We'll agree on that one. The diversity of hardware platforms means that OS development will always be a moving target. And the fact that platforms aren't very nicely optimized for application performance given hardware architectures is a disconnect that will dog us for ages.
Still, the GUI gave a unified methodology to apps that was an understandable metaphor for both coders and hardware guys. Windows, for all of its problems, cut away the mind-numbing printing and communications difficulties in i86 hardware. MacOS was too brittle; it was the Mac-way or the highway. In the middle was too little too late.
The DIY of the late 70's and early 80's led to this. I wrote some of my own OS variations before Linus was out of diapers. But they were primitive, for primitive hardware. So many languages, so many platforms, so many diverse needs. OSes will take centuries to go away until a new model is invented for non-monolitic/state-machine-dependent hardware. SciFi. I'm waiting for it, but it'll come long after I'm dead.
Or any number of different battles where hardware vendors are ideologically divorced from software vendors. Until there's another bridge OTHER than operating systems, there'll be a need for OS makers and OS characteristics and architecture will continue to be very much relevant.
We make flexible hardware designs so as to sell to as many audiences as possible, rather than make monolithic, single purpose machines. Software, on the other hand, seems to want to be divorced from hardware, sending only instructions that make the system come alive for a stated purpose.
The hardware abstraction layers, drivers, and other linking/interpreting mechanisms between hardware devices and software's desires mandate OS's to do the work they were intended to do: clean up, registration, and membership within the state machine as described so aptly by von Neumann.
It's goofy to think of a world without an OS... except in dedicated devices.
If you go to VoIP, then you need power-over-Ethernet. If you stay analog, then your PBX holds them up with its own power supply. If you need VoIP phones with fiber connection on them, good luck: I don't believe they exist.
Fiber can be used to the desktop. You can pull it into cubicles. But most often, it's the backbone and/or backhaul. Corning is one example, there are others. Look at the FTTH Council for alternatives and for test equipment and deployment knowledge/referential links. Cubicles will change, and few desktops need 10GBE right now, although the time will come. My preference right now in short term lease is 802.11g/a. Screw wiring at all. Mobility is key when more than 50% of machines being sold in the business world are portables of one kind or another. You can get fiber to copper tranceivers for dirt (see IMC). And on eBay, 1GBE fiber cards also go for dirt.... because no one loves them.
That's what they sang. That's what you *are*. Keep that TDR handy, mate. One day you'll rip something out with fervour you never thought you had.... because a kink in the cable started spawning weird checksum errors, or high humidity caused the managing director's PC to go blueey in the middle of a meeting.
Yes, you can use sub-standard cabling. It's ok. But when you start to trace PHY problems, you're beaten. Your TDR says no no no. Even bends onto old 66blocks can cause near-end crosstalk (NEXT) problems that can cause very weird problems to occur in the wiring plant.
Copper will always lag fiber. Until they change the mod connectors, >FDX GBE speeds just aren't wise.
And so, if you installed fiber, you'd be not yanking stuff through ceilings and re-terminating every few years or so.
If you put in 62/125 micron fiber in 1985, you'd still be using it.
But if you installed Cat3, then you yanked it and went to TSB Cat 5. Now they're goading us into Cat 6, and extended variants.
It's true that 20 years ago, one used bizarre jigs to terminate fiber, but those days are long gone. Optical TDR test equipment had dropped like a rock, and you can get unbelievably cool handheld and laptop-based diagnostic equipment these days for fiber.
And the cost to do fiber has dropped amazingly, too.
Fiber has always had a cutting edge-like price tag because the equipment was usually the fastest, like the first gigabit Ethernet, fiber channel SANs, and so on. But there's practical reason: you simply can jam far more data into a fiber pipe than a copper one, and this'll always be the case. The real limits of fiber simply have not been found yet, what with DWDM, multiple lambdas, and so on.
And no, I don't work for Corning. I'm an engineer that's designed a lot of MANs and WANs.
IPV4 has only 4.3 billion addresses. Behind unroutable NAT tables, how many more? How many more factorial numbers do you need? Ok, ok.
Now mulitply the MAC address combos with all of those. Ok ok.
Now add back the IPV4 behind the unroutable NAT nexus points, informing a router that on this side, bogus NAT addresses and please proxy, and on that side is the real Internet. Ok ok.
