I'm sorry. It was 6AM here at work and when I read the comment it had not yet been moderated as funny. I simply didn't perceive it as being intended humorously.
Yeah, but the point is that the signal should arrive at your playback system in a neutral fashion, and then you can set your car stereo to compress the signal (nearly all stereos made after about 1995 will have a loudness option).
The law was passed because too many audio sources had excessive gain.
Gain is a meaningless term in the context you're using it - gain specifies a signal amplitude relative to a reference. In amplifying circuits, gain relative to the source signal - and when used to measure amplitude, the gain is relative to either a set voltage (dBm or dBu) or in the digital world, relative to full amplitude (dBFS).
The problem is amplitude. At what stages any gain was applied is not the issue.
Well, by all means, enjoy the smug self-satisfaction you seem to derive from a personal taste in music with no room for pop, but - what if you're an audio engineer with a well-developed ear rendering over-compression as very jarring, but you still like pop music?
I loves me some ABBA, and not only does the technical production not get in the way of my enjoying their stuff, but it's pulled off so well that it's a not-insignificant part of my enjoyment.
I'm a broadcast tech at a license-funded TV station in Norway, so we don't have to deal with advertising volume jumps, but in general, we aim to follow the already-established EBU recommendation 128, which specifies loudness.
Because the distros put it in way the hell to early, a point at which there were plenty of kinks, and the benefits had not been made visible in a meaningful way in any UI I noticed.
There's only so many times you could end up with random sound problems which were solved - with no loss of functionality - by killall pulseaudio - or more permanently...
Except that AFAIK outside of standard compatibility stuff RIM users gain no added value by interacting with RIM users. You can't defect from Facebook without losing nearly all of the added value Facebook provides.
Actually, Intel has a better product because they have more R&D because they have higher revenue because they use some fairly iffy pricing strategies with OEMs to always keep competitors, primarily AMD, off their markets even in the periods when they had a clearly inferior product to AMD.
The GSA is a prime example of why raising taxes on anyone I don't care what class is beyond stupid.
Actually, to my mind the GSA is a prime example of a few other things - firstly, of the irony that when there are failures in the public sector, it is effectively used as an argument to lower the expectations to the public sector, rather than taking advantage of one of the main advantages of the public sector in that it is controlled by elected officials and thus, people can actually actually do something about the failure!
Secondly, it is a misguided move to confront government failing to meet expectations by lowering expectations. One good reason that the private sector works quite well, is that people always have the bottom-line to look at - performance is always measured by the revenue. In the public sector, performance is determined by peoples' expectations and the extent to which they meet them.
If you want an efficient, effective public sector, then work for it. It's attainable. Norway's public sector, for instance, is very effective in comparison to the US'. (and of course the failings of the public sector will always be massively over-exposed by those who wish to reduce the competitiveness of their nation by increasing their personal luxury spending.).
OK, I admit I picked a bad example simply because it's been used very well for dramatic effect in the past. My bad. But you have to grant it'd be annoying if they did this in every film. The thing is, frame rates isn't something that can be used in that way because it's not something that sets the mood. It's simply considered "filmic" because people associate judder with high quality productions.
There was one mafia film I saw in the cinema which did intermix high-quality video cameras (used in a shot from the floor of a car up at the driver, iirc) with film. It really was terribly jarring.
Interlaced PAL video is 50 fields per second, which has double the temporal resolution of 25 frames per second.
Mind you, quite a lot of productions are done on film. I dunno about the US, but in Europe, people sometimes crank the cameras up from 24 to 25fps when creating material solely intended for TV - to save on conversion losses.
... You've never seen side-by-side comparisons of 24fps versus 48fps, have you? It's a bad idea because the frame rate dramatically affects how the film is perceived. It'd be like finding a compromise for those who resisted colour film and colour TV by simply switching on or off colour depending on whether the scene in question really made optimal use of it. It'd be totally jarring and terrible.
To a trained eye, it's really jarring when TV serials nowadays do all their interior shots using RED One or similar cameras, with a full, smooth tone curve - and then try to save money and hassle on external shots by using a small, inconspicuous DSLR. And that difference is just a slight change of curves...
