to render any form of stealth techology useless.
Yeah, I have heard that too. But I am quite skeptical, because neither in Kuwait, former Yugoslavia nor in Afghanistan were such supposedly simple and inexpensive technologies used by America's enemies.
Boeing recently lost the bid for the Joint Strike Fighter. The JSF is also stealthy multi-purpouse fighter, which after extensive testing and evaluation is now being ordered in large quantities from Lockheed Martin.
I seriously doubt that this thing will produced in any significant quantities - the decision for fighter spending has already been made. It might, however, be important from a development point of view - testing new technologies and so on.
This interesting startegy has prallells among corporations competing with each other. I heard rumors that Motorola has pursued this strategy against certain telecom competitors:
If a competitor has a strong patent, and they want to pursue the same technology, then there is an alternative to violation.
They pursue patents on improvements on the original patent. A couple of years down the line, the originator will be compelled to use some of the (perhaps obvious) patented improvements. Then they are in an excellent bargaining position, either for royalites or for rights to the original patent.
The only crappy thing is that it can't get the corners, which seems to be where all the dust accumulates, at least in my appartment
I had the opportunity to listen to an explanation of a similar product made by a competitor.
As you suggest, the robot does have a hard time reaching corners. However, when compared to a human operator, it was found that most people miss large patches when they do their vacuuming. It is just hard to remember exactly what areas have been covered (that and the constant urge of doing something more interesting). All in all, it was found that the robot covered a larger fraction of the floor, even if it did not reach all the corners.
Out of plain curiousity (and probably because of inexperience) I'm curious on what exactly vacuum tubes are in relationship to sound, what advantages/disadvantages they offer and anything else interesting to know
Vacuum tubes were used before the invention of transistors. They serve basically the same function, but are much bigger, draw more power and are slower in their response. For these reasons, they are hardly used any more.
However, when they are used to amplify sounds, they give a somewhat different sound than do transistors. Many audiophiles argue that the vacuum tube sound is superior.
However, and now comes my personal opinion, recently something of a hype has started around tubes. People who don't really know much about sound systems take tubes as a guarantee for getting superior performance. They fail to realize that the sounds are just different and which one is superior is largely a matter of personal taste - and what type of sound is being amplified. I am not at all convinced that tubes are better for sound effects in games, for example (as they have a slower response).
Certainly the true audiophiles often use tubes for their systems, but this does not mean that these are superior for all situations.
What kind of sound will go through the system? A normal transistor has a 'snappier' sound to it, which is better for a lot of modern music, and I would imagine for sound effects in computer games.
I guess if you want the best for your classical LPs then maybe this is something for you, er, no, then you would be better of to get a real amplifier.
Why not ask people to contribute $0.40 towards infrastructure costs in their area for public 802.11b hotspots.
This sort of posts comes up pretty much every time somebody does something creative, funny and totally useless.
It is entertainment. People like to spend some of their money on having fun, and this is such an example. Yes, it would be great if people stopped spending any money on pleasures and put it all into charities and infrastructure improvements... or would it?
I like the 'return to sender' idea, though. It is easier and quicker to do than finding a stamp and the address of these jokers.
Slashdot Mirror
ok, I also feel sorry for the musician, but for a second think about this from Ebay's point of view.
Somebody said that they get about 4,000,000 new auctions per day. How the heck are you gonna go through those and sort out the illegal stuff? Well, you write a program that looks for certain key characteristics. If it triggers, you throw out the posting and generate a message to the user. Is Ebay's scripts perfect? No. Are they useless? Probably not (note, the fact that you can find x number of illegal copies does not prove that the scripts are useless, since you don't know how many other copies were successfully removed).
So what if the script removes your listing even if it should not have? Well you will have to reply to the message you got and ask - this is what the guy did. Ebay personnel examined the matter and got back to him and apologized. The issue could have been over at this point, but the guy started to put up empty postings and postings with links to other commercial sites. These postings were (inconsistently) removed by Ebay's scripts, but that is not unreasonable.
Tor
People don't care about quality! If people cared about quality Microsoft would be out of business, Airlines would have decalred bankupcy years ago, and NO ONE would eat fast food.
Your assessment is too simplistic. People care about many things, one of which is quality. Furthermore, they have different wealth and different preferences.
