In fact, in most (all?) countries you have to take your test on a manual, otherwise you will get a licence that limits you to driving only automatic cars.
That's exactly the way it should be. In fact, I'd wager to bet that a *large* portion of the licenced American drivers could not pass a German driving test even *with* an automatic transmission. This country's licensing system is an absolute joke. Five minutes of driving on a lightly-travelled road will not show the examiner much of anything about how the driver will drive in the real world. A real driving test would deal with emergency braking, emergency lane changing, and how to drive in the real world.
An example: thanks to the NHTSA, most Americans think that slower = safer. As a result, I'm often stuck behind soccer moms in their Expeditions who try to merge into Atlanta traffic at 45 mph. Speed doesn't kill, speed differential does (ok, that's velocity, but you get the point). These are things that people are not taught in driving school and not tested on when taking the licensing test. And don't even get me started on lane discipline.
I've always said that if I buy a automatic transmission in the future, I will promptly drive it over a cliff. In my biased view, automatic transmissions are for those who don't really care about driving (with a few exceptions, such as the disabled) and therefore people with automatic transmissions are generally poor drivers compared to manual tranny drivers. Of course this theory has to be adjusted for socioeconomic class, but the basic idea still stands.
One question about this automatic driver: can he parallel park without scraping the corners of the other parked cars? Because God knows most people can't.
Jack Valenti is obviously an intelligent man. However, he is out of touch with the technological world. He has grown up with more traditional means of communication, and at 78 years old, I don't think he fully understands what it's all about.
Many have made the argument that by blocking iCrave and DeCSS, the MPAA is actually hurting the business of those that they are trying to protect. While this may or may not be the case, what needs to happen is that the companies need to see that they can profit from this. They don't give two damns about free speech. They want to make money.
I think Mr. Valenti would be a great/. interview. I've seen some very well thought out questions asked in/. interviews, I can't help but think that maybe a few well-worded questions might have him reconsidering his stance. Of course, it won't change things overnight. The fact remains that the companies need to see profit before they begin to like something.
It's read with a laser, so it must go through digital processing. This would seem to undermine the goal of listening to vinyl - that is, to avoid the "noise" that some audiophiles feel is added through digital processing. Seems like not much more than an expensive toy (obviously) to show your friends rather than a realistic audiophile piece.
I bet a properly tuned Rega Planar would sound better.
Pardon my lack of technical knowledge on the subject (both Napster and all things TCP/IP), but how do you (you being IT, not you personally) know that those 25 students were participating in illegal activity?
I suppose it boils down to how your AUP is structured. Here, students may not do anything illegal (surprise), and may not impact other users on the network. I run a server (legal stuff), so if I get an email from OIT saying I'm using too much bandwidth - and it's affecting other users negatively - I'll back it off. Actually, I have gotten such a letter (an informal one), but they seemed more concerned with whether or not what I was doing was illegal. After assuring them that everything is perfectly legal, I haven't heard back.
My Ethernet connection is really the only thing keeping me on campus. I run a relatively small server (actually, my IP is the number 3 user of bandwidth on campus, behind 2 official school servers) from my desktop machine, and it's a lot of fun. And if I need anything - an ISO of RH6.1, any program, etc., it's right there at my fingertips. I use the internet to check the weather before I go to class, to check for my assignments, to converse with all of my friends, and just to have fun.
Of course, I'm sure all of my time spent on my computer has a drastic effect on my GPA (which is quite low at the time). However, it's not like I'm just sitting around and getting drunk - I'm learning something most of the time. When I need Linux help, I check the #linux channel on my favorite IRC server. Even though my GPA might not reflect it, I've got a good bit of practical experience from my time spent on the internet. Too bad Linux knowledge doesn't help too much with engineering.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply make auto-manufacturers build cars that do not exceed 120km/hr or have that as a cutoff speed when being sold in Britain (i.e. a configurable maximum speed)...as oppposed to this expensive sounding satellite crap that will probably be circumvented as quickly as it comes out.
Or just take the officers who are running speed traps and let them actively patrol for truly dangerous people. Or would that be too much trouble?
...or so Dr. Martinez and the rest of the NHTSA would like to have us believe. You Car and Driver readers out there are no doubt familiar with Patrick Bedard and his views on the subject. And how about the interview with Dr. Martinez a couple of years ago? Martinez claimed that roughly 32% of (fatal?) accidents are speed-related. So what exactly does "speed-related" mean? Let's put it this way. If a driver with a BAC of 0.3 is driving a car with no brakes the wrong way down a one way street, and he's exceeding the speed limit, that's marked as speed-related. That accident is grouped with others similar to it to make "safe speeders" (not an oxymoron, believe me) look like homicidal maniacs. I can't remember the exact number, but I think C&D found that about 3% of all (fatal?) accidents are solely speed-related, as in too fast for the conditions. This pales in comparison to real problems such as drunk driving.
