No offense, but you claim anything you want. That doesn't make it true.
As far as hearing the difference between uncompressed and compressed (MP3), I have tested the two. I stand by my claim because I know it to be true.
If you really think you can hear a difference, why do you listen to recordings at all? None offer perfect recreation of a live performance. So you're listening to a tainted copy.
I listen because I enjoy music. By your logic, since we can't reproduce a live recording perfectly, then quality doesn't matter. I don't buy it.
The point is, you could probably only tell the difference if you are trying to find it. And if you have headphones on. And if they're turned up really loud. And if you actually clicked the play button on your MP3 player to know that it's an MP3 instead of the original.
To state that the difference I hear is audible would be an understatement. Not only is it audible, it detracts from the music. It makes the music less enjoyable. I think if you made the comparison for yourself (in a suitable environment), you would come to the same conclusion.
You are incorrect. No loss of quality would result since the original sound data is being captured as it comes through.
The problem comes with the d/a and a/d conversions, not to mention the compression.
If transferring things over cables caused a loss in quality, you would not even be able to view this discussion forum due to data corruption.
I think a large majority of the audiophiles that you talk to (I mean serious music and equipment lovers, not the guy next door who just wired up his Sony receiver) will tell you that there is an audible difference between a $2 cable and a $200 cable. In my example, cables just serve as one more analog transmission that degrades the signal.
Um, MP3s are not exactly the same as the original input signal. There is already loss there, it's just loss that you can't much hear (tho I know some snob audio purists who claim they can).
In my example I was using MP3 as the basis for comparison. And I not only claim to be able to tell the difference between MP3 and uncompressed, I actually can. Take a track that you know well, burn both an uncompressed and compressed copy to disc, take it into a hifi shop, and listen. I think you'll be amazed.
The point is, taking the output from a fast-enough DAC with proper filtering, and re-digitizing it, the loss is very small. In a pinch, software and hardware could be made to try to fing the "bit length" from the DAC, and in turn synch the ADC to the same length (tho that'd be both hard to do, and pointless, given the proper filtering).
But we're talking about going digital > compressed digital > analog sound card > analog cable > analog sound card > compressed digital. There is lots of loss in that sequence.
The idea that a single generation will have a noticable affect on the quality of a recording is laughable. We are talking about a single d-to-a conversion and another a-to-d conversion.
It's hardly laughable. We're talking about going through a computer sound card - hardly high fidelity. Secondly, we must go through some sort of cabling (and for this example, let's assume that we're not talking about $500/meter cable). Now we have to come back through the sound card. I assure you, the effect will be noticable.
On even mediocre equipment you would have to have some golden ears to be able to hear the difference.
My equipment certainly isn't high-end in the true sense of the word, and my ears are far from golden, but I would certainly be willing to bet that the difference would be more than audible, it would be obtrusive upon the listening experience.
Once it is in a non encrypted format, it is digital generations from then on.
So you take a CD, degrade it by putting it to MP3, then degrade it by putting it through a sound card, then through a cheap cable, and then through a soundcard again. Now you compress it back to MP3. But sure, from there on out it's smooth sailing.
If you are willing to put up with 128k MP3's, and most people are, you certainly aren't going to care about a single generation copy.
For the record, I don't listen to MP3s because they don't sound as good as uncompressed music. But even if I did, a single generation copy (in the manner described) would take the MP3 from bad to worse.
It's very simple. Any music released in this format will never be used. Period. As long as they still sell the CD, people will still get it in mp3 format.
I don't think it's fair to say that a secure digital music format will *never* catch on. What the proponents of such a new format have to do is make sure it does what MP3 can't/doesn't. This new file format needs to offer something that people will want to pay for. I venture to say that if a secure format with no audible differences from CD audio, capable of being compressed at 50:1, and priced fairly was introduced, consumers would drop MP3s like yesterday's pop album.
I realize the example is extreme, but who is to say that such a format isn't just over the horizon? The recording industry as we know it is not doomed, they're just having to adapt.
We'll be in the same place we are now, very simple, just take audio out from your computer, use a double male line to the audio in port, and record onto mp3 or whatever replaces it, encryption scheme bypassed.
I'm thinking about putting the Mona Lisa in my living room. Except instead of buying it, I'm going to make a photocopy of it and put the copy on my wall.
Yes, as long as we can listen to music there will be no way to prevent it from being copied or heard by others. But that's hardly the same place we are now. I don't think you can claim to have bypassed the encryption scheme; you are taking an existing file and creating a new file (with a quality loss of factor X). This sort of copying scares the RIAA far less than MP3 filesharing. It's analogous to copying to analog tape in that there is (significant) quality loss. MP3s sound bad enough as it is without introducing such a large loss of quality.
