A.wav file at 128kbps is going to sound absolutely awful. At 8 bits per sample (which sounds pretty bad no matter what), 128kbps gives you a sample rate of only 16khz, so any frequencies above 8khz will be lost. If you up the sample quality to 16 bit (CD quality), the sample rate goes down to 8khz (4khz frequencies).
In other words, you'll get slightly-better-than `telephone' quality sound.
You might want to keep them away from your credit card and watch.
After ripping out a few of those from old HDs, a friend of mine `wisely' put them in his poket---right next to his wallet. You can guess what happened to his credit cards.
I think everyone's upset because the price increase will actually work---people will complain but in the end will bend over and buy it, and make major profits for RIAA.
We're talking about the people who bought an iPod here...
Under these circumstances, an box could be wormed before the firewall comes up. However, this was something I heard in a Slashdot comment, so I can't comment on its validity.
That's the only explanation I can think of for how I got Blaster via the wireless connection at school a while back. I was always careful to have a firewall runnings, etc., but WinXP just crashed right upon booting into a highly infested environment.
Exactly what I thought too... Exactly the same weight, size, button positioning, and even the same `navi' string in exactly the same place.
Although I'd hate to have a "Rechargeable battery: 520mAh Li-ion" when I have a 512MB-iRiver with a single rechargeble AA battery that runs for 30 hours*.
I'd imagine something like Wolfram suggested in The New Science. There is also a book on Swarm Intelligence, that in part deals with that.
Basically writing `code' would be similar to coding your own dna string, and having mechanical processes work from that. So each construction effort will not be a perfect atom-to-atom copy, but a good enough replica so that nobody would care.
I can also imagine a situation of `many' of these small robots remotely controlled by a central computer that `guides' them on what they're doing (ie: each small robot doesn't have to know/think about what to do).
50 B.C. - What a terrible weapon the catapult is! 600 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the crossbow is! 1550 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the cannon is! 1865 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the machine gun is! 1945 A.D. - What a terrible weapon nuclear weapons are! 2004 A.D. - What a terrible weapon nanotechnology is! 2050 N.E. - What a terrible weapon the stone is! 3050 N.E. - What a terrible weapon the spear is! 7050 N.E. - What a terrible weapon the catapult is! 7600 N.E. - What a terrible weapon the crossbow is! 7550 N.E. - What a terrible weapon the cannon is! 7865 N.E. - What a terrible weapon the machine gun is! 7945 N.E. - What a terrible weapon nuclear weapons are! 8004 N.E. - What a terrible weapon nanotechnology is!...goto top...
Just looked through the patent... Wow. If it's valid, everyone owes them money. They got stuff that applies to sound, images, and video in there. MPEG is just as `under' this thing as JPEG is... as well as (conceptually can be argued) MP3.
It is sort of similar to the parent of `storing and manipulating binary numbers in an electronic device' pattent. Everything sorta falls under it in some way or another.
What's the patent for anyway? I can think of only a handful of things that are `key' to JPEG:
DCT, quantization, and Huffman.
quantization is just lossy scailing (how they can patent scailing?). Huffman is patent free. That leaves DCT, but isn't that just _very basic_ transform?
And if they parent jpeg, doesn't it also mean they have the rights to low/high pass image filters?
Am I missing something? (sorry, don't really wanna read through the patent to figure out... would just like to get a quick clue on what's this all about...)
That's the general impression, and I used to think that too... until I compiled EXACTLY the same code (with full optimizations) via GCC (cygwin), and Visual C++ 2002 (didn't have 2003). The GCC (cygwin) code was twice as fast time-wise. (I put a timer in the code that tells me how many seconds/minutes it's been running--not very accurate, but tells me what I care about: ie: when will this thing be done.)
Assembly of both codes looked similarly twisted due to optimizations. The code is a heavy duty math manipulation type, with tons of floating point matrix multiplications.
I know the `popular' benchmarks make GCC look bad, but from my own experience, it is actually faster. Changed my whole perspective of GCC vs. VC.
The iPod isn't winning awards because it's more expensive than the Zen, smaller capacity than the Zen, or uglier than the Zen, it's winning awards......because only an Mac user would ever organize such a contest?
...most windows users are just regular people that need a machine for checking email or whatever... On the other hand, Mac users...