The Microsoft example proves that you can sell low quality software if it is easy to use - it does not prove that it is impossible to sell high quality software.
Similarly, airlines sell first class and coach class seats. Some people eat at McDonald's and others at McCormick & Schmick's.
Tor
There are basically two reasons to save:
1 You don't have the time to watch while the program is being broadcast. Save it on the TIVO hard drive and see it later that night or two days after or whatever. Then delete.
2 You have a genuine interest in the program and want to save it for the future. Then save it on a disc, and don't overwrite it.
Tor
...and we've been really aggressive in arresting anybody who crosses security lines post September 11th ... We do arrest journalists who refuse to reveal their sources, since there's a difference of opinion in the US between the journalist community and the legal community about when a journalist is obligated to reveal his sources.
These are probably key issues. After all, if the laws are really draconian but rarely change and everybody follows them, then there will be very few in prison - yet this is not indicative of freedom of press.
But if there are changes in execution of the laws or controversy about how they should be interpreted, that could cause a significant number of arrests even if the laws themselves are not that harsh.
By the way, what is that 'difference of opinion' more specifically? Anybody knows?
Tor
Using similar methods, the Club of Rome predicted in the early 1970s that the world would run out of oil by 1992. They and others also predicted that the West would be hopelessly overpopulated by... right around now. Both predictions have proven to be wildly inaccurate, but they got a lot of press at the time, and they were taken seriously by what passes for "intellectuals" (whose only measure of "truth" is how well a given story dovetails with their ideology). In other words, this kind of nonsense is a great method for people like the WWF to solicit donations and get their names in the paper, but you shouldn't mistake it for meaningful information
I disagree with these analogies. This is not an extreme prediction that says that unless we take radical measure X, everything will suck in the future.
Rather, this is a description of how much it sucks already, specifically how small areas lack human footprint. The authors argue that these remaining areas 'provide a promising opportunity to conserve wildlife and wild places while minimizing conflicts with existing human structures and demands'.
This is not nonsense, it is quite reasonable.
Tor
Of course, the part I don't get, *why* can't it hit the Earth? In roughly the same orbit around the sun, a much smaller mass has to travel MUCH slower than the Earth to maintain that orbit
The first sentence is actually a very valid question. However, the question is not answered by pointing out the error of the second sentence, as a zillion posts have done by now.
After all, if the object has an orbit that is just infinitesimally different from Earth, one would think that it would hit us sooner or later. And would it not make sense that the object were attracted by Earth when it got somewhat closer?
The real reason that the object will never hit us has to do with complex three-body interactions (sun, earth, object) The motion of the smaller body is called libration: it repeatedly gains and falls back in its orbit relative to the larger body, but never approaches it. This situation exists in several other places in the solar system, for example the "Trojan asteroids", which orbit the Sun in the same orbit as Jupiter, but can never approach the giant planet very closely.
Tor
1) Nobody knows what might happen if these pigs somehow were released into the wild. A new species of 'super-pig' could potentionally cause wisespread damage if they escaped captivity
No.
2) Pigs are dirty, they typically roll in their own feces. This is not an appropriate animal to use for 'human' organs.
No. Having a dirty skin does not have any impact of the quality of the organ.
3) Using Pigs in such a fasion is inhumane. Nobody knows the pain these pigs could live with because we have set off certain gene sequences we should not have
Pigs that are used for food are treated very poorly, and go through great pains. If this really is a concern of yours, start by balking at that problem, which affects many orders of magnitude more pigs.
4) Pigs are not kosher, and Jewish or Moslems would not be able to benefit from these advances. That's alienting 1/5 of the planet right there from being able to benefit from this.
Is this a representative attitude of yours? If something cannot benefit everyone, then it should not be done? If such logic had been widely practiced we would still live in caves.
5) We are tampering with God's work. Pigs were created perfect the way they are, as are we. Toying with genes is tampering with God's perfect work and SHOULD not be done under any sane principals.
Pigs, the way they are, were created by man, through millenia of genetic manipulation (specifically, selective breeding). Sorry, the harm has already been done.
Tor
Reading a book on the computer screen is the pits.