Unique MAC: IP combos are limited by 2^48 addresses. Pairs are limited by the smaller number. Ok ok.
Do this again on this translated side, an infinite number of times. Trump infinity, please. 3.4*10^38 vs infinity. Ok ok.
Now take the IPV6, nearly infinite as it is, and use its non-routable equivalents: look! Mulitple Infinities! It's like a Nissan parking lot!!!!
Somewhere, somebody on a side street sold you this book. You looked at it, genuflected and adopted IPV6. It is good, pronounced some twittering pooh bah that doesn't understand the difference between IPV4, IPV6, and a deep dark hole. They saw: ugh, heap big more numbers. Must be good. Like 64-bit. Hmmmm. Buy this, must be good. Make heap big more router sales. Good for industry. And you bought the argument. There were a few verses in this bible about how much better life would be, and holy for there were more numbers, and routing could be done like the Sistine Chapel, on your back, staring at a ceiling.
Overnight and behind your back, the Internet grew up. A few more dragons need to be slain, but overall, we won't run out of unique addresses... and the ARP and DNS tables will keep things nice and honest. It's all working today, but we need to hurt some fat Class A and B network block owners to make them cough up a few. This will become really necessary given current growth characteristics about the year 2050 from estimates I've seen. I'm 96 and dead by then. Sorry. I'll hit the morphine drip and let my great granchildren figure it out.
What??!!!??? The billions of networks (before NATting) won't be enough??!!?? IPV6 is absurd. Look at it closely, and justify the fact that it has more addresses than the amount of molecules in your body. The answer, I promise, won't be the source of amusement for the next few days.
You've been missing the discussions for years that prove that IPV6 is plainly far too much, and that IPV4 needs to be fixed via re-allocation of huge A B and C block and CIDR allocation madnesses that were doled out in the early DARPA days of the Internet.
What's nice about the posted technology is that its encoding methodology might answer some prayers that neither WiFI or WiMax does. But it's all still unproven, and still far into the future. I like the low battery consumption side of it, as WiFi sucks the very life out of my notebooks and makes it impossible to realistically use PDAs of any kind with it-- save for short durations of frustration.
Of the consoles I've used, they used open-ended DACs with only slight pull-up resistors and had 20-20K within a db. Overall system was 5-27K +2/-1, not counting tape. Tape was another disaster altogether.
An 18' horn... probably Cerwin-Vega...? C-horn? E-horn? That's a bunch of bass, buddy.
I don't know about Hollywood in general in terms of their spec, but it would be tough to believe that they didn't want lower freq energy recorded. My experience is southern and in NYC. But I'll probably catch hell for responding to an AC. Oh well.
I think I recall it, that wide-grooved LP, and a few others.
Yes, high-pass filters were de riguer to cut down on complaints. But you'd be amazed at re-masters and some of the Japanese and Deutche Grammaphon recordings I've got. While it's unnecessary to sit on the cartridge, they go low, on transients.
A nice steep filter is a good precaution against voice coil fractures or preventing them from shooting 50m into an audience. Several companies made bass boost/recovery electronics that had low-end boosts and high-end bandpass or low-reject filters. These were good ideas. And there's little detection of distortion at very low frequencies. Only parasitic oscillations are detectable as above-fundamental freqs.
But I waffle between the British Purist/audiophile approach and the more rational budget-with-deafened-ears approach. Budget wins now more than ever.
If you look at the response curve of that mike and others, you'll see there' s a rolloff, but a fast rise time in energy produces results nearly to DC, just not a lot of them. Cheap cardiods can have some awesome LF characteristics if that's what you need. You don't need it every day, or even month, but once in a while, LF is good info in a mix. Some of my samples, like door slams, munitions, and aperiodic sounds go really low, -5db at 6hz in one case. But I used to mix a wide variety of stuff.
There are all sorts of reasons to shape sounds, and the use isn't empirical. If there's no information, then it cleans up the mix to use all kinds of equalization to cut noise, transients, and so on. But an overall mix can sound very AM Radio (e.g. bandwidth limited) if too much equalization is used. When I did masters, I'd use a 36db/octave slope starting at about 18hz, then check to see if there was something useful that I'd tamped down. Sometimes, there was useful percussiveness that was cut, and the only real way to detect that was by using a pretty loud playback with floor-mounted 3-ways or the best Sennheiser headphones that I had (which usually didn't help much at that freq).
