That is why Sequoia sued all of the Princeton CS Profs and hired some drunk named Mike Gibbons to do the same thing that the Profs were going to do for free:
The profs may have come up with their own conclusions, instead of just signing the ones that were handed to them the first minute they walked onto the job. - There's your problem.
Just wait until our backup-singing overlords get tired of playing second fiddle to some dumb human with no musical training. Can you guess what will happen next?
One of them will go solo, and win American Idol, and then what? This country is evidently forced to love the winner of that show, no matter how horrid their singing may be. (Daughtry excluded. That man can sing. Then again, he did not win.)
Or does anyone else realize that the initials of American Idol are 'AI'?
... This was, however, before most people had access to the internet, and predominantly before the web existed. Your outdated story is so irrelevant to this discussion that it should be parsed as follows:
(Spoken in a pre-adolescent, whiny, Eric Cartman voice) "Back when we were all banging rocks together using a predecessor to Morse Code while being individually locked in a padded room by ourselves, we managed our own rocks, and there was no possibility of outside interference, but it was very very rare when we hit ourselves in the head with the rocks."
Anything that happened 'Before Everyone Was Connected To The Internet' (which is sort of like 'BC' in reference to time), should obviously be irrelevant to this discussion. Not that bad things cannot happen on a LAN/WAN/MAN/etc. without the Internet, they can and they did. But the degree of difficulty in maintaining and securing a computer is so much more severe these days, that it really cannot be compared. IMHO, that is. Sure, the tools are better now, and maybe cleaning up the mess is easier, but getting into the mess in the first place is much much easier.
Don't get me wrong, I respect those days. I just do not see how they hold relevance to securing and maintaining a computer in the Age Of The Internet. In the age of Vundo, and Spyware, and Adware, etc. The average user would have their computer, the one next to them, and the one at the local Circuit City in a permanent BSOD cycle before the first week ended. Sure, some will get their work load done, and their PC will still function at the end of the day, but it would also become a zombie slave to the computers that I mentioned in the previous sentence.
Remember, 'Without IT, it would only take one dumb-ass to infect you all.'
Your first point: Correct. My bad. I was thinking of MP3/AAC - the article mentioned itunes gift cards, and my mind went with it.
Second: I'm not sure how many vinyl records are digitally recorded/mastered. However, a CD is sampled at 44k, and the recording (even if it was digital recording) may have been done at a much higher rate. When it is pressed to vinyl, if the record company has a clue, (most EDM, and some hip-hop do in fact get this), they will use the high-rate sampling to make the master, which makes the vinyl copy a better quality copy than the CD, as it will get resampled/remastered to a lower rate, (I called it compressed earlier, I was wrong), to 44k, resulting in a lesser quality playback experience. Ever see an older album on CD with the words 'Digitally Remastered' on it? This is an example of the RIAA making a bad thing sound good.
Third: How does the consumer go about buying music and mastering a CD that is higher quality than the CD released by the record company? Unless they buy the vinyl or the rare 192k DVD-AUDIO format, they cannot. Sure, CDs ***CAN*** have better quality, but if they are not being released that way to begin with, you are using vinyl, DVD-AUDIO, DAT, or some other non-CD format to make those higher rate CDs. Period.
Bottom line: It is cheaper to make CDs and CD players than vinyl and turntables. It is cheaper to sample the audio down to 44k and put it on a 5.5 inch disc, and screw the consumer and their listening experience. Most of them won't know the difference anyhow. Sure, they could leave the sampling rate higher than 44k, and compete with the sound quality of vinyl, but there is a reason that they don't. They would have to put most albums on two CDs or more, and they could not include those stupid screen savers, wallpapers, and music videos on the disc as well. When you think about all of the crap that is not playback audio that you get on an Enhanced CD, I'd bet those Enhanced CDs are even less than 44k. Plus, if they increased the sampling rate, and gave you a better quality audio recording, they could not force-feed you all of that stuff that you don't want, like tracking cookies and DRM. Sort of like how MTV could give you a better experience if they would cut out all of the reality shows and just show music videos and live concerts 24/7.
I'm not an expert. I do however know what I hear. Commercially-recorded Vinyl sounds better than commercially recorded CDs. It just does.