I daresay I have a wider sample size than that, but it doesn't mean much since I'm a Norwegian politician, and those I've talked to are people I've come into contact with in that context. Maybe you too, presumably being American, have a sample bias? The plural of anecdote is not fact. In this case, it's probably best to google around for some polls. Much to my dismay, most polls returned by Google and Wikipedia deal with US popular opinion on the invasion rather than Iraqi popular opinion, but I did find one.
Overall, 59% of those questioned think Britain's role is negative, 22% positive; 64% say the US is negative, 18% positive; 68% view Iran negatively, 12% positively.
Also, 56% think the 2003 invasion was wrong (up 6%), while 42% say it was right (down 7%).
You know, the Soviet Union - worried about Islamic fundamentalism - actually invested massive foreign aid causing the beginnings of a fairly extensive education and health system in place in Afghanistan - but during the Soviet intervention after a fundamentalist-based coup, the US and allies massively funded the Mujahideen to run a proxy war... so it's going to be pretty difficult to claim the moral high ground in a historical perspective.
And do ask J. Random Iraqi what they think about the US invasion - whether they felt safer before or after. Hell, ask J. Random American...
Actually, human beings are social animals, and accountability can actually worsen security if it weakens a perception of a bond of trust, which might very well be more effective. Accountability can be circumvented, expectations of honesty cannot. In terms of the cash register, keeping the balance is probably a good idea, but there are other situations and I just wanted to nuance this very American notion that interpersonal trust is equal to weakness.
Or you could, you know, work to attain a political system where money is less of a requirement for electability. There are many ways to make significant inroads. Banning political television advertisement would be one such thing.
I'd object to that because that would be plain stupid. Why not simply have a "Show advanced..." button, rather than forcing users to download an alternative utility to access them?
But AFAICT, the issue is not one of interface visibility of IPv6 settings, it is one of IPv6 support in general. The utility does not support IPv6, which is not only a UI issue but a functional issue.
Nice straw man. Nobody used those words except for you.
I simply clarified what you are implying, both in the parent post and in the following paragraph. I do not believe my clarification contradicts your statements.
The Airport Extreme base station supports IPv6 (and DNS) out of the box*. As much as you might like to pretend otherwise, *configuring* such things *is* an advanced task for 99% of the users out there.
Of course configuring IPv6 is a task for an advanced user. So is configuring IPv4! They are both supposed to Just Work and that is not the case if support for it is optional.
But the idea that IPv6 is supposed to be an "advanced extra feature" is as patently ludicrous as it would be for DNS or HTTP. It's a core technology and must be treated as such by all vendors if we are to have any hope to escape from NAT and address shortages.
I guess I'll try one more time. Whether in this *specific* case it's a good or bad thing, remember that most of us are running small IPv4 networks. IPv6 adds needless complexity and simply isn't needed.
No, NAT adds needless complexity and simply isn't needed if we could all just start using IPv6! Incomplete appliance support is an extreme hinderance to that.
Remember: the shortage of IPv4 addresses is on the PUBLIC INTERNET. (An extremely important distinction.) A small business with maybe 10-20 devices on an internal network doesn't care about IPv6. At all. Now, those of you with hundreds of clients on a large network, might indeed want it. But for most of us, all we'll need is an IPv6-capable router/modem at the Internet gateway. Inside the facility, who cares?
I happen to work in broadcasting, so I know your anecdote is a bit of an edge case. Few people in broadcasting even use DNS or DHCP, much of the time, IP networks are simply replacements for whatever proprietary bit of telco comms preceded it.
But of course no end user asks for IPv6. The mere idea that an end user should need to care about what happens on the transport layer for improvements in transport layer tech to be a Good Idea is flabbergasting. These things are supposed to be transparent. Technicians should realize they have a social responsibility to implement it, because the net gain is dependent on almost everyone getting it into place, so it can reach a critical mass so that we don't have to deal with the gigantic, internet-breaking kludge that is NAT.
The main point is: There should be no distinction in addressing, there should be no NAT. One address should be able to reach another address no matter what network each host is on. That's kind-of why it's called an inter-net.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry. It was 6AM here at work and when I read the comment it had not yet been moderated as funny. I simply didn't perceive it as being intended humorously.
Yeah, but the point is that the signal should arrive at your playback system in a neutral fashion, and then you can set your car stereo to compress the signal (nearly all stereos made after about 1995 will have a loudness option).
Less gain is the whole point.
The law was passed because too many audio sources had excessive gain.