A lot of LF energy tends to bottom out traditional woofers, no matter how good their inner compliance is. Add low-level DC, then add a kick-drum thump, and the voice coil bottoms, maybe damaging the woofer in some way-- usually voice coil cracking or distortion. So, I rarely changed the filter, but had to re-slope it to make the impact as realistic as was rational.
The point of the post is to connote that the final mix will have a lot of energy in some genres in the LF range. Individual channel feeds are commonly shaped to suit the needs of the mix. But you don't want to rob the overall mix of information to suit the problems with one feed, re-mix, etc.
Contra Bassoon goes below 30hz, as does an 88 piano, and every pipe organ work its salt.
Percussion goes to >1hz although lots of energy happens all across the region you can hear or feel.
But their ability to reproduce sound below 30hz isn't new. Many speaker companies have boasted of their low frequency reproduction. What's interesting about this one is that it employs the room more efficiently into the experience. You see, you can't detect where low frequencies come from; this is why you don't need stereo subwoofers as your ears don't detect the stereo effect at such low frequencies. This removes the need for two subwoofers to achieve the 'stereo' or apparent locational effect of the sound at those frequencies.
This device appears to more readily couple the room's acoustic properties at low frequencies (which have long, long waves). This sort of coupling happens when you put a subwoofer in the corner of a room so as to use the walls as a more efficient 'horn' to propagate the sound to the room, hence your ears.
But the price, while not out of the range of the perfectionist/obsessive/compulsive/audiophile, is a bit high for its seemingly small benefit.
Cerwin-Vega! (the exclamatio point is part of the name) made the 18" E-horn "Earthquake" subwoofer for theatres years ago. They produced enormous amounts of low frequency energy based on random noise below 30hz. They went boom, in a big way. Their SPL cold exceed 126db.
It's rare for an sound/recording/editing engineer to cut off low frequencies, after all this is where there's a lot of percussiveness (and the lowest note of the contra bassoon is actually lower than 30hz). Some used to use roll-off filters that 'shaped' the DC-20hz region, believing there was no information down there, but that's not true-- there is.
Part of music and information transfer is through bone conduction and resonance in the gelatinous materials of your body (e.g. the ones that have lots of fluid in them). This is why the disco sound (thumpa thumpa) was felt in places like your testicles, buttocks, breasts, and so on. You don't literally hear the sounds through cochlea-ear processes but you 'hear' them nonetheless. There's energy and information, even past the magical '1hz' point.
Who wants to relearn something when they don't want to. Toolmakers make the mistake of building great new tools and expect everyone to see the merits of them. But tool users just need to get work done. They care not one whit about the geegaws that go into them, so long as they don't have to learn too much, RTFM, and use their old data that took them years to make.
It doesn't matter if it's a holy GnuWidget. People don't know (F)OSS from dog poop. They know Microsoft because that's what came on their machine. There are people that swear by Microsoft Works, perhaps the most awful 'office suite' ever written, because they finally figured out how to make it work. There's a lesson in that for the community.
FOSS has no marketing department, and will always battle those with budgets that can spread the word, or make it part of a bundle on a newbie's PC. Fight that, and you'll win, if winning is important.
Of many motivations, there are greed and fear. These are the drivers. After 9/11, the US was scared. We had to find the culprit. It turned out to be, according to somewhat reliable evidence, a largely obscure group called Al Qaeda. They were hiding in Afghanistan, sheilded by some religious zealots, the Taliban. So, if you'll remember, we wiped the floor with Taliban in the quest to wipe them out. It wasn't a battle as the Taliban was the terribly weak governance of a huge country full of tribes and warlords, as it is today. Then, trumped up evidence was found to invade Iraq, and smite that awful murderer, Saddam Hussein. Yes, he was a stinker, no doubt, but the US went it alone, still full of retribution over having the WTC and Pentagon so easily and embarrassingly nailed.
What a jolly good idea for a war it was. It was also based on false connections on each driving point, points that didn't wait for the UN or a consensus of countries to act upon. Instead, we acted with the UK, Spain (who withdrew early), Denmark, Italy, Poland, and some others to dethrone Hussein.