That's the issue, isn't it. But what will happen the day when there are screen that are as comfortable to read from as books? Clearly this is only a matter of time. Maybe not soon, but it is bound to happen.
Then what?
Especially in education there will probably be a substantial increase in free literature. Especially in basic subjects there will be excellent free alternatives available.
For mainstream books the issue is more thorny. Naively you would think that publishing houses will loose all their power, and that authors started letting peope download their stuff at rates much, much lower than what would be paid for the book in a store. For some reason though, this did not happen to music. I wonder if publishing houses are as powerful and united as RIAA...
Tor
That is not a very large sample. I wonder how much specs vary between individual units of the same make and model.
In particular, it would not surprise me if there are unit-to-unit variations in noise and the power at which they give up.
Tor
What is the role of the government in all of this and why is there a need to regulate these prices?
If I am an independent musician, can't I just make a deal with a local webcaster at a rate that we negotiate?
Does anybody know?
Tor
Sure, our knowledge of Mars 3.5 billion years ago is probably pretty sketchy. However, we don't have to know that much to figure out which parts of today's Earth are the best approximation. I think we can be pretty confident that a very high altitude (dry, cold, thinner atmosphere) is better than a very low one (moist, warm, thick atmosphere).
Tor
If the state normally votes 55/45 on a given issue...
The reason that this is often the case is that the two parties often have very similar agendas. Sure, your 11% might get the final say between two alternatives. But it seems unlikely that one of those two alternatives is an utter removal of the state government. It is only possible to use the position tip the scales over from one popular position to another - it is not possible to push through an independent and controverisal agenda.
Tor
makes an exact download theoretically impossible.
(it also makes a perfect clone an impossibility)
Tor
Man versus computer makes no sense, because there are some things where they beat us period (arithmetic, say) and others where we beat them period (anything besides arithmetic, really). The only reason computers are smart is because they are *programmed* to be that way, and that is not a testament to the machine so much as to the ability of those who programmed it.
This is a pretty thorny issue. If the winning computer does it through a really clever program, then you are right. But what if it is just a really simple program, and a lot of computational power? Then the credit can hardly be given to the computer scientist.
Also, we are starting to see systems that are not programmed much at all, rather some pretty general neural networks are set up, and then the computer gets to try to interact with the environment through trial and error. COG from the MIT media lab was set up in this way. These systems can outperform humans in many things other than arithmetic - and they are getting more and more powerful. If the computer scientists sets up the neural network, and the computer teaches itself how to do something, can we give all the credit to the scientist? I think not.
Tor
Excuse me for my lack of knowledge on the subject, but why can't a game tree for chess be made?
You are absolutely right - this is basically how chess programs work. As many other have pointed out, it is impossible to calculate all the moves for a game. But contrary to some posts, the strategy is not meaningless. The computer will make a game tree say 5 moves ahead, then discard all of the inplausible moves, and go down another couple of levels (there is, of course, a lot of thinking that goes into specifying exactly which paths should be discarded and a lot of other details)
And wouldn't it be a matter of time before it is impossible to beat a computer at chess?
Yes, this is exactly what has happened. Only a few people in the world can deal with a computer that evaluates all possible moves 5 or more steps ahead.
Tor
I think it would be more interesting to see a chess program modeled after a neural network, that learns as humans do, via reinforcement. Or is it that these programs already do use neural networks to learn, rather than being strictly coded to follow a certain series of moves based on initial conditions?
Basically, this is how they work today (they use some nifty tricks too, but this is not far off): 1 Imagine each possible move
2 For each possible move evaluate each possible opponent move
3 GOTO 1 until you run into your computational limit
Take the path that gives you the best position, assuming that your opponent also will always move to get the best position
The neural network apporach does not work very well for this type of problem. Neural networks learn by example. However, it is unrealistic to demonstrate every possible chess move to a network. Furthermore, in observing a game, it is very difficult for the network to figure out what is a good move and what is a bad one. For example, one could set up a network so that it recognizes a good move every time a piece is taken from the opponent. But such a network would always get lured by opponents willing to sacrifice pieces to get in a superior position. And clearly one cannot tell the network that all moves in a winning game were good, and all moves in the loosing game were bad. This is much to simplistic.
Tor
Stealth Fighter, fine. It is amlmost exclusively used for bombing missions, as was the case at this time.