Politicians like for us to think that they're protecting us by lowering speed limits. But I have to wonder: if 55 is safe and speed kills, isn't 50 safer? And why do all of these people break the speed limit? Are they insane? Or are they just driving at a comfortable speed that they chose based on the many variables involved in driving? It's amazing how a little number can make everybody safer - it's the perfect speed for the old man in the Crown Vic with bad brakes and bald tires, and it's the perfect speed for the 35 year old weekend racer in the M3 with sticky tires and brakes that could throw you through the windshield. Amazing.
Or is it that speed limits are not set scientifically? Is it just an arbitrary number assigned for the purpose of increasing the feeling of safety as well as increasing revenue? I think so.
Folks, speeding isn't the problem. Reckless driving, SUVs, DUI - these things are the problem. It's unfortunate that the majority of people don't seem to realize this and don't seem to care. So until then I'll just have to feel "safe" with a low speed limit.
However, Parker and Stone are NOT exactly motivated by creativity here. It's a total money grab situation. They say "we've had offers before", and if one thing they've ALWAYS known how to merchandise thier product. They knew they could get a hefty sum rather than going out on thier own like Spumco.
Since when is selling your product a Bad Thing? Here you have a couple of guys who can write funny material (imho). They're approached by a company (be it comedy central or macromedia) who wants to pay them to write this material. Do comedy central and macromedia have a creative interest in south park? No, they want viewers, and south park can bring it to them.
As soon as something starts making money, everybody seems to jump on the "sellout" bandwagon. If you ask me, the quality (read: funniness) of south park has not dropped. I'm sure Parker and Stone still have creative interest in their product, they just want to market it.
That would be great except for the fact that I don't know a soul who relies on CR for objective reviews. Every time they publish a review on something (cars, stereo equipment, etc.), every enthusiast of that group just laughs. CR's reviews are oversimplified and cater to the mainstream (aka uninformed) population.
Instead of turning to CR when I want information about a product, I go to Dejanews, read the appropriate FAQ, search some posts, and then scour the net for reviews. From this I form my own opinion. It works pretty well; better than basing my purchasing decisions on CR writings.
Almost every magazine can fall victim to this. Magazines don't make their money from subscriptions or even newsstand sales, they make profits from advertising. We as readers need to be smart enough to tell when the writer is really being objective and when we're just being fed BS to sell advertising space.
When a publication prints a report about a product that is heavily advertised, we must take it with a grain of salt - you've got to be a smart reader.
Hey, what if there were a magazine that didn't accept advertising? Then everybody would take their reviews seriously! We could call it Consumer Reports. [/sarcasm]
The teacher obviously did not feel threatened by the story. Not only did the teacher give him a perfect score, but she also commented that the story was "outstanding." Personally, I expect a 5th grader to be able to write better than that, but I digress.
I'm really sorry that this kid isn't the most popular guy in school. It's a shame that the 7th graders don't look past physical appearance to see "inner beauty" or whatever you want to call it. But someone who is in a good mental state of mind doesn't generally read this kind of thing aloud to his class. And some of you wonder why his classmates think he is "weird." There is a huge difference between being your own person and being different for the sake of being different - just so you can shock other people. This is a 12-13 year old kid, for God's sake. He'll fart in class just to get attention. The story was just a way to draw attention to himself and try to shock the cheerleaders and football players and to be the one who is talked about at the lunch table.
What probably happened is that the teacher saw a kid who probably has negative feelings towards a lot of the other kids in his class, so she let the principal know. Maybe the principal overreacted, or maybe he knows more about the kid than Mr. Katz does, and he did the right thing. It's probably a combination of both.
Etree rocks. Of course, most of the folks on etree are anal - don't expect to jump on any etree sites and pull down MP3s (sorry, modem uers). It's geared (as HHaygood stated) towards the high-speed folks. Phish is by far the biggest band on Etree. Recently, the Pepsi Project attempted to have the 10/9 and 10/10 shows available for download within 24 hours after they were played, and except for a couple of small hangups, they were pretty close to being successful.
Curse off MP3 forever and see the light.
BTW, a typical show is usually closer to 1000 MB, since the music doesn't fill up the entire 3 discs. Of course, there's always room for filler.
And sorry, no time for B&Ps right now, but I am accepting login requests. More info can be found on etree.org.
Hollywood stereotypes everything and everybody in a way that fits into the public imagination. For instance, have you ever seen a Middle Eastern man in a movie who was not a terrorist?
...that the mainstream understands nothing? This doesn't just apply to the tech industry, it applies to everything. How many of you are really into something other than computers? Cars, music, stereo equipment, etc. As an example, I enjoy, among other things, high fidelity stereo equipment. What does the mainstream think of when they hear the term hi-fi? Many think of Bose. What do the stereo buffs and audiophiles think of when they think of Bose? Overpriced, overrated, and hyped by marketing. The average (mainstream) consumer is convinced that Bose is the closest thing to heaven, because of the way it is perceived. Most folks want that boomy bass and a 34-channel home theater system, and they'll argue that is can compete with any similarly-priced system. I promise you, if you've ever heard a nice stereo and then heard a Bose, you'd be convinced of my point.