And now, we're living in an era where every shread of evidence for invading Iraq (save the ostensible truth that Hussein was a murderer, and certainly not the only one in either the mid-east, Asia, or Africa for that matter) has been proven incorrect or dubious at best. That leaves the actual motivation: fear of the rise of Islam. A show of strength that has also shown our weakness and fear. A small minority of radical Islam was amplified symbolically as the Islamic version of the Crusaders, those bent on the destruction of what they believe US Christians and Jews stand for. Both sides are driven, ostensibly, by the power of God. This is not science. This is anti-science.
The Bush administration and the Congress has tried to turn over prior ecological gains (including ignoring Kyoto), denying any palpable cause for global warming, re-writing scientific analysis to suit its own aims, while driving debt that will take generations to pay off.
It's denial in the name of reality, based upon a belief that God will take care of everything, and that (H)his/(H)her time is coming soon. So, don't worry about the earth, it'll end. We'll all be in heaven, or if you're heathen (you abortionist or gay person you) in hell. The end-time Christian soldiers are in charge now. God help us.
It's fear. Greed. Not the science once used. It's like watching Kinsey or Copernicus being scoffed at. The deity-based belief systems compel denial at the evidence in front of our faces. The confrontation between what was taught as truth versus what we now know about the world around us has caused enormous calamity. And it'll continue.
And so, whether it's broadcast, multiplexed on FTTH, or downloaded via some IP link, it's all here. Today. Not tomorrow. Every PBS station (save a few transulators) are there. Local TV stations are there. There as in running an HD freq, often alongside or even adjacent to their NTSC channel.
So, you're right to say that IP-delivered TV is just around the bend. But where you missed it is that Congress really believes they'll be able to auction a lot of frequencies for new applications and raise money. That and they're embarrassed as hell at missing all of the other deadlines they've announced, and that the FCC has announced. Not one stuck. Not one.
But the money as you perceive it really has to do with the auctions. That's where they believe the $$ is. I don't believe them, but I don't believe a lot of things coming out of Washington.
Digital communities are the future. Analog isn't inefficient, rather, one media is better than the 29 now offered for ATSC tuners + multicast variants + NTSC broadcast video + AM, Stereo AM, Digital AM, FM, Stereo FM, Digital FM, XM, Sirius, and so on. It's pretty goofy and duplicates so much for so little benefit. This media promiscuity will go away in a few years. Just sit tight.
Until it's made illegal, like Kazaa, which Skype is nominally based on, it's free, peer to peer. You pay the Internet connectivity usage costs, and whatever dirtbag computer you're got connected to it.
I won't listen to advertising, or watch it either on a VoIP call. I'll just find another source. Anyone with a PC making 20c/min calls to anywhere needs to dig just a little bit and find a wealth of absolutely free (as in beer) VoIP techniques. If you want to join an Enum/SIP-based network, free ones are forming. No one is going to COPYRIGHT MY DAMN VOICE.
A Comparison of Solaris, Linux, and FreeBSD Kernels
Then, he picks off three items:
I chose these subsystems because they are common to any operating system (not just Unix and Unix-like systems), and they tend to be the most well-understood components of the operating system.
And so, the title of my post was Serious things were missed
My listing was an extemporaneous listing of what was missing. Contrasting to his highly confined treatise of fairly known components of the differences (although they're nice to see listed in such a well-said way) they're still from Sun, still their stance, still their read. Still glossing other highly salient issues. Like I started the post: Serious Things Were Missed.
1. The SELinux kernel wasn't mentioned; it's security model is different, perhaps better in the final analysis than OpenSolaris.
2. The concept of Solaris containers is nearly science fiction. Building them and then watching them through dtrace is a work of art, as in the Sistine Chapel. LVM is a different school of thought that gets to a similar conclusion; this all skewed by the beauties of VMWare and multiple instance/clustering management possibilities.
3. The licenses-- very important differences in licenses-- are glossed==> ignored. There's all that messy intermingling of licensing trivia that's somehow an invisible characteristic of all of this. Fooey.
4. While Sun can speak anytime Sun wants, at least there were other citations mentioned early. This is Sun propaganda. Remember that. Well thought out propaganda, but propaganda, not a third party examination of the facts and implications.
5. There are other *nixes missing. Consider that real-time OS and embedded OS considerations are real, and while BSD and Linux has made progress there, Solaris is essentially missing, unless you consider weird programming profiles still based on non-Solaris OS.