When I became a DJ, I spent many hours talking to Those Who Came Before Me, and they all had one thing that they agreed on: If you want the real experience, you want vinyl. It does not matter what genre you are into, digital turntables do not compete with vinyl. (Of course, there is final scratch, etc.) The feeling I get when I grab that true vinyl record is proof that they are correct. I've played CD turntables, and they can be fun, but they will never perform at the same level as vinyl, nor will the sound quality ever compete.
As for today's vinyl quality VS yesterdays, I'm the proud owner of 6 original pressing Beatles LPs and the first 3 Led Zepplin LPs, and none of them are pressed on vinyl that is as good of quality as some of my 12" singles of today's EDM music.
And yes, there are some very very low bass sounds that could make vinyl skip, but compare that to every sound ever put on CD, and RTFM on how sound waves are all naturally analog, and just what happens to sounds when they are digitally compressed. Read more about CD compression VS. Vinyl sound quality here - http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.h tm - be sure to look at the graph. It makes it pretty obvious.
Then, come back here, and we'll have an intelligent conversation.
Maybe XP only gets "hammered on" in one of the five categories, however I see two other categories that Linux shows fewer clock cycles for, 'ABI call' and '2 message ping pong'. XP may not be getting 'hammered on' in those two, but it is getting beat. Now, I am not going to claim extensive knowledge in this field, as I am not a programmer. However, I do believe that the results of this study differ with the results of the MS-funded study in question, and that is what I wanted to point out.
Interestingly enough, if you check out page 32, Windows performs the best in matters of I/O until the block size reaches 8KB, then FreeBSD outperformed the rest.
How do your findings hold up against page 31 of the recent leaked MS Singularity OS research document found at ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2005-13 5.pdf, in which MS compares current versions of Windows XP, Linux and FreeBSD, only to show that Linux and FreeBSD outperform Windows XP?
Why do you suppose that MS would even consider building a new OS from the ground up, as they are doing with Singularity, if their current model already beats the competition?
Upgrading GlibC? The devil is obviously in the details of the study's objectives.
If they made the linux admins upgrade GlibC, then the Windows admins should have had to try to remove IE from Windows XP. That would have made the study fair.
[Quoted from above] Don't steal, don't murder, don't lie, etc...
Microsoft steals. http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/2004 1115_1354 58.html
Microsoft Murders. http://www.chez.com/johnt/antims/antimsu s.htm (See in particular the lines about Norton's Utilities and the theft of Stacker...)
Microsoft lies. http://www.opensource.org/halloween/hallowe en5.php (They've lied about linux so many times, I didn't even spend one full minute searching for an example on this one.
According to Network World, the Asian market has already seen these 'VoWiFi' capable GSM cell phones. They are dual mode, and run VoWiFi when in range of your WLAN, and GSM/GPRS when they are not in range of your WLAN. They did not give any examples, nor model numbers, but they did start a 'Future of WiFi' conference by telling us this.
Sounds like the kind of spam we block all day long around here. I'd be proud not to have recieved your email. Truth be told, if you had any of that information that you are proposing to have, you would not be sending me, or anyone else email about it.
I'm running both in production environment as well, and I agree with this. Our main inventory system runs MS SQL for vendor support reasons, and everything else runs MySQL. I have no complaints about MySQL, and running it side by side MS, I'd say it's more productive using less hardware for (dum dUM DUM!) less money ($0 if you've got skills). And with the new PHP clause in the license, you are sure to win!
We used DirectWay in our remote site for similar reasons. We had it a year and a half, and it worked 24 hours constant I think once or twice during that time. Every day when the kids got home from school/job/college/etc. the connection would be there, but the latency made it unusable. We ended up buying the local telco service a remote office on our site, so we could get DSL. Big bucks, solved our problem. If you don't have that kind of money, or even if you do, my advice to you is rid yourself of all computers, move to Mexico, and plant lots of potatoes.
The best argument for Open Source that I have used is that because the source is open, everyone can improve it and find/fix bugs or security holes, and cannot have spyware-type code inbedded. And you can be assured that when a problem is found, it can be fixed, because you have the source. Google for a news article about MS refusing to acknowledge a security hole that later was proven to exist. This has happened enough times to scare my boss to allow Open Source in our Corp.