I am sure you are absoultely right about the rather lucky and haphazard way in which it was shot down, but this still contradicts your original statement, right?
Serbia didn't even have the resources to detect conventional aircraft, let alone shoot them down
Tor
Of course, Afghanistan or Serbia didn't even have the resources to detect conventional aircraft, let alone shoot them down
Yes they did, and in Serbia they surprised everyone by taking down a Stealth bomber with such conventional equipment (proving that the technology doesn't make the plane invulnerable).
Enemy radar and AA sites are the first targets for American bombing in any military action So using stealth technology in these conflicts. would have been pointless. Quite the contrary, it is during such initial attacks that stealth technology is the most valuable. Thus stealth bombers were instrumental in taking out radar and AA in Afghanistan. After that their stealthiness was not needed (but their advanced targeting systems were).
Tor
I've heard that it can easily be made obsolete by using lower frequency radar, or heat-sensitive infrared radar systems. In any case, the enemy need only make a comparatively tiny investment in radar to render any form of stealth techology useless.
Yeah, I have heard that too. But I am quite skeptical, because neither in Kuwait, former Yugoslavia nor in Afghanistan were such supposedly simple and inexpensive technologies used by America's enemies.
Tor
Boeing recently lost the bid for the Joint Strike Fighter. The JSF is also stealthy multi-purpouse fighter, which after extensive testing and evaluation is now being ordered in large quantities from Lockheed Martin.
I seriously doubt that this thing will produced in any significant quantities - the decision for fighter spending has already been made. It might, however, be important from a development point of view - testing new technologies and so on.
Tor
This interesting startegy has prallells among corporations competing with each other. I heard rumors that Motorola has pursued this strategy against certain telecom competitors:
If a competitor has a strong patent, and they want to pursue the same technology, then there is an alternative to violation.
They pursue patents on improvements on the original patent. A couple of years down the line, the originator will be compelled to use some of the (perhaps obvious) patented improvements. Then they are in an excellent bargaining position, either for royalites or for rights to the original patent.
Tor
The only crappy thing is that it can't get the corners, which seems to be where all the dust accumulates, at least in my appartment
I had the opportunity to listen to an explanation of a similar product made by a competitor.
As you suggest, the robot does have a hard time reaching corners. However, when compared to a human operator, it was found that most people miss large patches when they do their vacuuming. It is just hard to remember exactly what areas have been covered (that and the constant urge of doing something more interesting). All in all, it was found that the robot covered a larger fraction of the floor, even if it did not reach all the corners.
Tor
Out of plain curiousity (and probably because of inexperience) I'm curious on what exactly vacuum tubes are in relationship to sound, what advantages/disadvantages they offer and anything else interesting to know
Vacuum tubes were used before the invention of transistors. They serve basically the same function, but are much bigger, draw more power and are slower in their response. For these reasons, they are hardly used any more.
However, when they are used to amplify sounds, they give a somewhat different sound than do transistors. Many audiophiles argue that the vacuum tube sound is superior.
However, and now comes my personal opinion, recently something of a hype has started around tubes. People who don't really know much about sound systems take tubes as a guarantee for getting superior performance. They fail to realize that the sounds are just different and which one is superior is largely a matter of personal taste - and what type of sound is being amplified. I am not at all convinced that tubes are better for sound effects in games, for example (as they have a slower response).
Tor
Certainly the true audiophiles often use tubes for their systems, but this does not mean that these are superior for all situations.
What kind of sound will go through the system? A normal transistor has a 'snappier' sound to it, which is better for a lot of modern music, and I would imagine for sound effects in computer games.
I guess if you want the best for your classical LPs then maybe this is something for you, er, no, then you would be better of to get a real amplifier.
Tor
Why not ask people to contribute $0.40 towards infrastructure costs in their area for public 802.11b hotspots.
... or would it?
This sort of posts comes up pretty much every time somebody does something creative, funny and totally useless.
It is entertainment. People like to spend some of their money on having fun, and this is such an example. Yes, it would be great if people stopped spending any money on pleasures and put it all into charities and infrastructure improvements
I like the 'return to sender' idea, though. It is easier and quicker to do than finding a stamp and the address of these jokers.
Tor