Can you use a compressor in my setup? Player (TV-DVR, DVD, Blu-Ray), HDMI to receiver, receiver to speakers. There's no place where the audio is analog in the chain, other than after the last amplification on the way to the speakers. I'd expect it would prefer line-level, as opposed to post-amped, but maybe they do work better after amps. I read the specs on the one you linked to, and didn't see anything that seemed to answer. And it's only 2-channel. So what do I do with 8 speakers?
I run it all through a receiver, so I'll take a look at what my options are for it. It's just one of those things that it seems funny that the "lower-quality" report is "better" (subjectively) to most people. And only the philes think otherwise, and do so with great enthusiasm.
I like the loudness wars. When watching TV (loudness war-victims) I can set the volume and watch a show. The dialogue is understandable and the expolsions are loud. When I watch a movie (non-broadcast) the loudness wars don't seem to have touched it. If I put the volume up to where I can hear the dialogue, then when the explosions start, it's loud enough that I'm worried the neighbors will call the cops on me. So I have to sit there with the volume in my hands, turning up the quiet parts, and turning down the loud parts. If the loudness wars had touched movies, then it'd be easier to casually consume recorded movies. Though it would be different from the theater experience.
The story read like they were solving short distance issues. And I don't know whether they are "mass produced" but I can get fiber optic cables that are pretty cheap. Inventing a new standard for connectors, adaptors, and cards to "solve" an already solved problem with low cost that would require re-buying already owned things sounds like a really stupid idea. Do you expect datacenters everywhere to abandon the 100Gbps they already support for this new "cheaper" tech that will cost them lots of money to support? I imagine they'll do it like they do now. Have a supported vendor/part list and work from that. And no, this newer, slower tech will not be used.
What he didn't do was go where a whistleblower is supposed to go
And where is someone supposed to get the whistleblower manual? You think you are so sure what the process is, can you point to a document that those in in the government would take as relaible (i.e., not some blog about where whistleblowers "should" go)? I'm guessing you are presenting opinion as fact. It's your opinion of where whistleblowers should go, and your opinion that it's common knowledge. Both opinions are unsubstantiated and likely wrong.
And you'll see I'm not addressing the "difficulty" of going to management, precisely because I'm advocating NOT doing that, and instead complaining to OVERSIGHT, which is Congress.
Oversight (governance) *is* management. Oversight is roughly analogous to a board of directors. That you don't know that, and thus misunderstood my comments doesn't change reality.
And it is certainly not "career suicide" in comparison to leaking to the press and being a wanted fugitive sheltering in Neo-Soviet Russia.
Yes, it is. His career with the NSA, and possibly in that field, would be dead with a whistle-blow to the wrong person. Doing what he did, he'll likely make more money every year for the rest of his life, than had he successfully whistle-blown within the system, regardless of who he alerted. That's career suicide like winning the lottery is career suicide if you quit when you win $100,000,000.
Read two up of my posts (I mention 8.8 Tbps). Your link points out they are using WDM, same as I note. I can do 88*100 Gbps today, using existing standards, not some proprietary crap. Perhaps you should read your own link closer next time.
Like 1Gbps? When it came out, I paid more than $1000 per port for a Cisco switch for 1G ports. Now, $30 devices have 4+ 1Gbps ports. Just wait, and they will drop. Racing to the bottom with an inferior product isn't good for the customer or the companies involved. Working on cheaper 400 Gbps ports and standards would be better for all.
The information from previous crashes has saved future lives. More information could save more lives.
yet you've suddenly decided that the best thing to do would have been to bump this box (which you never even heard of until today) to the top of the list!
This box is common and already widely installed.
Though what would work better (cheaper and get to planes faster) is to have the civil aviation send broader military alerts when a transponder disappears. This one was "lost" for a long time because it wasn't acted on the moment contact was lost. If military radar was officially requested at that point, we'd likely be recovering bodies right now, rather than discussing what could be done to make airplanes more trackable. But the military doesn't run with radar on, except for known defensive positions, because it gives away too much information, but turning it on for an "emergency" would likely be acceptable, so long as it was like the plane lost at see once in every 5-10 years or less.