The same things holds true with many other industries. The fact of the matter is, if you give something enough sex appeal (hacking, Bose, or that new "Bats" movie), people are going to be interested. MTV doesn't get much of an audience by showing some pale guy named Erwin sitting in front of a computer with a Unix prompt, Circuit City doesn't make millions by selling a half dozen $15k amps a year, and movies don't draw the crowds without making a bad movie look good.
So just ignore them. I read a report on Defcon that mentioned a kid wearing a shirt: "I hate stupid people." Those four words say a lot about the "mainstream."
The warehouse brims with more than 200 computers ranging from state-of-the-art Sun and Digital workstations to nostalgia pieces like Commodore 64's and Apple IIe's. Black cables, yellow cables and jumbles of thin rainbow-colored wires drip from the ceiling, all jacked in to steel racks of oscilloscopes, radio transmitters, D.S.L. modems, I.S.D.N. modems, half-opened C.P.U.'s and a 50-foot roof antenna. The warehouse also contains several small-scale dummy computer networks.
Where do they get their financial backing for all of this hardware/service/location? Maybe they get a little advertising money and sell a few shirts, but how about the rest of the money? Does L0pht do paid consulting, or what?
But besides that, some people really can't tell the difference between true cd quality, and mp3 quality. For those who can, though, what difference does it make?
Makes a huge difference to me. If you're like me, you're constantly convincing others as to why you need a computer with XXX MB of RAM, or a car that does 0-60 in under 5 seconds, etc. It usually centers around their belief that something inferior is "good enough." Nothing wrong with that, life's about compromises, and budgeting your needs and wants with respect to reality.
A little while ago some guy posted in another audio related article that there was some free (gpl?) audio compression program that could compress about 60%, and on decompression reproduced the original song bit for bit (if anyone knows where this is available, could you point me to it?).
Sounds like that guy is me. The compression is Shorten format (shn), and it's how I prefer to trade my CDs. A full show download (3 discs) can run up to 1 GB. Not a problem on my T3, but modem users need not apply. It's much easier/cheaper than trading traditionally, through the mail. I have the files needed on my FTP, let me know if you need them.
The odd thing about it, though, was he said that it was the only compression scheme they used to trade Grateful Dead bootlegs.
Yep, MP3s are shunned. Some folks have MP3-sourced stuff on their lists, and I don't trade with them. The serious traders won't touch them.
A bootleg itself will be low quality (I would assume), so that would be the limiting factor for compressed sound quality, not the compression itself...
In a way, that's true. However, all of these shows were taped legally (meaning the taper doesn't have to stealth, and can place mics optimally), or recorded via a soundboard patch. I have a Grateful Dead '77 show (5/21/77) that absolutely smokes, and the quality is excellent. I've got a '71 show that was taped with mics, and the sound is still great - gives more of a "you are there" sound (more crowd noise).
BTW, they're technically not bootlegs, since they're legal (not sold for profit).:)
I've been meaning to do this one for a long time, the article just reminded me. Here's what I did:
1. picked 3 different tracks from different CDs 2. ripped them to hard drive 3. encoded them to 128 kbps and 256 kbps (that makes 9 tracks total) 4. decoded the MP3s to wav 5. burned the tracks at 2x to reduce jitter 6. listened
Hardware/software is important in this sort of thing, so here's the list:
CD-R drive: Plextor 4/12 (great digital audio extraction) DAE software: Exact Audio Copy v0.85 CD-R media: Mitsui silver Encoding software: BladeEnc Decoding software: Winamp 2.5C (not optimal, but had it handy) Burning software: CDRWIN 3.7E
My stereo: JoLida JD302B integrated tube amplifier with Svetlana Mullard copy EL34 tubes Marantz CD48 used as transport MSB Technology Link DAC, connected with a Canare digital cable, Audioquest Jade interconnects Triangle Zephyr MkII loudspeakers Harmonic Technology Melody cables (8'), single-wired
The tracks: 1, 2, and 3: Johnny Frigo with Bucky & John Pizzarelli - "Stompin' and the Savoy" - Live from Studio A - Chesky Records 4, 5, and 6: Widespread Panic - "Chilly Water" - 8/8/99 (audience taping, source: Schoeps M222 > MK-4Vs > Lunatec V2 > HHB DAT > Zefiro ZA2 > CD) 7, 8, and 9: Widespread Panic - "Party at Your Mama's House" (aka "That Thang") - Til The Medicine Takes - Capricorn Records
The Results: First, my disclaimer. This test is far from scientific, and I don't claim to be an audiophile. My room acoustics leave much to be desired. Plus, this test is not blind, although I'm not going to lie to you...
First I listened to the CD track, then the 128 kbps, then the 256 kbps. Of course, the CD track was used for the reference. Listening to the CD track and then the 128 kbps track was bordering on pain! The difference was huge. I won't attempt to use any of the audiophile jargon, I'll just leave it at that.
I expected the difference between 128 kbps and 256 kbps to be fairly small, but I was a little surprised. I had to listen carefully to tell the difference between 256 kbps and CD audio.