Are people who got confused by flashy colors in the store, and bought a Mac, when they really wanted to buy a PC. They later wonder why none of the programs they download ever work. But hey, at least it looks flashier:-)
And no, this is not a joke. I've had many family friends ask me for help with their computer---most of which related to them not being able to run Windows programs, and the fact that they didn't know what computer they were getting in the store since they're `all the same' to them.
As much as management would love to be able to automate the process of turning requirments into code, they can't. Nor can they even create a process that someone can follow to turn requirements into code (if you could, you could automate following the process and not need the programmer).
There is an excellent paper by David Parnas on this very same thing. Can't remember the name right at this moment...
Why don't you read some literature the explains quantum computing...
Last I heard, there is still a ton of comp-sci problems that are hard, even in the quantum world. NP problems will still be NP problems---quantum computers don't help with those.
Also, unless some really major innovations come up, we won't see quantum computers anytime soon (and I mean in centuries, not years).
I think it's because most virus writers don't have criminal inclinations. More like pranksters.
Oh, and if a virus does `real' damage, then they can forget about getting off the hook if they're caught. Someone will throw a book at'em if they're really nasty (and aren't just kidding).
Slashdot Mirror
...a mobile phone is a very good off-the-shelf remote triggering device that is also very precise in the way it works.
Unless of course a telemarketer calls while they're putting the thing together...
NASA's whole budget request for 2004 was 15.5 billion.
At that rate, it'd take them oh, say 40 years to save up 500+ billion.
Something does not compute.
Unless someone accidentally used different monetary units...
You know... If you use Sake soaked Wooden Speakers it would sound even better... (and probably cost at least 3x as much)
A .wav file at 128kbps is going to sound absolutely awful. At 8 bits per sample (which sounds pretty bad no matter what), 128kbps gives you a sample rate of only 16khz, so any frequencies above 8khz will be lost. If you up the sample quality to 16 bit (CD quality), the sample rate goes down to 8khz (4khz frequencies).
In other words, you'll get slightly-better-than `telephone' quality sound.
Thus reducing on call costs.
Am I the only person who's not counting minutes or worried about mobile phone costs?
Whatever this `plan' may cost, I'm sure there are comprable conventional mobile phone plans that are nearly as limitless as wi-fi.
It would be cool to have a phone that can talk to my computers via wi-fi, but arguing that it would somehow lower costs... that's a bit too much.
...I like being able to see things now, not have them shrouded in darkness for fright effect. Wracks my nerves more than anything.
Isn't that the whole point of DOOM3? Carmack once said that it's mostly a moody horror game.
You might want to keep them away from your
credit card and watch.
After ripping out a few of those from old HDs, a friend of mine `wisely' put them in his poket---right next to his wallet. You can guess what happened to his credit cards.
These things are also great for erasing floppies.
They're digging their own graves. Let them.
I think everyone's upset because the price increase will actually work---people will complain but in the end will bend over and buy it, and make major profits for RIAA.
We're talking about the people who bought an iPod here...
Under these circumstances, an box could be wormed before the firewall comes up. However, this was something I heard in a Slashdot comment, so I can't comment on its validity.
That's the only explanation I can think of for how I got Blaster via the wireless connection at school a while back. I was always careful to have a firewall runnings, etc., but WinXP just crashed right upon booting into a highly infested environment.
It looks like a rebranded iRiver to me...
Exactly what I thought too... Exactly the same weight, size, button positioning, and even the same `navi' string in exactly the same place.
Although I'd hate to have a "Rechargeable battery: 520mAh Li-ion" when I have a 512MB-iRiver with a single rechargeble AA battery that runs for 30 hours*.
(*sunpak 2200mAh AA batteries)
I'd imagine these 3D printers to use very very very expensive ink, with very hard price/value limitations on what you can print effectively.
To print a $60k car, you'd need $500k worth of `metal/plastic' ink. Oh, and the cool nano-technology will ensure you can't use non-standard ink.
Still `consumer' effective; for $100 worth of ink, a person may be able to create themselves a watch, or a diamond, or a 10gig memory stick, etc.
If making things ever became easy, the raw materials and energy will be the price points.