If the RIAA could implement the sort of encryption algorithm that is discussed, and be assured that the only copying done is by the method you described, they would do it in a second.
Can a pawn shop sue burglary-victims if the pawn shop's inventory is repossessed by the police?
Sure, but I don't think the pawn shop will win. Having my bike stolen out of my garage doesn't directly affect anybody with the obvious exception of me, the victim, and I can't sue myself.
Can I sue the St. Louis Cardinals if the traffic created by people getting to the stadium causes the ambulance to my house to be late and my mom to die?
Your analogy almost works. But I don't think the Cardinals could be said to be negligent because people want to come to a game, which will inevitably cause traffic backups.
Could I sue 1(900)Mix-A-Lot if the phone company accidentally switched the lines so I got all those phone calls?
Well, technically you could. But that's beside the point: in this case, the phone company holds the blame, so you would sue them.
I'm reminded of the time Bart and Milhouse are cleaning the organ pipes in the church and discussing the existance of one's "soul." The question arises, "But why would the church lie to us?" as the camera flashes to Rev. Lovejoy counting the piles of money from the collection plate.
But then you look at things like a recent levis campaign. Every time you went to the home page of a site you got to be the proud downloader of between 80 and 100k of flash video for a popup levis ad. And you'd be sitting reading something, and it pops up right over what you're reading. Now this is intrusive and is starting to interfere with my browsing experience.
Theoretically, shouldn't economics sort this out? If I go to a site with obtrusive banners and popups, I just don't go back. Just like if you go to a store with bad customer service, you hit them right where it hurts - in the wallet, by not doing your business there.
One thing that really pisses me off is loud commercials on TV. They seem to be at least twice as loud as the actual program. I make it a habit not to patronize those companies with such ads. It works the opposite way too - if a company has an ad that I actually enjoy watching, I'm much more likely to buy the product.
Audiophiles are probably NOT going to like the results (as well as being philosphically opposed; by its nature it trades one type of harmonic distortion for another)
In my experiences, audiophiles tend to be loosely divided into two camps. One listens for pleasure, the other for accuracy. For the former, a transparent component, such as a very clean passive preamp might not be desirable because it may reveal other weaknesses in the system. For example, if you replaced a warm preamp with something more clean, the system might sound overly bright, when in fact it is simply being more accurate.
and non-audiophiles will be mostly indifferent, IMHO.
I think we are all familiar with this sort of indifference. When I'm talking about stereo equipment with other people, very often they will explain that they just listen to music through their computer, and it sounds "pretty awesome." In reality I know that their definition of "pretty awesome" is Bose-grade mid-bass dominating the rest of the music while playing the latest hit song in MP3 format. I just smile and nod. The same thing happens in the computer field - how often do you hear people refer to AOL as "the Internet?"
Still, I'd like to listen to the results on some good monitors...
It doesn't hold much interest for me personally. I think it's pretty obvious that the quality is going to be significantly less than that of a CD. It may look like leaps and bounds are being made in the area of lossy compression, but right now they're just fighting to try and get somewhere close to CD quality. As far as true high fidelity goes, I don't know if anybody will be able to get a true analog sound from a digital source, but as far as digital sound goes, DVD-A isn't too far away.
I'm interested to see how they'll make sure I'm Canadian through software.
My guess is they'll have some sort of "quiz" sort of like Leisure Suit Larry did back in the day (they figured if you knew the answers to certain questions, you're probably of age).
For example:
The common name for Coca Cola is: a) soft drink b) pop c) soda Of course the correct answer is B.
Gordie Howe was: a) a Prime Minister b) a CNN news anchor c) a hockey player ...and so on.
I hate this argument... its technically lossy, but most people I've seen saying the quality is bad have good stereos and lousy computer speakers. I've been eager, for a long time, to set up a fair, human-based quality test. Maybee I'll do it this summer.
I did a test about 8 months ago. I ripped a track from a CD to wav, made a copy of it, and compressed one of them. I did this for three different tracks of different musical material. I burned all 6 tracks, and although the test was not scientific (I knew what was playing at what times), it was extremely easy to discern the difference, even at high bitrates for the MP3s.
My computer setup consists of a pair of Altec speakers + sub. It was the mid-level speaker arrangement when I got my Dell in '98. My stereo is an integrated tube amplifier, Marantz CD player, and MSB d/a converter. To put it in perspective, my speaker cables (each are 8' long) retail for $250 (the dealer threw them in with the speakers).