Conclusion: for those who don't listen to music seriously and/or who listen on mediocre systems, MP3-sourced discs should fit the bill if you're looking for convenience/cost effectiveness.
But did I really need to go to all this trouble to convince myself of something I already knew?:)
"Am I the only one who noticed a few grammer errors in the response? I wonder who approved the text. . . MS is not that sloppy with what they put out. Wonder who wrote it?"
Reread that first sentence and tell me if you see any irony.
Exactly. As if MP3 quality isn't poor enough as it is. Even if I had a digital out on my soundcard, ran it to my external DAC in my stereo, and used it to play 256 kbps MP3s, the quality would still suck.
Let me preface by saying that I mean no disrespect, I simply disagree. I do see strong potential for this product, but only in a certain market. Hell, a lot of my friends send MP3s to their stereos through analog sound cards and cheap RCA connectors. Anyway, on to my opinion:
In short, for me [the audio quality issue] isn't one.
But for many it is. Sure, some people moved from cassette to CD because there's no rewinding, etc. But sound quality is the real selling point. (Yes, I'm aware that many audiophiles use their turntables instead of their digital equipment quite frequently).
In the interview I stated I built this machine to replace my *analog* equipment. I don't think anyone can argue that a 256kb/s MP3 (on a digital output) sounds worse than a cassette tape. Perhaps if you bought a $1000 tape deck, but if this is the case I am sure you could care less about MP3.
Good point, but I feel that such a device is mostly competing for market share against CD-Rs and the like. But I'd still say a good turntable will sound better than a 256 kbps MP3. Of course, to whom it will sound better is a very (!) small minority... and like you said, those folks could care less about MP3.
Yes, if you listen for it, you can hear the compression of the audio. Especially in the rear channels if you place your receiver in a surround mode
Why anybody would put an audio track designed for 2-channel listening into surround mode is beyond me. In two channel mode, can put you "there," where the sound doesn't appear to be coming from a couple of speakers. When fed into more than 2 channels, all imaging and soundstage qualities disappear. Of course, (reversing what you said above), the people who care about MP3 don't care.
As far as I am concerned it sounds *close* enough to a CD, that I don't mind if there is a little swishy-ness in the cymbals. The advantages of having all my music at at the touch of a button far outweigh this.
For me, the convenience advantages don't outweigh the sonic disadvantages. But then again, I place more emphasis on how my amp sounds than how many watts I can claim it's rated at. (Dude, my new Sony pumps out 200x5!) It's also the reason I have a single-disc CD player rather than a two million disc changer - better sound quality.
It is all a matter of personal preference
Certainly a true statement. Of course, this reminds me of my theory about that "girls don't care about important things." When was the last time you heard a girl say, "Sure, the iMac has nice colors, but this Dell has 256 MB of RAM!" or "I just brought my Conrad-Johnson amp home; I found the bass on the Krell to be too muddy."?:)
Please excuse my generalizations, I mean it only in jest. And Joe, if you want to send me an LCDAT and prove me wrong about sound quality, please do.:) Even if I wouldn't buy one, it truly is a good idea for a large segment of the population.
Try saying that on rec.audio.car though and see how quickly you get flamed.:)
Try saying that you've got a car stereo that sounds good in rec.audio.opinion or rec.audio.high-end and see how quickly you get flamed.:) I consider the term "good car stereo" to be an oxymoron, unless it's used in a relative sense (better than OEM, etc.).
Am I the only one who thinks that the quality of MP3-encoded audio is not up to par? Even if we're talking 256 kbps stuff, the quality loss is definitely noticeable if played through anything more than cheap speakers. Until these types of players have the storage capability to store audio in a format without quality loss, I don't see any serious music listeners really buying into it. However, for the junior high school girl who wants to listen to the latest Britney Spears (mmm) pop single, an MP3 player might be just the ticket.
Personally, the new format just seems too small (on my 19" 1024x768). That's not what bothers me, though, and I'm surprised I haven't seen this mentioned. Maybe I'm just imagining things, but haven't we seen the "Porn director fights for single-X rating" (paraphrased) story before? I'd be willing to bet several shares of RHAT that we have.
Plus, this issue is uncharacteristically unfunny. Give me a good Herbert Kornfield article, a funny Jim Anchower article, a humorous infographic, or a nice Onion Kid's Corner. Lately those have been somewhat lacking. I shouldn't complain, though, it's still one of my favorite sites on the net. And if anybody disagrees, I might have to break out my letter opener of death...
Aren't Backstreet Boys videos already the subject of ridicule?
Ahh, by those of us who choose our music based on the actual *music*, yes. If I chose my music based on what the singer/group looks like, I'd be in line for Britney Spears tickets...
If you've ever seen a/an [insert teen heartthrob here] "interview" on MTV, and they show the audience, check out who's there. Isn't there something wrong if teenage girls make up ~95% of the audience?
I think once MTV starts putting some of its crap in MP3 format for download, we'll see a sharp rise in Rio sales.