These are just the extemporaneous thoughts. Take this article with a grain of salt, although it's not bad for a vendor-hosted view.
Consider libel and slander. Without laws that protect us from lies, we can be damaged-- reputations undone, loss of income, even our families. So journalistic standards have to have a basis. If journalists cited all sources, then Woodward would have never heard from his now deceased Deep Throat.
Bloggers range from very smart and ethical to the most obscene of blatherers. At least journalists try to ascribe to standards of communications conduct, something that's not imposed on any other kind of speech, saving hate speech in some jurisdictions.
It's not the corporate mob that Lugar is trying to protect, rather to define the basis of individuals that must ascribe to responsible speech above that which is enjoyed by everyone as free, as in truth, fiction, lies, specious nonsense, and what ever one chooses. I applaud the distinctions.
That said, the running dog lackey sycophantic idiots that swallow big fat Disneyland-on-the-Potomac lies deserve a dog's death.
Slashdot Mirror
We'll agree on that one. The diversity of hardware platforms means that OS development will always be a moving target. And the fact that platforms aren't very nicely optimized for application performance given hardware architectures is a disconnect that will dog us for ages.
Still, the GUI gave a unified methodology to apps that was an understandable metaphor for both coders and hardware guys. Windows, for all of its problems, cut away the mind-numbing printing and communications difficulties in i86 hardware. MacOS was too brittle; it was the Mac-way or the highway. In the middle was too little too late.
The DIY of the late 70's and early 80's led to this. I wrote some of my own OS variations before Linus was out of diapers. But they were primitive, for primitive hardware. So many languages, so many platforms, so many diverse needs. OSes will take centuries to go away until a new model is invented for non-monolitic/state-machine-dependent hardware. SciFi. I'm waiting for it, but it'll come long after I'm dead.
Think of it as mobo vs Java.
Or Microsoft vs Bluetooth.
Or any number of different battles where hardware vendors are ideologically divorced from software vendors. Until there's another bridge OTHER than operating systems, there'll be a need for OS makers and OS characteristics and architecture will continue to be very much relevant.
We make flexible hardware designs so as to sell to as many audiences as possible, rather than make monolithic, single purpose machines. Software, on the other hand, seems to want to be divorced from hardware, sending only instructions that make the system come alive for a stated purpose.
The hardware abstraction layers, drivers, and other linking/interpreting mechanisms between hardware devices and software's desires mandate OS's to do the work they were intended to do: clean up, registration, and membership within the state machine as described so aptly by von Neumann.
It's goofy to think of a world without an OS... except in dedicated devices.
These things depend.....
If you go to VoIP, then you need power-over-Ethernet. If you stay analog, then your PBX holds them up with its own power supply. If you need VoIP phones with fiber connection on them, good luck: I don't believe they exist.
Fiber can be used to the desktop. You can pull it into cubicles. But most often, it's the backbone and/or backhaul. Corning is one example, there are others. Look at the FTTH Council for alternatives and for test equipment and deployment knowledge/referential links. Cubicles will change, and few desktops need 10GBE right now, although the time will come. My preference right now in short term lease is 802.11g/a. Screw wiring at all. Mobility is key when more than 50% of machines being sold in the business world are portables of one kind or another. You can get fiber to copper tranceivers for dirt (see IMC). And on eBay, 1GBE fiber cards also go for dirt.... because no one loves them.
Yes, it was Emerson Lake and Palmer:
Ohhhh what a lucky man he waaaaas.
That's what they sang. That's what you *are*. Keep that TDR handy, mate. One day you'll rip something out with fervour you never thought you had.... because a kink in the cable started spawning weird checksum errors, or high humidity caused the managing director's PC to go blueey in the middle of a meeting.
But it could be worse: tin hairs.
As long as it's not a passive node, it's good for some time into the future... a long time. Photonics just stretch Moore's Law even further.
Yes, you can use sub-standard cabling. It's ok. But when you start to trace PHY problems, you're beaten. Your TDR says no no no. Even bends onto old 66blocks can cause near-end crosstalk (NEXT) problems that can cause very weird problems to occur in the wiring plant.
Copper will always lag fiber. Until they change the mod connectors, >FDX GBE speeds just aren't wise.
And so, if you installed fiber, you'd be not yanking stuff through ceilings and re-terminating every few years or so.