Troy Aikman owns a dealership. What are all the retired football people supposed to do if they can't lock in a rent-seeking business and attach their name to it?
No, you have to order it. They aren't required to have them in stock, but they are required to carry them. Of course, they order them from the manufacturer, so there's no reason you can't eliminate the dealer.
It was also designed to prevent states from erecting barriers to give differeing treatment to out-off-state goods. Cars from Detroit have one set of rules, cars from California have a different set. But most have gotten away with this by having one set or rules for all, that hurts the CA model, but not the MI model. And that's legal. Unless the feds regulate the practice, blocking state rules, even if non-overlapping.
I'm confused, is it a "huge" cost, or a "non-zero" cost?
You are only confused because you choose to be. All huge costs are non-zero. So your false dichotomy is your issue, not the previous poster's post. An install cost of some kind will be needed. The best case is a low-cost. The cost to take a plane out of service for installation is "huge" but that is not confirmed at this point. Both statements are correct at the same time. Your deliberate confusion isn't genuine. Why do you hate technology?
Or even just setting his DNS server manually to any of a large number of "better" choices, like Google, or UUNET's (my favorite), and (mentioned because so many here seem to be insane about it) open dns.
It is routable on the Internet (just define "internet" first). It would be unroutable across the "public" Internet, but is easily routable betweeen carriers (across ASs, but not advertised outside those in the agreement). You got the point that the one I gave was routable and his wasn't means I made a valid point. That you took me as serious and him as not indicates a humor failure.
Yes, I know. RFC 1918 addresses. I was making the point that at least the address I gave was real. You got the point, but think I didn't understand the point I made.
July 21, 2002, Worldcom (owner of MCI at the time) declared bankruptcy. Regardless of whether someone bought them or continued the name, that meets my definition of "went under".
Backbones are using 100 Gbps. I've seen it and personally done it. But yes, at this time, 100 Gbps is very expensive. This isn't news for nerds, this is a sale on the Home Shopping Network. Yes I understand that it's a cost breakthrough for 1/10th of highest commercially available. But, when 400 Gbps becomes commercially availble (this year, maybe next), about the time Intel's hits the market, it'll be 1/40th of the best commercially available.
It trades cost and complexity in the wiring for cost. It's not new. It's not interesting. It's cost savings by using old tech. It's as "interesting" as someone posting that they took four older cards and got performance of a mid-end card from 4 cheaper cards with 4x SLI. Nothing "new". Nothing "cutting edge". Just using old tech to undercut the price of the cutting edge. *yawn*
I work with 100 Gbps that runs over a single pair. And doesn't use DWDM, so you can run 88 channels of it, for 8.8 Tbps. On a single fiber. And the fiber can be 20+ year old single mode (though results depend on quality). Industry standard, no new cabling. Intel is solving a problem that doesn't exist. Or maybe coming up with something not-new in a cheaper price point. 88-channel DWDM is expensive. I think we are paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000,000 per fully-populated 8.8Tbps link. But then, that's for optics capable of 1000+ mile transmission (with amplification). As the market is small for those speeds from server to switch or with any level of port density, so the price is not optimized for common use.
So from what I can tell, this is less than 1/10th the speed of common industry standard gear, but cheap. Since when did stories about price breakthroughs get front page (other than solar)?
Why aren't backbones using 100 Gbps (an established standard) and WDM for up to 88 channels of 100 Gbps? Though WDM is usually not used for shorter distances, you can already get 8.8 Tbps using commonly available commercial gear on 20 year old fiber.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you use a compressor in my setup? Player (TV-DVR, DVD, Blu-Ray), HDMI to receiver, receiver to speakers. There's no place where the audio is analog in the chain, other than after the last amplification on the way to the speakers. I'd expect it would prefer line-level, as opposed to post-amped, but maybe they do work better after amps. I read the specs on the one you linked to, and didn't see anything that seemed to answer. And it's only 2-channel. So what do I do with 8 speakers?