I'd imagine something like Wolfram suggested in The New Science. There is also a book on Swarm Intelligence, that in part deals with that.
Basically writing `code' would be similar to coding your own dna string, and having mechanical processes work from that. So each construction effort will not be a perfect atom-to-atom copy, but a good enough replica so that nobody would care.
I can also imagine a situation of `many' of these small robots remotely controlled by a central computer that `guides' them on what they're doing (ie: each small robot doesn't have to know/think about what to do).
50 B.C. - What a terrible weapon the catapult is! ...goto top...
600 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the crossbow is!
1550 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the cannon is!
1865 A.D. - What a terrible weapon the machine gun is!
1945 A.D. - What a terrible weapon nuclear weapons are!
2004 A.D. - What a terrible weapon nanotechnology is!
2050 N.E. - What a terrible weapon the stone is!
3050 N.E. - What a terrible weapon the spear is!
7050 N.E. - What a terrible weapon the catapult is!
7600 N.E. - What a terrible weapon the crossbow is!
7550 N.E. - What a terrible weapon the cannon is!
7865 N.E. - What a terrible weapon the machine gun is!
7945 N.E. - What a terrible weapon nuclear weapons are!
8004 N.E. - What a terrible weapon nanotechnology is!
Link to patent: Coding system for reducing redundancy
It is sort of similar to the parent of `storing and manipulating binary numbers in an electronic device' pattent. Everything sorta falls under it in some way or another.
What's the patent for anyway? I can think of only a handful of things that are `key' to JPEG:
DCT, quantization, and Huffman.
quantization is just lossy scailing (how they can patent scailing?). Huffman is patent free. That leaves DCT, but isn't that just _very basic_ transform?
And if they parent jpeg, doesn't it also mean they have the rights to low/high pass image filters?
Am I missing something? (sorry, don't really wanna read through the patent to figure out... would just like to get a quick clue on what's this all about...)
...well, his brain could be spinning in its jar... and we can still worship that.
http://www.theparticle.com/profphreak/profphreak.h tml
Enjoy.
That's the general impression, and I used to think that too... until I compiled EXACTLY the same code (with full optimizations) via GCC (cygwin), and Visual C++ 2002 (didn't have 2003). The GCC (cygwin) code was twice as fast time-wise. (I put a timer in the code that tells me how many seconds/minutes it's been running--not very accurate, but tells me what I care about: ie: when will this thing be done.)
Assembly of both codes looked similarly twisted due to optimizations. The code is a heavy duty math manipulation type, with tons of floating point matrix multiplications.
I know the `popular' benchmarks make GCC look bad, but from my own experience, it is actually faster. Changed my whole perspective of GCC vs. VC.
The iPod isn't winning awards because it's more expensive than the Zen, smaller capacity than the Zen, or uglier than the Zen, it's winning awards... ...because only an Mac user would ever organize such a contest?
...most windows users are just regular people that need a machine for checking email or whatever... On the other hand, Mac users...
:-)
Are people who got confused by flashy colors in the store, and bought a Mac, when they really wanted to buy a PC. They later wonder why none of the programs they download ever work. But hey, at least it looks flashier
And no, this is not a joke. I've had many family friends ask me for help with their computer---most of which related to them not being able to run Windows programs, and the fact that they didn't know what computer they were getting in the store since they're `all the same' to them.
But.... Won't somebody think of the children? ...you insensitive clods!
As much as management would love to be able to automate the process of turning requirments into code, they can't. Nor can they even create a process that someone can follow to turn requirements into code (if you could, you could automate following the process and not need the programmer).
There is an excellent paper by David Parnas on this very same thing. Can't remember the name right at this moment...
Why don't you read some literature the explains quantum computing...
Last I heard, there is still a ton of comp-sci problems that are hard, even in the quantum world. NP problems will still be NP problems---quantum computers don't help with those.
Also, unless some really major innovations come up, we won't see quantum computers anytime soon (and I mean in centuries, not years).
I think it's because most virus writers don't have criminal inclinations. More like pranksters.
Oh, and if a virus does `real' damage, then they can forget about getting off the hook if they're caught. Someone will throw a book at'em if they're really nasty (and aren't just kidding).
It's weird that they have one picture, the one where the chick's face looks all freaky.
The other pictures were too freaky for the general public.