MTV is perfect for Diamond's Rio player. They (MTV) cater to those who love to listen to the overplayed crap from the latest sensation to hit the music scene. Now all the 14 year old girls can download the newest release by "that really cute guy" and jam out to it at a sleepover with their cheap boombox.
I'll tell you what I find funny about MTV - anybody catch the show a couple of months ago where some celebrities were sitting around, talking about how bad the videos of 5-10 years ago were? 5 years down the road you'll still be seeing Backstreet Boys videos on MTV, only they'll be the subject of ridicule. How hypocritical. MTV has managed to exploit artists and "fans," and I admire them because that is a damn good idea - appeal to the idiots, because they're the majority.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, in most (all?) countries you have to take your test on a manual, otherwise you will get a licence that limits you to driving only automatic cars.
That's exactly the way it should be. In fact, I'd wager to bet that a *large* portion of the licenced American drivers could not pass a German driving test even *with* an automatic transmission. This country's licensing system is an absolute joke. Five minutes of driving on a lightly-travelled road will not show the examiner much of anything about how the driver will drive in the real world. A real driving test would deal with emergency braking, emergency lane changing, and how to drive in the real world.
An example: thanks to the NHTSA, most Americans think that slower = safer. As a result, I'm often stuck behind soccer moms in their Expeditions who try to merge into Atlanta traffic at 45 mph. Speed doesn't kill, speed differential does (ok, that's velocity, but you get the point). These are things that people are not taught in driving school and not tested on when taking the licensing test. And don't even get me started on lane discipline.
I've always said that if I buy a automatic transmission in the future, I will promptly drive it over a cliff. In my biased view, automatic transmissions are for those who don't really care about driving (with a few exceptions, such as the disabled) and therefore people with automatic transmissions are generally poor drivers compared to manual tranny drivers. Of course this theory has to be adjusted for socioeconomic class, but the basic idea still stands.
One question about this automatic driver: can he parallel park without scraping the corners of the other parked cars? Because God knows most people can't.
Jack Valenti is obviously an intelligent man. However, he is out of touch with the technological world. He has grown up with more traditional means of communication, and at 78 years old, I don't think he fully understands what it's all about.
/. interview. I've seen some very well thought out questions asked in /. interviews, I can't help but think that maybe a few well-worded questions might have him reconsidering his stance. Of course, it won't change things overnight. The fact remains that the companies need to see profit before they begin to like something.
Many have made the argument that by blocking iCrave and DeCSS, the MPAA is actually hurting the business of those that they are trying to protect. While this may or may not be the case, what needs to happen is that the companies need to see that they can profit from this. They don't give two damns about free speech. They want to make money.
I think Mr. Valenti would be a great
It's read with a laser, so it must go through digital processing. This would seem to undermine the goal of listening to vinyl - that is, to avoid the "noise" that some audiophiles feel is added through digital processing. Seems like not much more than an expensive toy (obviously) to show your friends rather than a realistic audiophile piece.
I bet a properly tuned Rega Planar would sound better.
Pardon my lack of technical knowledge on the subject (both Napster and all things TCP/IP), but how do you (you being IT, not you personally) know that those 25 students were participating in illegal activity?
I suppose it boils down to how your AUP is structured. Here, students may not do anything illegal (surprise), and may not impact other users on the network. I run a server (legal stuff), so if I get an email from OIT saying I'm using too much bandwidth - and it's affecting other users negatively - I'll back it off. Actually, I have gotten such a letter (an informal one), but they seemed more concerned with whether or not what I was doing was illegal. After assuring them that everything is perfectly legal, I haven't heard back.
My Ethernet connection is really the only thing keeping me on campus. I run a relatively small server (actually, my IP is the number 3 user of bandwidth on campus, behind 2 official school servers) from my desktop machine, and it's a lot of fun. And if I need anything - an ISO of RH6.1, any program, etc., it's right there at my fingertips. I use the internet to check the weather before I go to class, to check for my assignments, to converse with all of my friends, and just to have fun.
Of course, I'm sure all of my time spent on my computer has a drastic effect on my GPA (which is quite low at the time). However, it's not like I'm just sitting around and getting drunk - I'm learning something most of the time. When I need Linux help, I check the #linux channel on my favorite IRC server. Even though my GPA might not reflect it, I've got a good bit of practical experience from my time spent on the internet. Too bad Linux knowledge doesn't help too much with engineering.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply make auto-manufacturers build cars that do not exceed 120km/hr or have that as a cutoff speed when being sold in Britain (i.e. a configurable maximum speed)...as oppposed to this expensive sounding satellite crap that will probably be circumvented as quickly as it comes out.
Or just take the officers who are running speed traps and let them actively patrol for truly dangerous people. Or would that be too much trouble?