Legally things are either legal or illegal, but in the real world people constantly are making decisions in the "shades of gray" areas. I feel perfectly at easy doing 75 in a 65mph zone, I habitually break drug laws, and I'll download MP3's till I'm blue in the face.
I think your logic is off on this one. Of course there are times when laws should be ignored. Speed laws on our highways are a perfect example. On a two-lane road with a 55 mph speed limit, if I want to pass someone who is going 52 mph, you had better believe that I'm going to break the speed limit when passing them. I'll get around them in a hurry and then slow back down to my previous speed. NHTSA's "speed kills" campaign is responsible for those people who merge onto busy freeways at 20 mph below the speed of traffic.
If you want to sit in your house and smoke pot, believe me, I have absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever. To me, this meets the definition of a victimless crime.
Taking for free what you would otherwise have to pay for is a different story. I'm not going to lie to you, I've been to a party and watched a boxing match through a descrambler. Regardless, stealing is still wrong. Maybe I can justifying it by saying that I wouldn't have paid X dollars for the good/service anyway, but it's still wrong.
It amazes me to see some of the posts in response to Lars' example about not wanting to pay $47,000 for a Suburban. It's as if all of the sudden people are seeing that just because something seems to be unfairly priced, it actually is wrong to take it without paying. I didn't need someone famous to tell me that, my parents taught me long ago.
I thought this might be of interest to some folks. Lots of people have talked about Metallica selling out, changing who they are, etc. Back in 1991 or '92, when I was a sixth grader, some friends of mine went to a Metallica concert and thought it was the greatest thing. The one story that sticks out in my head is this conversation (paraphrased) that took place between Metallica's lead singer (his name escapes me) and a ticketholder in the front row:
The short answer is that most flavours of Unix, including Linux, don't have much to worry about from the current crop of viruses. This may change in the future, but due to the architecture of Unix it is more difficult for viruses to propagate or to really damage a system.
I think the consensus is that Open Source promotes knowledge of what a particular program does, which in turn helps us avoid virus/trojan infection.
Sure, MS enabling VB scripting is not a good idea. The reason is because of the users. Most windows users couldn't tell you the difference between script and code. In the past months, most have learned not to run executables that they receive from unknown (or even known) sources. This is good advice, but now folks believe that just because it doesn't have.exe on the end it must be safe to download and run. I would venture to say that the *vast* majority of UNIX folks are too smart to run some unknown program. Not to mention the different system configurations that exist in the UNIX community that would make replication much less likely.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you want to teach "Advanced RedHat Linux System Administration" you have to give more than a superficial glance at the the packages involved. That is, an advanced system admin should be able to do more than setup virtual hosting with Apache.
I see your point, in that the course was supposed to be an advanced course. However, "covering the basics of an advanced topic" isn't an oxymoron or contradiction. Perhaps RH feels that advanced SysAdmins can pick up Apache details on their own (but this kind of ignores the fact that certification is supposed to mean that you *can* do it, not just that you're expected to).
Let me get this straight. You're questioning ZDNet's journalism on the basis that they're publishing news that interests a certain group, and are profiting (sp?) from this based on ad revenue. News organizations around the world make it their goal to "scoop" everybody else to be the first on the story, because it in turn leads to more viewers/readers, which makes their airtime more valuable so they can charge more for commercials. This is the fundamental idea behind network TV, radio, newspapers, and now websites.
Now you advocate that somebody should take the copyrighted text and post it somewhere else, allowing a reader to bypass ZDNet's advertisers, which directly costs them money (since higher hit counts = higher ad space prices). ZDNet should allow this?
That's just not how it works. If you don't want to deal with ZDNet, get your news somewhere else. I thought the article was rather good in that it had several good quotes from highly recognizable people, and was fairly objective. There is no doubt that ZDNet recognizes/. as a great target market, but there's nothing wrong with writing informative articles aimed at a demographic group.
In short: "Covering the basics of an advanced topic" is a contradiction in terms.
No it isn't. You are suggesting that covering material such as basic Apache setup is worthless unless one understands the most complex issues in Apache. You didn't learn math by covering addition of integers, then addition of matrices, and then moving on to subtraction. You learned the basics and the built on that. Going deeper into the subject involves an understanding of the basics.
I don't think certifications are worthless. I do think that employees with the attitude of, "I am qualified to do this job, it says so on this piece of paper" are misguided.
Again, I remind Slashdot that these are real people they are slandering without a shred of evidence.
He is providing facts. Then he interprets them because obviously the vast majority of his audience isn't going to know who these people are or how they are related to the issue. For example, had Michael said "Robert Abrams, former attourney general of New York." would that have meant anything to most readers? Personally, I wasn't aware that NY had threatened legal action. It certainly is relevant to the story. Biased, yes, but I think most of us can seperate fact from opinion.
