Aside from streaming over a low-bandwidth connection, I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, if I'm PAYING for the music, I don't even want to download lossy audio at all.
It depends on the audio characteristics of what you are listening to and the original encoding method. For instance, human speech does pretty damn well with 128kbps. You could even do non-lossy 128kbps compression of speech decently -- the phone system only uses 64kbps of non-lossy, non-compressed encoding.
The people with "golden ears" have been doing these studies for years. Google away. I think the main point of this is to get a large scale response from "average" people in a decently controlled manner. Even if they can't standardize the variables, they can record the conditions (audio hardware, drivers, etc)
They do that with small groups, but the point of making this study public is to get a larger sample size without having to plunk down serious cash to set up a "reliable test environment" for thousands of listeners. Also what kind of codec bias could you possibly be referring to?
They should test similar file sizes instead of by bitrate
Uhh, if they are comparing the same sample at the same bitrate, the files will be the same size. I'm not even going to respond to the other assertions... how is this possibly insightful?
Because "human auditory capacity" is not fully understood. Sure we can give standard frequency response graph, but most of these codecs take advantage of psycho-accoustic hearing models -- where certain frequencies mask other frequencies in our perception. Since this is a developing field, objective listening tests could really help determine what's working and what's not.
Like the article says, I don't see how this is much worse than having some kind of piercing or tatoo. In the end, it doesn't even HAVE to be implanted. There's no reason you can't place it in your favorite piece of jewelry or sew it into your halter top. It's just less likely to be lost if it's IN you.
Speeding does affect fuel economy because air resistance (and mechanical) losses do not scale linearly wrt speed. I.e. it takes more than twice as much energy to 100 mph than 50 mph.
If you have to ask, you can't afford it. Just remember that. It might come in handy again someday.:)
Insightful? BS! I've had to ask for the price of tons of stuff that I could afford. Or are you using some highly specialized definitions of "had to" and "afford"? Just because I can afford something doesn't mean I think it's a good enough value to purchase the item.
Wait, hold up. We at/. are complaining about overkill on a cool new tech toy.
I agree. We shouldn't be complaining that 7 tuners is too many. We should be complaining that it's not even a power of 2. I want 8 tuners. Or 16. Or how about just one spectrum analyzer and I can decode thousands of channels at once in software. The Pentium M can do that, right?
Agreed... I can only assume that consumers caught on to the "frequency is everything" marketing tricks. However, ultimately I don't give a rat's ass about MHz or CPI. I want IPS (instructions per second).
It's more of a comedy of self-referential absurdity. Like looking up the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I bet they have an entry, after all it's the benchmark of encyclopedias. Maybe IHBT, but I think it's funny in a bizarre way that they might come up with a study about the effectiveness of internet research, realize it might have been done before, google for such a study, and find the results of that prior study. This would answer the original question in what I deem to be an ironic fashion. Yeah, I'm DEFINITELY not using a karma bonus on this monstrosity of a post.
Presumably, they're smart enough to not turn the thing on until you pushed the button.
If it has an antenna, though you could detect it the same way that RFID works. No doubt they add extra shielding (although the can itself probably does just fine by itself... enclosing it in a conductor)
Seriously, if you're already at the library computer looking up Who's Who in the electronic card catalog, you might as well just launch a browser and Google the answer.
Also, how did they find out what was unusual about the British gold medal victory in the 400m in the 1908 Olympics in London? In under 2 minutes. Does this count asking the all-knowing librarian? "Why can't one change the past?"
The state then holds these monies until a claim is made.
I claim it! The article doesn't say the claim has to be substantiated. And everyone knows that some random newspaper quote can be legally binding in the hands of a madman.
Plus, for serious runners every single ounce counts. When you run a marathon, a single ounce translates into a non-discountable excess energy expenditure.
You can always tweak gravity to give ANY answer you want
Teacher: Bobby, what's 5 times 4?
Bobby: Ummm, 10?
Teacher: That's wrong, it's 20
Bobby: Oh yeah, you just have to apply a constant factor of L where L=2
Slashdot Mirror
Aside from streaming over a low-bandwidth connection, I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, if I'm PAYING for the music, I don't even want to download lossy audio at all.