...or so Dr. Martinez and the rest of the NHTSA would like to have us believe. You Car and Driver readers out there are no doubt familiar with Patrick Bedard and his views on the subject. And how about the interview with Dr. Martinez a couple of years ago? Martinez claimed that roughly 32% of (fatal?) accidents are speed-related. So what exactly does "speed-related" mean? Let's put it this way. If a driver with a BAC of 0.3 is driving a car with no brakes the wrong way down a one way street, and he's exceeding the speed limit, that's marked as speed-related. That accident is grouped with others similar to it to make "safe speeders" (not an oxymoron, believe me) look like homicidal maniacs. I can't remember the exact number, but I think C&D found that about 3% of all (fatal?) accidents are solely speed-related, as in too fast for the conditions. This pales in comparison to real problems such as drunk driving.
Politicians like for us to think that they're protecting us by lowering speed limits. But I have to wonder: if 55 is safe and speed kills, isn't 50 safer? And why do all of these people break the speed limit? Are they insane? Or are they just driving at a comfortable speed that they chose based on the many variables involved in driving? It's amazing how a little number can make everybody safer - it's the perfect speed for the old man in the Crown Vic with bad brakes and bald tires, and it's the perfect speed for the 35 year old weekend racer in the M3 with sticky tires and brakes that could throw you through the windshield. Amazing.
Or is it that speed limits are not set scientifically? Is it just an arbitrary number assigned for the purpose of increasing the feeling of safety as well as increasing revenue? I think so.
Folks, speeding isn't the problem. Reckless driving, SUVs, DUI - these things are the problem. It's unfortunate that the majority of people don't seem to realize this and don't seem to care. So until then I'll just have to feel "safe" with a low speed limit.
www.valentine1.com
However, Parker and Stone are NOT exactly motivated by creativity here. It's a total money grab situation. They say "we've had offers before", and if one thing they've ALWAYS known how to merchandise thier product. They knew they could get a hefty sum rather than going out on thier own like Spumco.
Since when is selling your product a Bad Thing? Here you have a couple of guys who can write funny material (imho). They're approached by a company (be it comedy central or macromedia) who wants to pay them to write this material. Do comedy central and macromedia have a creative interest in south park? No, they want viewers, and south park can bring it to them.
As soon as something starts making money, everybody seems to jump on the "sellout" bandwagon. If you ask me, the quality (read: funniness) of south park has not dropped. I'm sure Parker and Stone still have creative interest in their product, they just want to market it.
That would be great except for the fact that I don't know a soul who relies on CR for objective reviews. Every time they publish a review on something (cars, stereo equipment, etc.), every enthusiast of that group just laughs. CR's reviews are oversimplified and cater to the mainstream (aka uninformed) population.
Instead of turning to CR when I want information about a product, I go to Dejanews, read the appropriate FAQ, search some posts, and then scour the net for reviews. From this I form my own opinion. It works pretty well; better than basing my purchasing decisions on CR writings.
Almost every magazine can fall victim to this. Magazines don't make their money from subscriptions or even newsstand sales, they make profits from advertising. We as readers need to be smart enough to tell when the writer is really being objective and when we're just being fed BS to sell advertising space.
When a publication prints a report about a product that is heavily advertised, we must take it with a grain of salt - you've got to be a smart reader.
Hey, what if there were a magazine that didn't accept advertising? Then everybody would take their reviews seriously! We could call it Consumer Reports. [/sarcasm]
The teacher obviously did not feel threatened by the story. Not only did the teacher give him a perfect score, but she also commented that the story was "outstanding." Personally, I expect a 5th grader to be able to write better than that, but I digress.
I'm really sorry that this kid isn't the most popular guy in school. It's a shame that the 7th graders don't look past physical appearance to see "inner beauty" or whatever you want to call it. But someone who is in a good mental state of mind doesn't generally read this kind of thing aloud to his class. And some of you wonder why his classmates think he is "weird." There is a huge difference between being your own person and being different for the sake of being different - just so you can shock other people. This is a 12-13 year old kid, for God's sake. He'll fart in class just to get attention. The story was just a way to draw attention to himself and try to shock the cheerleaders and football players and to be the one who is talked about at the lunch table.
What probably happened is that the teacher saw a kid who probably has negative feelings towards a lot of the other kids in his class, so she let the principal know. Maybe the principal overreacted, or maybe he knows more about the kid than Mr. Katz does, and he did the right thing. It's probably a combination of both.
Etree rocks. Of course, most of the folks on etree are anal - don't expect to jump on any etree sites and pull down MP3s (sorry, modem uers). It's geared (as HHaygood stated) towards the high-speed folks. Phish is by far the biggest band on Etree. Recently, the Pepsi Project attempted to have the 10/9 and 10/10 shows available for download within 24 hours after they were played, and except for a couple of small hangups, they were pretty close to being successful.
Curse off MP3 forever and see the light.
BTW, a typical show is usually closer to 1000 MB, since the music doesn't fill up the entire 3 discs. Of course, there's always room for filler.
And sorry, no time for B&Ps right now, but I am accepting login requests. More info can be found on etree.org.