Slashdot Mirror
That is why Sequoia sued all of the Princeton CS Profs and hired some drunk named Mike Gibbons to do the same thing that the Profs were going to do for free:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5849
The profs may have come up with their own conclusions, instead of just signing the ones that were handed to them the first minute they walked onto the job. - There's your problem.
Just wait until our backup-singing overlords get tired of playing second fiddle to some dumb human with no musical training. Can you guess what will happen next?
One of them will go solo, and win American Idol, and then what? This country is evidently forced to love the winner of that show, no matter how horrid their singing may be. (Daughtry excluded. That man can sing. Then again, he did not win.)
Or does anyone else realize that the initials of American Idol are 'AI'?
... This was, however, before most people had access to the internet, and predominantly before the web existed. Your outdated story is so irrelevant to this discussion that it should be parsed as follows:(Spoken in a pre-adolescent, whiny, Eric Cartman voice)
"Back when we were all banging rocks together using a predecessor to Morse Code while being individually locked in a padded room by ourselves, we managed our own rocks, and there was no possibility of outside interference, but it was very very rare when we hit ourselves in the head with the rocks."
Anything that happened 'Before Everyone Was Connected To The Internet' (which is sort of like 'BC' in reference to time), should obviously be irrelevant to this discussion. Not that bad things cannot happen on a LAN/WAN/MAN/etc. without the Internet, they can and they did. But the degree of difficulty in maintaining and securing a computer is so much more severe these days, that it really cannot be compared. IMHO, that is. Sure, the tools are better now, and maybe cleaning up the mess is easier, but getting into the mess in the first place is much much easier.
Don't get me wrong, I respect those days. I just do not see how they hold relevance to securing and maintaining a computer in the Age Of The Internet. In the age of Vundo, and Spyware, and Adware, etc. The average user would have their computer, the one next to them, and the one at the local Circuit City in a permanent BSOD cycle before the first week ended. Sure, some will get their work load done, and their PC will still function at the end of the day, but it would also become a zombie slave to the computers that I mentioned in the previous sentence.
Remember, 'Without IT, it would only take one dumb-ass to infect you all.'
Your first point: Correct. My bad. I was thinking of MP3/AAC - the article mentioned itunes gift cards, and my mind went with it.
Second: I'm not sure how many vinyl records are digitally recorded/mastered. However, a CD is sampled at 44k, and the recording (even if it was digital recording) may have been done at a much higher rate. When it is pressed to vinyl, if the record company has a clue, (most EDM, and some hip-hop do in fact get this), they will use the high-rate sampling to make the master, which makes the vinyl copy a better quality copy than the CD, as it will get resampled/remastered to a lower rate, (I called it compressed earlier, I was wrong), to 44k, resulting in a lesser quality playback experience. Ever see an older album on CD with the words 'Digitally Remastered' on it? This is an example of the RIAA making a bad thing sound good.
Third: How does the consumer go about buying music and mastering a CD that is higher quality than the CD released by the record company? Unless they buy the vinyl or the rare 192k DVD-AUDIO format, they cannot. Sure, CDs ***CAN*** have better quality, but if they are not being released that way to begin with, you are using vinyl, DVD-AUDIO, DAT, or some other non-CD format to make those higher rate CDs. Period.
Bottom line: It is cheaper to make CDs and CD players than vinyl and turntables. It is cheaper to sample the audio down to 44k and put it on a 5.5 inch disc, and screw the consumer and their listening experience. Most of them won't know the difference anyhow. Sure, they could leave the sampling rate higher than 44k, and compete with the sound quality of vinyl, but there is a reason that they don't. They would have to put most albums on two CDs or more, and they could not include those stupid screen savers, wallpapers, and music videos on the disc as well. When you think about all of the crap that is not playback audio that you get on an Enhanced CD, I'd bet those Enhanced CDs are even less than 44k. Plus, if they increased the sampling rate, and gave you a better quality audio recording, they could not force-feed you all of that stuff that you don't want, like tracking cookies and DRM. Sort of like how MTV could give you a better experience if they would cut out all of the reality shows and just show music videos and live concerts 24/7.
I'm not an expert. I do however know what I hear. Commercially-recorded Vinyl sounds better than commercially recorded CDs. It just does.