It depends on the audio characteristics of what you are listening to and the original encoding method. For instance, human speech does pretty damn well with 128kbps. You could even do non-lossy 128kbps compression of speech decently -- the phone system only uses 64kbps of non-lossy, non-compressed encoding.
The people with "golden ears" have been doing these studies for years. Google away. I think the main point of this is to get a large scale response from "average" people in a decently controlled manner. Even if they can't standardize the variables, they can record the conditions (audio hardware, drivers, etc)
They do that with small groups, but the point of making this study public is to get a larger sample size without having to plunk down serious cash to set up a "reliable test environment" for thousands of listeners. Also what kind of codec bias could you possibly be referring to?
Uhh, if they are comparing the same sample at the same bitrate, the files will be the same size. I'm not even going to respond to the other assertions... how is this possibly insightful?
Because "human auditory capacity" is not fully understood. Sure we can give standard frequency response graph, but most of these codecs take advantage of psycho-accoustic hearing models -- where certain frequencies mask other frequencies in our perception. Since this is a developing field, objective listening tests could really help determine what's working and what's not.
Actually the article says that there's almost no theory behind it. It's all empirical.
Any technology that encourages hot club-going women to show more skin is fine by me. Plus, it makes it so much easier to stalk them!
Like the article says, I don't see how this is much worse than having some kind of piercing or tatoo. In the end, it doesn't even HAVE to be implanted. There's no reason you can't place it in your favorite piece of jewelry or sew it into your halter top. It's just less likely to be lost if it's IN you.
Speeding does affect fuel economy because air resistance (and mechanical) losses do not scale linearly wrt speed. I.e. it takes more than twice as much energy to 100 mph than 50 mph.
Insightful? BS! I've had to ask for the price of tons of stuff that I could afford. Or are you using some highly specialized definitions of "had to" and "afford"? Just because I can afford something doesn't mean I think it's a good enough value to purchase the item.
I agree. We shouldn't be complaining that 7 tuners is too many. We should be complaining that it's not even a power of 2. I want 8 tuners. Or 16. Or how about just one spectrum analyzer and I can decode thousands of channels at once in software. The Pentium M can do that, right?
If by exponential, you mean linear then yes. I think the comparison you are going for here is linear vs. constant (almost)
Actually I was referring to my own post. I didn't want mods to shoot down my "+1 really tired ramble" comment. That's all.
It's more of a comedy of self-referential absurdity. Like looking up the Encyclopedia Britannica in the Encyclopedia Britannica. I bet they have an entry, after all it's the benchmark of encyclopedias. Maybe IHBT, but I think it's funny in a bizarre way that they might come up with a study about the effectiveness of internet research, realize it might have been done before, google for such a study, and find the results of that prior study. This would answer the original question in what I deem to be an ironic fashion. Yeah, I'm DEFINITELY not using a karma bonus on this monstrosity of a post.
If it has an antenna, though you could detect it the same way that RFID works. No doubt they add extra shielding (although the can itself probably does just fine by itself... enclosing it in a conductor)
I.e. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe =UTF-8&q=%22is+the+internet+really+the+quickest+wa y+to+access+facts%3F%22
Also, how did they find out what was unusual about the British gold medal victory in the 400m in the 1908 Olympics in London? In under 2 minutes. Does this count asking the all-knowing librarian? "Why can't one change the past?"
Death by snoo snoo!
I claim it! The article doesn't say the claim has to be substantiated. And everyone knows that some random newspaper quote can be legally binding in the hands of a madman.
Hate to break it to you, but the movies that come on a stamped DVD... those are compressed too.
cough... Shoe-PU... cough
Teacher: Bobby, what's 5 times 4?
Bobby: Ummm, 10?
Teacher: That's wrong, it's 20
Bobby: Oh yeah, you just have to apply a constant factor of L where L=2
Not that I disagree with you, but aren't those the same thing? Well, I guess you have no problem repeating yourself:
etc. etc...