I even had a follow-up post state that I should provide evidence that these people are not anti-privacy!!
You have accused the author of slander/libel, which implies that his statements are false. Is this a fact or your opinion? The irony is astounding.
Again, I remind Slashdot that these are real people they are slandering without a shred of evidence.
Actually I think you mean to use the word "libel."
Again, I remind Slashdot that these are real people they are slandering without a shred of evidence.
Look at napster. Universities were some of the first institutions to ban it.
Don't forget, though, that often this has more to do with use of network resources than with copyright infringement. Even before an institution gets a letter from Metallica's lawyers they're going to be looking at bandwidth consumption because of Napster.
The university owns the machines. The students don't pay for their access.
I think this is a rather narrow view of the subject. Universities don't let students use their resources (libraries, computer networks, etc.) out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it because students pay tuition. I assure you, if Harvard (or any school) decided that they weren't going to allow student access to their computer resources, they would lose a large portion of their top students.
Oxford did what was in their best interest by pulling the page. It's not the right thing to do in the scheme of things (cave under a little pressure rather than stand up for your rights), but sometimes you have to conceed a battle. But this can't be justified by the fact that they own the machines. It is because of the students that those machines exist.
Let's assume for a second that the/. admins agree with the majority of posters here that the MPAA is bad. And let's also assume that even though it appears LucasArts is not part of the MPAA, those who are against CSS (the/. admins, in our example) think that everybody should boycott DVDs.
Now, wouldn't you find it incredibly unethical if/. didn't post this news article to support their own interests (in this case, the boycott of DVDs)? If MSNBC didn't do a story on LNUX's record opening day, half the people on/. would be crying foul. The/. admins are not trying to convince you to buy or not buy DVDs. They're just bringing you the news and leaving it up to you to decide.
...but is this guy going to start giving out Public Enemy music as MP3's? That would be even better then just saying something's "good" and semi-supporting it.
Well, while Chuck D. might be all for Napster, that doesn't mean that he is going to start giving away Public Enemy's music for free. Even if he wanted to, I doubt that their label, Def Jam (who also records such artists as Jay-Z, Method Man, and the Beastie Boys) would allow it. Labels are constantly trying to protect their interests while artists sometimes try to see what they can get away with.
This is often seen in such instances like when a taper-friendly group (one that allows free taping/trading of their music, e.g. the Grateful Dead) signs with a new label that isn't familiar with such policies. Usually the band can point to a wide fanbase with devoted fans who usually aren't out to rip the band off. My favorite group (Widespread Panic, seeing them tomorrow night in Huntsville) wouldn't be nearly as big if they didn't allow taping/trading. I know that's what hooked me.
Bottom line: while artists want to appease the fans (e.g. Pearl Jam's stance against Ticketmaster several years ago), there is always corporate BS to contend with. The best we can do is support bands that are doing something about it. If Public Enemy is giving away free music, let them know they're doing the right thing by supporting them financially - that's all the execs want to see - the money.
But how many of the test administrators want to spend more than 5 minutes with the test taker. The wages the BMV in my area pays (minimum) does not offer any incentive to go out of my way to do a job well.
I think if a DMV tester actually took the time to make sure the testee knew how to drive, (s)he would be reprimanded. Apparently the DMV as a whole feels that their current test is satisfactory in determining if someone is skilled enough to drive. The new testing procedure needs to come from the top - it needs to be completely overhauled nationwide.
I for one would not want to be driving a manual transmission for the simple reason that it IS 1 more thing to have to concentrate on. I don't know where you live, but around here it snows and the road gets slick. I have other thing to concentrate on, like the moron in front of me, besides switching gears.
I live in Atlanta, which certainly has it's share of traffic and idiot drivers. However, I can't remember one time when having to shift hindered me from driving. Unlike so many of my friends, I've never been in an accident when I was behind the wheel. Driving a stick is one of those things that I don't have to think about. Of course the possibility of getting caught in the wrong gear is there, but that really just comes with predicting what is going to happen while driving.
An aside: I happen to drive with a Valentine One. There are many people who claim that radar detectors make the roads more dangerous and that "speed kills." I think this is a fairly narrow view of the subject. I tend to be extremely alert while driving, always scanning the horizon and checking my mirrors. I've found this to be much safer than the sort of passive driving that I see most of the time.
Slashdot Mirror
No offense, but you claim anything you want. That doesn't make it true.
As far as hearing the difference between uncompressed and compressed (MP3), I have tested the two. I stand by my claim because I know it to be true.