Gain is a meaningless term in the context you're using it - gain specifies a signal amplitude relative to a reference. In amplifying circuits, gain relative to the source signal - and when used to measure amplitude, the gain is relative to either a set voltage (dBm or dBu) or in the digital world, relative to full amplitude (dBFS).
The problem is amplitude. At what stages any gain was applied is not the issue.
Well, by all means, enjoy the smug self-satisfaction you seem to derive from a personal taste in music with no room for pop, but - what if you're an audio engineer with a well-developed ear rendering over-compression as very jarring, but you still like pop music?
I loves me some ABBA, and not only does the technical production not get in the way of my enjoying their stuff, but it's pulled off so well that it's a not-insignificant part of my enjoyment.
I'm a broadcast tech at a license-funded TV station in Norway, so we don't have to deal with advertising volume jumps, but in general, we aim to follow the already-established EBU recommendation 128, which specifies loudness.
Indeed, the spec is publically available: http://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r128.pdf
Because the distros put it in way the hell to early, a point at which there were plenty of kinks, and the benefits had not been made visible in a meaningful way in any UI I noticed.
There's only so many times you could end up with random sound problems which were solved - with no loss of functionality - by killall pulseaudio - or more permanently...
rm /usr/bin/pulseaudio /bin/cat /usr/bin/pulseaudio
...without developing a certain animosity towards that binary.
ln -s
Except that AFAIK outside of standard compatibility stuff RIM users gain no added value by interacting with RIM users. You can't defect from Facebook without losing nearly all of the added value Facebook provides.
Actually, Intel has a better product because they have more R&D because they have higher revenue because they use some fairly iffy pricing strategies with OEMs to always keep competitors, primarily AMD, off their markets even in the periods when they had a clearly inferior product to AMD.
The GSA is a prime example of why raising taxes on anyone I don't care what class is beyond stupid.
Actually, to my mind the GSA is a prime example of a few other things - firstly, of the irony that when there are failures in the public sector, it is effectively used as an argument to lower the expectations to the public sector, rather than taking advantage of one of the main advantages of the public sector in that it is controlled by elected officials and thus, people can actually actually do something about the failure!
Secondly, it is a misguided move to confront government failing to meet expectations by lowering expectations. One good reason that the private sector works quite well, is that people always have the bottom-line to look at - performance is always measured by the revenue. In the public sector, performance is determined by peoples' expectations and the extent to which they meet them.
If you want an efficient, effective public sector, then work for it. It's attainable. Norway's public sector, for instance, is very effective in comparison to the US'. (and of course the failings of the public sector will always be massively over-exposed by those who wish to reduce the competitiveness of their nation by increasing their personal luxury spending.).
[[citation needed]] - there are two hits for that quote on Google, yours and another web site; is the quote genuine?
OK, I admit I picked a bad example simply because it's been used very well for dramatic effect in the past. My bad. But you have to grant it'd be annoying if they did this in every film. The thing is, frame rates isn't something that can be used in that way because it's not something that sets the mood. It's simply considered "filmic" because people associate judder with high quality productions.
There was one mafia film I saw in the cinema which did intermix high-quality video cameras (used in a shot from the floor of a car up at the driver, iirc) with film. It really was terribly jarring.
Interlaced PAL video is 50 fields per second, which has double the temporal resolution of 25 frames per second.
Mind you, quite a lot of productions are done on film. I dunno about the US, but in Europe, people sometimes crank the cameras up from 24 to 25fps when creating material solely intended for TV - to save on conversion losses.
... You've never seen side-by-side comparisons of 24fps versus 48fps, have you? It's a bad idea because the frame rate dramatically affects how the film is perceived. It'd be like finding a compromise for those who resisted colour film and colour TV by simply switching on or off colour depending on whether the scene in question really made optimal use of it. It'd be totally jarring and terrible.
To a trained eye, it's really jarring when TV serials nowadays do all their interior shots using RED One or similar cameras, with a full, smooth tone curve - and then try to save money and hassle on external shots by using a small, inconspicuous DSLR. And that difference is just a slight change of curves...
For what it's worth, movie projectors usually strobe each frame either twice or thrice, depending on the model.