I run it all through a receiver, so I'll take a look at what my options are for it. It's just one of those things that it seems funny that the "lower-quality" report is "better" (subjectively) to most people. And only the philes think otherwise, and do so with great enthusiasm.
I like the loudness wars. When watching TV (loudness war-victims) I can set the volume and watch a show. The dialogue is understandable and the expolsions are loud. When I watch a movie (non-broadcast) the loudness wars don't seem to have touched it. If I put the volume up to where I can hear the dialogue, then when the explosions start, it's loud enough that I'm worried the neighbors will call the cops on me. So I have to sit there with the volume in my hands, turning up the quiet parts, and turning down the loud parts. If the loudness wars had touched movies, then it'd be easier to casually consume recorded movies. Though it would be different from the theater experience.
Neil Young sellling Diamond dust? Can't we just call him Neil Diamond instead?
The story read like they were solving short distance issues. And I don't know whether they are "mass produced" but I can get fiber optic cables that are pretty cheap. Inventing a new standard for connectors, adaptors, and cards to "solve" an already solved problem with low cost that would require re-buying already owned things sounds like a really stupid idea. Do you expect datacenters everywhere to abandon the 100Gbps they already support for this new "cheaper" tech that will cost them lots of money to support? I imagine they'll do it like they do now. Have a supported vendor/part list and work from that. And no, this newer, slower tech will not be used.
What he didn't do was go where a whistleblower is supposed to go
And where is someone supposed to get the whistleblower manual? You think you are so sure what the process is, can you point to a document that those in in the government would take as relaible (i.e., not some blog about where whistleblowers "should" go)? I'm guessing you are presenting opinion as fact. It's your opinion of where whistleblowers should go, and your opinion that it's common knowledge. Both opinions are unsubstantiated and likely wrong.
And you'll see I'm not addressing the "difficulty" of going to management, precisely because I'm advocating NOT doing that, and instead complaining to OVERSIGHT, which is Congress.
Oversight (governance) *is* management. Oversight is roughly analogous to a board of directors. That you don't know that, and thus misunderstood my comments doesn't change reality.
And it is certainly not "career suicide" in comparison to leaking to the press and being a wanted fugitive sheltering in Neo-Soviet Russia.
Yes, it is. His career with the NSA, and possibly in that field, would be dead with a whistle-blow to the wrong person. Doing what he did, he'll likely make more money every year for the rest of his life, than had he successfully whistle-blown within the system, regardless of who he alerted. That's career suicide like winning the lottery is career suicide if you quit when you win $100,000,000.
Read two up of my posts (I mention 8.8 Tbps). Your link points out they are using WDM, same as I note. I can do 88*100 Gbps today, using existing standards, not some proprietary crap. Perhaps you should read your own link closer next time.
And if that list was for the manufacturer's own part stores, or dealer part departments, would the manufacturer's stocks change?
Like 1Gbps? When it came out, I paid more than $1000 per port for a Cisco switch for 1G ports. Now, $30 devices have 4+ 1Gbps ports. Just wait, and they will drop. Racing to the bottom with an inferior product isn't good for the customer or the companies involved. Working on cheaper 400 Gbps ports and standards would be better for all.
yet you've suddenly decided that the best thing to do would have been to bump this box (which you never even heard of until today) to the top of the list!
This box is common and already widely installed.
Though what would work better (cheaper and get to planes faster) is to have the civil aviation send broader military alerts when a transponder disappears. This one was "lost" for a long time because it wasn't acted on the moment contact was lost. If military radar was officially requested at that point, we'd likely be recovering bodies right now, rather than discussing what could be done to make airplanes more trackable. But the military doesn't run with radar on, except for known defensive positions, because it gives away too much information, but turning it on for an "emergency" would likely be acceptable, so long as it was like the plane lost at see once in every 5-10 years or less.