When I became a DJ, I spent many hours talking to Those Who Came Before Me, and they all had one thing that they agreed on: If you want the real experience, you want vinyl. It does not matter what genre you are into, digital turntables do not compete with vinyl. (Of course, there is final scratch, etc.) The feeling I get when I grab that true vinyl record is proof that they are correct. I've played CD turntables, and they can be fun, but they will never perform at the same level as vinyl, nor will the sound quality ever compete.
h tm - be sure to look at the graph. It makes it pretty obvious.
As for today's vinyl quality VS yesterdays, I'm the proud owner of 6 original pressing Beatles LPs and the first 3 Led Zepplin LPs, and none of them are pressed on vinyl that is as good of quality as some of my 12" singles of today's EDM music.
And yes, there are some very very low bass sounds that could make vinyl skip, but compare that to every sound ever put on CD, and RTFM on how sound waves are all naturally analog, and just what happens to sounds when they are digitally compressed. Read more about CD compression VS. Vinyl sound quality here - http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.
Then, come back here, and we'll have an intelligent conversation.
Maybe XP only gets "hammered on" in one of the five categories, however I see two other categories that Linux shows fewer clock cycles for, 'ABI call' and '2 message ping pong'. XP may not be getting 'hammered on' in those two, but it is getting beat. Now, I am not going to claim extensive knowledge in this field, as I am not a programmer. However, I do believe that the results of this study differ with the results of the MS-funded study in question, and that is what I wanted to point out. Interestingly enough, if you check out page 32, Windows performs the best in matters of I/O until the block size reaches 8KB, then FreeBSD outperformed the rest.
How do your findings hold up against page 31 of the recent leaked MS Singularity OS research document found at ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/pub/tr/TR-2005-13 5.pdf, in which MS compares current versions of Windows XP, Linux and FreeBSD, only to show that Linux and FreeBSD outperform Windows XP?
Why do you suppose that MS would even consider building a new OS from the ground up, as they are doing with Singularity, if their current model already beats the competition?
Upgrading GlibC? The devil is obviously in the details of the study's objectives.
If they made the linux admins upgrade GlibC, then the Windows admins should have had to try to remove IE from Windows XP. That would have made the study fair.
Ahem....
4 1115_1354 58.html
u s.htm
e en5.php
[Quoted from above] Don't steal, don't murder, don't lie, etc...
Microsoft steals.
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/200
Microsoft Murders.
http://www.chez.com/johnt/antims/antims
(See in particular the lines about Norton's Utilities and the theft of Stacker...)
Microsoft lies.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/hallow
(They've lied about linux so many times, I didn't even spend one full minute searching for an example on this one.
According to Network World, the Asian market has already seen these 'VoWiFi' capable GSM cell phones. They are dual mode, and run VoWiFi when in range of your WLAN, and GSM/GPRS when they are not in range of your WLAN. They did not give any examples, nor model numbers, but they did start a 'Future of WiFi' conference by telling us this.
Sounds like the kind of spam we block all day long around here. I'd be proud not to have recieved your email. Truth be told, if you had any of that information that you are proposing to have, you would not be sending me, or anyone else email about it.
I'm running both in production environment as well, and I agree with this. Our main inventory system runs MS SQL for vendor support reasons, and everything else runs MySQL. I have no complaints about MySQL, and running it side by side MS, I'd say it's more productive using less hardware for (dum dUM DUM!) less money ($0 if you've got skills). And with the new PHP clause in the license, you are sure to win!
We used DirectWay in our remote site for similar reasons. We had it a year and a half, and it worked 24 hours constant I think once or twice during that time. Every day when the kids got home from school/job/college/etc. the connection would be there, but the latency made it unusable. We ended up buying the local telco service a remote office on our site, so we could get DSL. Big bucks, solved our problem. If you don't have that kind of money, or even if you do, my advice to you is rid yourself of all computers, move to Mexico, and plant lots of potatoes.
The best argument for Open Source that I have used is that because the source is open, everyone can improve it and find/fix bugs or security holes, and cannot have spyware-type code inbedded. And you can be assured that when a problem is found, it can be fixed, because you have the source. Google for a news article about MS refusing to acknowledge a security hole that later was proven to exist. This has happened enough times to scare my boss to allow Open Source in our Corp.