If you really think you can hear a difference, why do you listen to recordings at all? None offer perfect recreation of a live performance. So you're listening to a tainted copy.
I listen because I enjoy music. By your logic, since we can't reproduce a live recording perfectly, then quality doesn't matter. I don't buy it.
The point is, you could probably only tell the difference if you are trying to find it. And if you have headphones on. And if they're turned up really loud. And if you actually clicked the play button on your MP3 player to know that it's an MP3 instead of the original.
To state that the difference I hear is audible would be an understatement. Not only is it audible, it detracts from the music. It makes the music less enjoyable. I think if you made the comparison for yourself (in a suitable environment), you would come to the same conclusion.
You are incorrect. No loss of quality would result since the original sound data is being captured as it comes through.
The problem comes with the d/a and a/d conversions, not to mention the compression.
If transferring things over cables caused a loss in quality, you would not even be able to view this discussion forum due to data corruption.
I think a large majority of the audiophiles that you talk to (I mean serious music and equipment lovers, not the guy next door who just wired up his Sony receiver) will tell you that there is an audible difference between a $2 cable and a $200 cable. In my example, cables just serve as one more analog transmission that degrades the signal.
Um, MP3s are not exactly the same as the original input signal. There is already loss there, it's just loss that you can't much hear (tho I know some snob audio purists who claim they can).
In my example I was using MP3 as the basis for comparison. And I not only claim to be able to tell the difference between MP3 and uncompressed, I actually can. Take a track that you know well, burn both an uncompressed and compressed copy to disc, take it into a hifi shop, and listen. I think you'll be amazed.
The point is, taking the output from a fast-enough DAC with proper filtering, and re-digitizing it, the loss is very small. In a pinch, software and hardware could be made to try to fing the "bit length" from the DAC, and in turn synch the ADC to the same length (tho that'd be both hard to do, and pointless, given the proper filtering).
But we're talking about going digital > compressed digital > analog sound card > analog cable > analog sound card > compressed digital. There is lots of loss in that sequence.
The idea that a single generation will have a noticable affect on the quality of a recording is laughable. We are talking about a single d-to-a conversion and another a-to-d conversion.
It's hardly laughable. We're talking about going through a computer sound card - hardly high fidelity. Secondly, we must go through some sort of cabling (and for this example, let's assume that we're not talking about $500/meter cable). Now we have to come back through the sound card. I assure you, the effect will be noticable.
On even mediocre equipment you would have to have some golden ears to be able to hear the difference.
My equipment certainly isn't high-end in the true sense of the word, and my ears are far from golden, but I would certainly be willing to bet that the difference would be more than audible, it would be obtrusive upon the listening experience.
Once it is in a non encrypted format, it is digital generations from then on.
So you take a CD, degrade it by putting it to MP3, then degrade it by putting it through a sound card, then through a cheap cable, and then through a soundcard again. Now you compress it back to MP3. But sure, from there on out it's smooth sailing.
If you are willing to put up with 128k MP3's, and most people are, you certainly aren't going to care about a single generation copy.
For the record, I don't listen to MP3s because they don't sound as good as uncompressed music. But even if I did, a single generation copy (in the manner described) would take the MP3 from bad to worse.
It's very simple. Any music released in this format will never be used. Period. As long as they still sell the CD, people will still get it in mp3 format.
I don't think it's fair to say that a secure digital music format will *never* catch on. What the proponents of such a new format have to do is make sure it does what MP3 can't/doesn't. This new file format needs to offer something that people will want to pay for. I venture to say that if a secure format with no audible differences from CD audio, capable of being compressed at 50:1, and priced fairly was introduced, consumers would drop MP3s like yesterday's pop album.
I realize the example is extreme, but who is to say that such a format isn't just over the horizon? The recording industry as we know it is not doomed, they're just having to adapt.
We'll be in the same place we are now, very simple, just take audio out from your computer, use a double male line to the audio in port, and record onto mp3 or whatever replaces it, encryption scheme bypassed.
I'm thinking about putting the Mona Lisa in my living room. Except instead of buying it, I'm going to make a photocopy of it and put the copy on my wall.
Yes, as long as we can listen to music there will be no way to prevent it from being copied or heard by others. But that's hardly the same place we are now. I don't think you can claim to have bypassed the encryption scheme; you are taking an existing file and creating a new file (with a quality loss of factor X). This sort of copying scares the RIAA far less than MP3 filesharing. It's analogous to copying to analog tape in that there is (significant) quality loss. MP3s sound bad enough as it is without introducing such a large loss of quality.
If the RIAA could implement the sort of encryption algorithm that is discussed, and be assured that the only copying done is by the method you described, they would do it in a second.