Hollywood stereotypes everything and everybody in a way that fits into the public imagination. For instance, have you ever seen a Middle Eastern man in a movie who was not a terrorist?
http://www.theonion.com/onion31 08/crazedgunman.html
...that the mainstream understands nothing? This doesn't just apply to the tech industry, it applies to everything. How many of you are really into something other than computers? Cars, music, stereo equipment, etc. As an example, I enjoy, among other things, high fidelity stereo equipment. What does the mainstream think of when they hear the term hi-fi? Many think of Bose. What do the stereo buffs and audiophiles think of when they think of Bose? Overpriced, overrated, and hyped by marketing. The average (mainstream) consumer is convinced that Bose is the closest thing to heaven, because of the way it is perceived. Most folks want that boomy bass and a 34-channel home theater system, and they'll argue that is can compete with any similarly-priced system. I promise you, if you've ever heard a nice stereo and then heard a Bose, you'd be convinced of my point.
The same things holds true with many other industries. The fact of the matter is, if you give something enough sex appeal (hacking, Bose, or that new "Bats" movie), people are going to be interested. MTV doesn't get much of an audience by showing some pale guy named Erwin sitting in front of a computer with a Unix prompt, Circuit City doesn't make millions by selling a half dozen $15k amps a year, and movies don't draw the crowds without making a bad movie look good.
So just ignore them. I read a report on Defcon that mentioned a kid wearing a shirt: "I hate stupid people." Those four words say a lot about the "mainstream."
The warehouse brims with more than 200 computers ranging from state-of-the-art Sun and Digital workstations to nostalgia pieces like Commodore 64's and Apple IIe's. Black cables, yellow cables and jumbles of thin rainbow-colored wires drip from the ceiling, all jacked in to steel racks of oscilloscopes, radio transmitters, D.S.L. modems, I.S.D.N. modems, half-opened C.P.U.'s and a 50-foot roof antenna. The warehouse also contains several small-scale dummy computer networks.
Where do they get their financial backing for all of this hardware/service/location? Maybe they get a little advertising money and sell a few shirts, but how about the rest of the money? Does L0pht do paid consulting, or what?
That electicity bill must be through the roof.
Makes a huge difference to me. If you're like me, you're constantly convincing others as to why you need a computer with XXX MB of RAM, or a car that does 0-60 in under 5 seconds, etc. It usually centers around their belief that something inferior is "good enough." Nothing wrong with that, life's about compromises, and budgeting your needs and wants with respect to reality.
A little while ago some guy posted in another audio related article that there was some free (gpl?) audio compression program that could compress about 60%, and on decompression reproduced the original song bit for bit (if anyone knows where this is available, could you point me to it?).
Sounds like that guy is me. The compression is Shorten format (shn), and it's how I prefer to trade my CDs. A full show download (3 discs) can run up to 1 GB. Not a problem on my T3, but modem users need not apply. It's much easier/cheaper than trading traditionally, through the mail. I have the files needed on my FTP, let me know if you need them.
The odd thing about it, though, was he said that it was the only compression scheme they used to trade Grateful Dead bootlegs.
Yep, MP3s are shunned. Some folks have MP3-sourced stuff on their lists, and I don't trade with them. The serious traders won't touch them.
A bootleg itself will be low quality (I would assume), so that would be the limiting factor for compressed sound quality, not the compression itself...
In a way, that's true. However, all of these shows were taped legally (meaning the taper doesn't have to stealth, and can place mics optimally), or recorded via a soundboard patch. I have a Grateful Dead '77 show (5/21/77) that absolutely smokes, and the quality is excellent. I've got a '71 show that was taped with mics, and the sound is still great - gives more of a "you are there" sound (more crowd noise).
BTW, they're technically not bootlegs, since they're legal (not sold for profit).
-Drew Boyles-
dboyles@resnet.gatech.edu
1. picked 3 different tracks from different CDs
2. ripped them to hard drive
3. encoded them to 128 kbps and 256 kbps (that makes 9 tracks total)
4. decoded the MP3s to wav
5. burned the tracks at 2x to reduce jitter
6. listened
Hardware/software is important in this sort of thing, so here's the list:
CD-R drive: Plextor 4/12 (great digital audio extraction)
DAE software: Exact Audio Copy v0.85
CD-R media: Mitsui silver
Encoding software: BladeEnc
Decoding software: Winamp 2.5C (not optimal, but had it handy)
Burning software: CDRWIN 3.7E
My stereo:
JoLida JD302B integrated tube amplifier with Svetlana Mullard copy EL34 tubes
Marantz CD48 used as transport
MSB Technology Link DAC, connected with a Canare digital cable, Audioquest Jade interconnects
Triangle Zephyr MkII loudspeakers
Harmonic Technology Melody cables (8'), single-wired
The tracks:
1, 2, and 3: Johnny Frigo with Bucky & John Pizzarelli - "Stompin' and the Savoy" - Live from Studio A - Chesky Records
4, 5, and 6: Widespread Panic - "Chilly Water" - 8/8/99 (audience taping, source: Schoeps M222 > MK-4Vs > Lunatec V2 > HHB DAT > Zefiro ZA2 > CD)
7, 8, and 9: Widespread Panic - "Party at Your Mama's House" (aka "That Thang") - Til The Medicine Takes - Capricorn Records
The Results:
First, my disclaimer. This test is far from scientific, and I don't claim to be an audiophile. My room acoustics leave much to be desired. Plus, this test is not blind, although I'm not going to lie to you...