I daresay I have a wider sample size than that, but it doesn't mean much since I'm a Norwegian politician, and those I've talked to are people I've come into contact with in that context. Maybe you too, presumably being American, have a sample bias? The plural of anecdote is not fact. In this case, it's probably best to google around for some polls. Much to my dismay, most polls returned by Google and Wikipedia deal with US popular opinion on the invasion rather than Iraqi popular opinion, but I did find one.
Overall, 59% of those questioned think Britain's role is negative, 22% positive; 64% say the US is negative, 18% positive; 68% view Iran negatively, 12% positively. Also, 56% think the 2003 invasion was wrong (up 6%), while 42% say it was right (down 7%).
Source: BBC
You know, the Soviet Union - worried about Islamic fundamentalism - actually invested massive foreign aid causing the beginnings of a fairly extensive education and health system in place in Afghanistan - but during the Soviet intervention after a fundamentalist-based coup, the US and allies massively funded the Mujahideen to run a proxy war... so it's going to be pretty difficult to claim the moral high ground in a historical perspective.
And do ask J. Random Iraqi what they think about the US invasion - whether they felt safer before or after. Hell, ask J. Random American...
Actually, human beings are social animals, and accountability can actually worsen security if it weakens a perception of a bond of trust, which might very well be more effective. Accountability can be circumvented, expectations of honesty cannot. In terms of the cash register, keeping the balance is probably a good idea, but there are other situations and I just wanted to nuance this very American notion that interpersonal trust is equal to weakness.
Or you could, you know, work to attain a political system where money is less of a requirement for electability. There are many ways to make significant inroads. Banning political television advertisement would be one such thing.
I'd object to that because that would be plain stupid. Why not simply have a "Show advanced..." button, rather than forcing users to download an alternative utility to access them?
But AFAICT, the issue is not one of interface visibility of IPv6 settings, it is one of IPv6 support in general. The utility does not support IPv6, which is not only a UI issue but a functional issue.
"advanced extra feature"
Nice straw man. Nobody used those words except for you.
I simply clarified what you are implying, both in the parent post and in the following paragraph. I do not believe my clarification contradicts your statements.
The Airport Extreme base station supports IPv6 (and DNS) out of the box*. As much as you might like to pretend otherwise, *configuring* such things *is* an advanced task for 99% of the users out there.
Of course configuring IPv6 is a task for an advanced user. So is configuring IPv4! They are both supposed to Just Work and that is not the case if support for it is optional.
But the idea that IPv6 is supposed to be an "advanced extra feature" is as patently ludicrous as it would be for DNS or HTTP. It's a core technology and must be treated as such by all vendors if we are to have any hope to escape from NAT and address shortages.
I guess I'll try one more time. Whether in this *specific* case it's a good or bad thing, remember that most of us are running small IPv4 networks. IPv6 adds needless complexity and simply isn't needed.
No, NAT adds needless complexity and simply isn't needed if we could all just start using IPv6! Incomplete appliance support is an extreme hinderance to that.
Remember: the shortage of IPv4 addresses is on the PUBLIC INTERNET. (An extremely important distinction.) A small business with maybe 10-20 devices on an internal network doesn't care about IPv6. At all. Now, those of you with hundreds of clients on a large network, might indeed want it. But for most of us, all we'll need is an IPv6-capable router/modem at the Internet gateway. Inside the facility, who cares?
I happen to work in broadcasting, so I know your anecdote is a bit of an edge case. Few people in broadcasting even use DNS or DHCP, much of the time, IP networks are simply replacements for whatever proprietary bit of telco comms preceded it.
But of course no end user asks for IPv6. The mere idea that an end user should need to care about what happens on the transport layer for improvements in transport layer tech to be a Good Idea is flabbergasting. These things are supposed to be transparent. Technicians should realize they have a social responsibility to implement it, because the net gain is dependent on almost everyone getting it into place, so it can reach a critical mass so that we don't have to deal with the gigantic, internet-breaking kludge that is NAT.
The main point is: There should be no distinction in addressing, there should be no NAT. One address should be able to reach another address no matter what network each host is on. That's kind-of why it's called an inter-net.
Am I the only one for whom the video abruptly ends about a minute and a half in?
Actually, since the spark-gap transmitter was not tunable, it's more accurate to say that in 1912, wireless was "a tube".
So you rank raids on cannabis dispensaries as worse than a bungled war on false pretense?!
Man, I wish the US would reinstate the draft.