Can a pawn shop sue burglary-victims if the pawn shop's inventory is repossessed by the police?
Sure, but I don't think the pawn shop will win. Having my bike stolen out of my garage doesn't directly affect anybody with the obvious exception of me, the victim, and I can't sue myself.
Can I sue the St. Louis Cardinals if the traffic created by people getting to the stadium causes the ambulance to my house to be late and my mom to die?
Your analogy almost works. But I don't think the Cardinals could be said to be negligent because people want to come to a game, which will inevitably cause traffic backups.
Could I sue 1(900)Mix-A-Lot if the phone company accidentally switched the lines so I got all those phone calls?
Well, technically you could. But that's beside the point: in this case, the phone company holds the blame, so you would sue them.
I'm reminded of the time Bart and Milhouse are cleaning the organ pipes in the church and discussing the existance of one's "soul." The question arises, "But why would the church lie to us?" as the camera flashes to Rev. Lovejoy counting the piles of money from the collection plate.
But then you look at things like a recent levis campaign. Every time you went to the home page of a site you got to be the proud downloader of between 80 and 100k of flash video for a popup levis ad. And you'd be sitting reading something, and it pops up right over what you're reading. Now this is intrusive and is starting to interfere with my browsing experience.
Theoretically, shouldn't economics sort this out? If I go to a site with obtrusive banners and popups, I just don't go back. Just like if you go to a store with bad customer service, you hit them right where it hurts - in the wallet, by not doing your business there.
One thing that really pisses me off is loud commercials on TV. They seem to be at least twice as loud as the actual program. I make it a habit not to patronize those companies with such ads. It works the opposite way too - if a company has an ad that I actually enjoy watching, I'm much more likely to buy the product.
Audiophiles are probably NOT going to like the results (as well as being philosphically opposed; by its nature it trades one type of harmonic distortion for another)
In my experiences, audiophiles tend to be loosely divided into two camps. One listens for pleasure, the other for accuracy. For the former, a transparent component, such as a very clean passive preamp might not be desirable because it may reveal other weaknesses in the system. For example, if you replaced a warm preamp with something more clean, the system might sound overly bright, when in fact it is simply being more accurate.
and non-audiophiles will be mostly indifferent, IMHO.
I think we are all familiar with this sort of indifference. When I'm talking about stereo equipment with other people, very often they will explain that they just listen to music through their computer, and it sounds "pretty awesome." In reality I know that their definition of "pretty awesome" is Bose-grade mid-bass dominating the rest of the music while playing the latest hit song in MP3 format. I just smile and nod. The same thing happens in the computer field - how often do you hear people refer to AOL as "the Internet?"
Still, I'd like to listen to the results on some good monitors...
It doesn't hold much interest for me personally. I think it's pretty obvious that the quality is going to be significantly less than that of a CD. It may look like leaps and bounds are being made in the area of lossy compression, but right now they're just fighting to try and get somewhere close to CD quality. As far as true high fidelity goes, I don't know if anybody will be able to get a true analog sound from a digital source, but as far as digital sound goes, DVD-A isn't too far away.
I'm interested to see how they'll make sure I'm Canadian through software.
My guess is they'll have some sort of "quiz" sort of like Leisure Suit Larry did back in the day (they figured if you knew the answers to certain questions, you're probably of age).
For example:
The common name for Coca Cola is:
a) soft drink
b) pop
c) soda
Of course the correct answer is B.
Gordie Howe was:
a) a Prime Minister
b) a CNN news anchor
c) a hockey player
...and so on.
I hate this argument... its technically lossy, but most people I've seen saying the quality is bad have good stereos and lousy computer speakers. I've been eager, for a long time, to set up a fair, human-based quality test. Maybee I'll do it this summer.
I did a test about 8 months ago. I ripped a track from a CD to wav, made a copy of it, and compressed one of them. I did this for three different tracks of different musical material. I burned all 6 tracks, and although the test was not scientific (I knew what was playing at what times), it was extremely easy to discern the difference, even at high bitrates for the MP3s.
My computer setup consists of a pair of Altec speakers + sub. It was the mid-level speaker arrangement when I got my Dell in '98. My stereo is an integrated tube amplifier, Marantz CD player, and MSB d/a converter. To put it in perspective, my speaker cables (each are 8' long) retail for $250 (the dealer threw them in with the speakers).
Legally things are either legal or illegal, but in the real world people constantly are making decisions in the "shades of gray" areas. I feel perfectly at easy doing 75 in a 65mph zone, I habitually break drug laws, and I'll download MP3's till I'm blue in the face.