First I listened to the CD track, then the 128 kbps, then the 256 kbps. Of course, the CD track was used for the reference. Listening to the CD track and then the 128 kbps track was bordering on pain! The difference was huge. I won't attempt to use any of the audiophile jargon, I'll just leave it at that.
I expected the difference between 128 kbps and 256 kbps to be fairly small, but I was a little surprised. I had to listen carefully to tell the difference between 256 kbps and CD audio.
Conclusion: for those who don't listen to music seriously and/or who listen on mediocre systems, MP3-sourced discs should fit the bill if you're looking for convenience/cost effectiveness.
But did I really need to go to all this trouble to convince myself of something I already knew?
-Drew Boyles-
dboyles@resnet.gatech.edu
Reread that first sentence and tell me if you see any irony.
-Drew Boyles-
dboyles@resnet.gatech.edu
-Drew Boyles-
dboyles@resnet.gatech.edu
In short, for me [the audio quality issue] isn't one.
But for many it is. Sure, some people moved from cassette to CD because there's no rewinding, etc. But sound quality is the real selling point. (Yes, I'm aware that many audiophiles use their turntables instead of their digital equipment quite frequently).
In the interview I stated I built this machine to replace my *analog* equipment. I don't think anyone can argue that a 256kb/s MP3 (on a digital output) sounds worse than a cassette tape. Perhaps if you bought a $1000 tape deck, but if this is the case I am sure you could care less about MP3.
Good point, but I feel that such a device is mostly competing for market share against CD-Rs and the like. But I'd still say a good turntable will sound better than a 256 kbps MP3. Of course, to whom it will sound better is a very (!) small minority... and like you said, those folks could care less about MP3.
Yes, if you listen for it, you can hear the compression of the audio. Especially in the rear channels if you place your receiver in a surround mode
Why anybody would put an audio track designed for 2-channel listening into surround mode is beyond me. In two channel mode, can put you "there," where the sound doesn't appear to be coming from a couple of speakers. When fed into more than 2 channels, all imaging and soundstage qualities disappear. Of course, (reversing what you said above), the people who care about MP3 don't care.
As far as I am concerned it sounds *close* enough to a CD, that I don't mind if there is a little swishy-ness in the cymbals. The advantages of having all my music at at the touch of a button far outweigh this.
For me, the convenience advantages don't outweigh the sonic disadvantages. But then again, I place more emphasis on how my amp sounds than how many watts I can claim it's rated at. (Dude, my new Sony pumps out 200x5!) It's also the reason I have a single-disc CD player rather than a two million disc changer - better sound quality.
It is all a matter of personal preference
Certainly a true statement. Of course, this reminds me of my theory about that "girls don't care about important things." When was the last time you heard a girl say, "Sure, the iMac has nice colors, but this Dell has 256 MB of RAM!" or "I just brought my Conrad-Johnson amp home; I found the bass on the Krell to be too muddy."?
Please excuse my generalizations, I mean it only in jest. And Joe, if you want to send me an LCDAT and prove me wrong about sound quality, please do.
-Drew Boyles-
dboyles@resnet.gatech.edu
Try saying that you've got a car stereo that sounds good in rec.audio.opinion or rec.audio.high-end and see how quickly you get flamed.
-Drew Boyles-
dboyles@resnet.gatech.edu
-Drew Boyles-
dboyles@resnet.gatech.edu
Plus, this issue is uncharacteristically unfunny. Give me a good Herbert Kornfield article, a funny Jim Anchower article, a humorous infographic, or a nice Onion Kid's Corner. Lately those have been somewhat lacking. I shouldn't complain, though, it's still one of my favorite sites on the net. And if anybody disagrees, I might have to break out my letter opener of death...
-Drew Boyles-
dboyles@resnet.gatech.edu
Ahh, by those of us who choose our music based on the actual *music*, yes. If I chose my music based on what the singer/group looks like, I'd be in line for Britney Spears tickets...
If you've ever seen a/an [insert teen heartthrob here] "interview" on MTV, and they show the audience, check out who's there. Isn't there something wrong if teenage girls make up ~95% of the audience?
I think once MTV starts putting some of its crap in MP3 format for download, we'll see a sharp rise in Rio sales.
-Drew Boyles-
dboyles@resnet.gatech.edu
I'll tell you what I find funny about MTV - anybody catch the show a couple of months ago where some celebrities were sitting around, talking about how bad the videos of 5-10 years ago were? 5 years down the road you'll still be seeing Backstreet Boys videos on MTV, only they'll be the subject of ridicule. How hypocritical. MTV has managed to exploit artists and "fans," and I admire them because that is a damn good idea - appeal to the idiots, because they're the majority.
-Drew Boyles-
dboyles@resnet.gatech.edu