Troy Aikman owns a dealership. What are all the retired football people supposed to do if they can't lock in a rent-seeking business and attach their name to it?
No, you have to order it. They aren't required to have them in stock, but they are required to carry them. Of course, they order them from the manufacturer, so there's no reason you can't eliminate the dealer.
but the dealers run the parts network
Because, thanks to laws like this one, it's illegal for the manufacturer to run the parts network.
It was also designed to prevent states from erecting barriers to give differeing treatment to out-off-state goods. Cars from Detroit have one set of rules, cars from California have a different set. But most have gotten away with this by having one set or rules for all, that hurts the CA model, but not the MI model. And that's legal. Unless the feds regulate the practice, blocking state rules, even if non-overlapping.
When you are talking about smaller craft like the super common Cessna 172, the device is going to be about 1/4 of the cost of the airplane.
Why would you install a black-box suppliment on a craft with no black box?
I'm confused, is it a "huge" cost, or a "non-zero" cost?
You are only confused because you choose to be. All huge costs are non-zero. So your false dichotomy is your issue, not the previous poster's post. An install cost of some kind will be needed. The best case is a low-cost. The cost to take a plane out of service for installation is "huge" but that is not confirmed at this point. Both statements are correct at the same time. Your deliberate confusion isn't genuine.
Why do you hate technology?
Or even just setting his DNS server manually to any of a large number of "better" choices, like Google, or UUNET's (my favorite), and (mentioned because so many here seem to be insane about it) open dns.
His method sucked. That he did it wrong doesn't mean that, done right, it shouldn't scale linerly.
It is routable on the Internet (just define "internet" first). It would be unroutable across the "public" Internet, but is easily routable betweeen carriers (across ASs, but not advertised outside those in the agreement). You got the point that the one I gave was routable and his wasn't means I made a valid point. That you took me as serious and him as not indicates a humor failure.
Yes, I know. RFC 1918 addresses. I was making the point that at least the address I gave was real. You got the point, but think I didn't understand the point I made.
I try, but I get nothing from that address. And "7 years" makes you a newbie.
July 21, 2002, Worldcom (owner of MCI at the time) declared bankruptcy. Regardless of whether someone bought them or continued the name, that meets my definition of "went under".
Backbones are using 100 Gbps. I've seen it and personally done it. But yes, at this time, 100 Gbps is very expensive. This isn't news for nerds, this is a sale on the Home Shopping Network. Yes I understand that it's a cost breakthrough for 1/10th of highest commercially available. But, when 400 Gbps becomes commercially availble (this year, maybe next), about the time Intel's hits the market, it'll be 1/40th of the best commercially available.
It trades cost and complexity in the wiring for cost. It's not new. It's not interesting. It's cost savings by using old tech. It's as "interesting" as someone posting that they took four older cards and got performance of a mid-end card from 4 cheaper cards with 4x SLI. Nothing "new". Nothing "cutting edge". Just using old tech to undercut the price of the cutting edge. *yawn*
I work with 100 Gbps that runs over a single pair. And doesn't use DWDM, so you can run 88 channels of it, for 8.8 Tbps. On a single fiber. And the fiber can be 20+ year old single mode (though results depend on quality). Industry standard, no new cabling. Intel is solving a problem that doesn't exist. Or maybe coming up with something not-new in a cheaper price point. 88-channel DWDM is expensive. I think we are paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000,000 per fully-populated 8.8Tbps link. But then, that's for optics capable of 1000+ mile transmission (with amplification). As the market is small for those speeds from server to switch or with any level of port density, so the price is not optimized for common use.
So from what I can tell, this is less than 1/10th the speed of common industry standard gear, but cheap. Since when did stories about price breakthroughs get front page (other than solar)?
Why aren't backbones using 100 Gbps (an established standard) and WDM for up to 88 channels of 100 Gbps? Though WDM is usually not used for shorter distances, you can already get 8.8 Tbps using commonly available commercial gear on 20 year old fiber.