I think your logic is off on this one. Of course there are times when laws should be ignored. Speed laws on our highways are a perfect example. On a two-lane road with a 55 mph speed limit, if I want to pass someone who is going 52 mph, you had better believe that I'm going to break the speed limit when passing them. I'll get around them in a hurry and then slow back down to my previous speed. NHTSA's "speed kills" campaign is responsible for those people who merge onto busy freeways at 20 mph below the speed of traffic.
If you want to sit in your house and smoke pot, believe me, I have absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever. To me, this meets the definition of a victimless crime.
Taking for free what you would otherwise have to pay for is a different story. I'm not going to lie to you, I've been to a party and watched a boxing match through a descrambler. Regardless, stealing is still wrong. Maybe I can justifying it by saying that I wouldn't have paid X dollars for the good/service anyway, but it's still wrong.
It amazes me to see some of the posts in response to Lars' example about not wanting to pay $47,000 for a Suburban. It's as if all of the sudden people are seeing that just because something seems to be unfairly priced, it actually is wrong to take it without paying. I didn't need someone famous to tell me that, my parents taught me long ago.
I thought this might be of interest to some folks. Lots of people have talked about Metallica selling out, changing who they are, etc. Back in 1991 or '92, when I was a sixth grader, some friends of mine went to a Metallica concert and thought it was the greatest thing. The one story that sticks out in my head is this conversation (paraphrased) that took place between Metallica's lead singer (his name escapes me) and a ticketholder in the front row:
Singer: "Have you got the new album yet?"
Fan: "No, I can't afford it!"
Singer: "Well then steal it!"
Oh, the irony.
This can only mean that Microsoft will follow by attempting to get a trademark on the scent of Bull Shit.
"We decided to invest in the scent emitted by the bull feces due to the fact that this is an odor most-often associated with Microsoft products."
The short answer is that most flavours of Unix, including Linux, don't have much to worry about from the current crop of viruses. This may change in the future, but due to the architecture of Unix it is more difficult for viruses to propagate or to really damage a system.
.exe on the end it must be safe to download and run. I would venture to say that the *vast* majority of UNIX folks are too smart to run some unknown program. Not to mention the different system configurations that exist in the UNIX community that would make replication much less likely.
I think the consensus is that Open Source promotes knowledge of what a particular program does, which in turn helps us avoid virus/trojan infection.
Sure, MS enabling VB scripting is not a good idea. The reason is because of the users. Most windows users couldn't tell you the difference between script and code. In the past months, most have learned not to run executables that they receive from unknown (or even known) sources. This is good advice, but now folks believe that just because it doesn't have
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you want to teach "Advanced RedHat Linux System Administration" you have to give more than a superficial glance at the the packages involved. That is, an advanced system admin should be able to do more than setup virtual hosting with Apache.
I see your point, in that the course was supposed to be an advanced course. However, "covering the basics of an advanced topic" isn't an oxymoron or contradiction. Perhaps RH feels that advanced SysAdmins can pick up Apache details on their own (but this kind of ignores the fact that certification is supposed to mean that you *can* do it, not just that you're expected to).
Let me get this straight. You're questioning ZDNet's journalism on the basis that they're publishing news that interests a certain group, and are profiting (sp?) from this based on ad revenue. News organizations around the world make it their goal to "scoop" everybody else to be the first on the story, because it in turn leads to more viewers/readers, which makes their airtime more valuable so they can charge more for commercials. This is the fundamental idea behind network TV, radio, newspapers, and now websites.
/. as a great target market, but there's nothing wrong with writing informative articles aimed at a demographic group.
Now you advocate that somebody should take the copyrighted text and post it somewhere else, allowing a reader to bypass ZDNet's advertisers, which directly costs them money (since higher hit counts = higher ad space prices). ZDNet should allow this?
That's just not how it works. If you don't want to deal with ZDNet, get your news somewhere else. I thought the article was rather good in that it had several good quotes from highly recognizable people, and was fairly objective. There is no doubt that ZDNet recognizes
In short: "Covering the basics of an advanced topic" is a contradiction in terms.
No it isn't. You are suggesting that covering material such as basic Apache setup is worthless unless one understands the most complex issues in Apache. You didn't learn math by covering addition of integers, then addition of matrices, and then moving on to subtraction. You learned the basics and the built on that. Going deeper into the subject involves an understanding of the basics.
I don't think certifications are worthless. I do think that employees with the attitude of, "I am qualified to do this job, it says so on this piece of paper" are misguided.
Again, I remind Slashdot that these are real people they are slandering without a shred of evidence.
He is providing facts. Then he interprets them because obviously the vast majority of his audience isn't going to know who these people are or how they are related to the issue. For example, had Michael said "Robert Abrams, former attourney general of New York." would that have meant anything to most readers? Personally, I wasn't aware that NY had threatened legal action. It certainly is relevant to the story. Biased, yes, but I think most of us can seperate fact from opinion.
I even had a follow-up post state that I should provide evidence that these people are not anti-privacy!!
You have accused the author of slander/libel, which implies that his statements are false. Is this a fact or your opinion? The irony is astounding.
Again, I remind Slashdot that these are real people they are slandering without a shred of evidence.
Actually I think you mean to use the word "libel."
Again, I remind Slashdot that these are real people they are slandering without a shred of evidence.
I hardly think that censorship is the answer.
Look at napster. Universities were some of the first institutions to ban it.
Don't forget, though, that often this has more to do with use of network resources than with copyright infringement. Even before an institution gets a letter from Metallica's lawyers they're going to be looking at bandwidth consumption because of Napster.
The university owns the machines. The students don't pay for their access.
I think this is a rather narrow view of the subject. Universities don't let students use their resources (libraries, computer networks, etc.) out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it because students pay tuition. I assure you, if Harvard (or any school) decided that they weren't going to allow student access to their computer resources, they would lose a large portion of their top students.
Oxford did what was in their best interest by pulling the page. It's not the right thing to do in the scheme of things (cave under a little pressure rather than stand up for your rights), but sometimes you have to conceed a battle. But this can't be justified by the fact that they own the machines. It is because of the students that those machines exist.
Let's assume for a second that the /. admins agree with the majority of posters here that the MPAA is bad. And let's also assume that even though it appears LucasArts is not part of the MPAA, those who are against CSS (the /. admins, in our example) think that everybody should boycott DVDs.
/. didn't post this news article to support their own interests (in this case, the boycott of DVDs)? If MSNBC didn't do a story on LNUX's record opening day, half the people on /. would be crying foul. The /. admins are not trying to convince you to buy or not buy DVDs. They're just bringing you the news and leaving it up to you to decide.
Now, wouldn't you find it incredibly unethical if
...but is this guy going to start giving out Public Enemy music as MP3's? That would be even better then just saying something's "good" and semi-supporting it.
Well, while Chuck D. might be all for Napster, that doesn't mean that he is going to start giving away Public Enemy's music for free. Even if he wanted to, I doubt that their label, Def Jam (who also records such artists as Jay-Z, Method Man, and the Beastie Boys) would allow it. Labels are constantly trying to protect their interests while artists sometimes try to see what they can get away with.
This is often seen in such instances like when a taper-friendly group (one that allows free taping/trading of their music, e.g. the Grateful Dead) signs with a new label that isn't familiar with such policies. Usually the band can point to a wide fanbase with devoted fans who usually aren't out to rip the band off. My favorite group (Widespread Panic, seeing them tomorrow night in Huntsville) wouldn't be nearly as big if they didn't allow taping/trading. I know that's what hooked me.
Bottom line: while artists want to appease the fans (e.g. Pearl Jam's stance against Ticketmaster several years ago), there is always corporate BS to contend with. The best we can do is support bands that are doing something about it. If Public Enemy is giving away free music, let them know they're doing the right thing by supporting them financially - that's all the execs want to see - the money.
But how many of the test administrators want to spend more than 5 minutes with the test taker. The wages the BMV in my area pays (minimum) does not offer any incentive to go out of my way to do a job well.
I think if a DMV tester actually took the time to make sure the testee knew how to drive, (s)he would be reprimanded. Apparently the DMV as a whole feels that their current test is satisfactory in determining if someone is skilled enough to drive. The new testing procedure needs to come from the top - it needs to be completely overhauled nationwide.
I for one would not want to be driving a manual transmission for the simple reason that it IS 1 more thing to have to concentrate on. I don't know where you live, but around here it snows and the road gets slick. I have other thing to concentrate on, like the moron in front of me, besides switching gears.
I live in Atlanta, which certainly has it's share of traffic and idiot drivers. However, I can't remember one time when having to shift hindered me from driving. Unlike so many of my friends, I've never been in an accident when I was behind the wheel. Driving a stick is one of those things that I don't have to think about. Of course the possibility of getting caught in the wrong gear is there, but that really just comes with predicting what is going to happen while driving.
An aside: I happen to drive with a Valentine One. There are many people who claim that radar detectors make the roads more dangerous and that "speed kills." I think this is a fairly narrow view of the subject. I tend to be extremely alert while driving, always scanning the horizon and checking my mirrors. I've found this to be much safer than the sort of passive driving that I see most of the time.