If you put in 62/125 micron fiber in 1985, you'd still be using it.
But if you installed Cat3, then you yanked it and went to TSB Cat 5. Now they're goading us into Cat 6, and extended variants.
It's true that 20 years ago, one used bizarre jigs to terminate fiber, but those days are long gone. Optical TDR test equipment had dropped like a rock, and you can get unbelievably cool handheld and laptop-based diagnostic equipment these days for fiber.
And the cost to do fiber has dropped amazingly, too.
Fiber has always had a cutting edge-like price tag because the equipment was usually the fastest, like the first gigabit Ethernet, fiber channel SANs, and so on. But there's practical reason: you simply can jam far more data into a fiber pipe than a copper one, and this'll always be the case. The real limits of fiber simply have not been found yet, what with DWDM, multiple lambdas, and so on.
And no, I don't work for Corning. I'm an engineer that's designed a lot of MANs and WANs.
IPV6 is irrelevent.
IPV4 has only 4.3 billion addresses. Behind unroutable NAT tables, how many more? How many more factorial numbers do you need? Ok, ok.
Now mulitply the MAC address combos with all of those. Ok ok.
Now add back the IPV4 behind the unroutable NAT nexus points, informing a router that on this side, bogus NAT addresses and please proxy, and on that side is the real Internet. Ok ok.
Unique MAC: IP combos are limited by 2^48 addresses. Pairs are limited by the smaller number. Ok ok.
Do this again on this translated side, an infinite number of times. Trump infinity, please. 3.4*10^38 vs infinity. Ok ok.
Now take the IPV6, nearly infinite as it is, and use its non-routable equivalents: look! Mulitple Infinities! It's like a Nissan parking lot!!!!
Somewhere, somebody on a side street sold you this book. You looked at it, genuflected and adopted IPV6. It is good, pronounced some twittering pooh bah that doesn't understand the difference between IPV4, IPV6, and a deep dark hole. They saw: ugh, heap big more numbers. Must be good. Like 64-bit. Hmmmm. Buy this, must be good. Make heap big more router sales. Good for industry. And you bought the argument. There were a few verses in this bible about how much better life would be, and holy for there were more numbers, and routing could be done like the Sistine Chapel, on your back, staring at a ceiling.
Overnight and behind your back, the Internet grew up. A few more dragons need to be slain, but overall, we won't run out of unique addresses... and the ARP and DNS tables will keep things nice and honest. It's all working today, but we need to hurt some fat Class A and B network block owners to make them cough up a few. This will become really necessary given current growth characteristics about the year 2050 from estimates I've seen. I'm 96 and dead by then. Sorry. I'll hit the morphine drip and let my great granchildren figure it out.
What??!!!??? The billions of networks (before NATting) won't be enough??!!?? IPV6 is absurd. Look at it closely, and justify the fact that it has more addresses than the amount of molecules in your body. The answer, I promise, won't be the source of amusement for the next few days.
You've been missing the discussions for years that prove that IPV6 is plainly far too much, and that IPV4 needs to be fixed via re-allocation of huge A B and C block and CIDR allocation madnesses that were doled out in the early DARPA days of the Internet.
What's nice about the posted technology is that its encoding methodology might answer some prayers that neither WiFI or WiMax does. But it's all still unproven, and still far into the future. I like the low battery consumption side of it, as WiFi sucks the very life out of my notebooks and makes it impossible to realistically use PDAs of any kind with it-- save for short durations of frustration.
Of the consoles I've used, they used open-ended DACs with only slight pull-up resistors and had 20-20K within a db. Overall system was 5-27K +2/-1, not counting tape. Tape was another disaster altogether.
An 18' horn... probably Cerwin-Vega...? C-horn? E-horn? That's a bunch of bass, buddy.
I don't know about Hollywood in general in terms of their spec, but it would be tough to believe that they didn't want lower freq energy recorded. My experience is southern and in NYC. But I'll probably catch hell for responding to an AC. Oh well.
I think I recall it, that wide-grooved LP, and a few others.
Yes, high-pass filters were de riguer to cut down on complaints. But you'd be amazed at re-masters and some of the Japanese and Deutche Grammaphon recordings I've got. While it's unnecessary to sit on the cartridge, they go low, on transients.
A nice steep filter is a good precaution against voice coil fractures or preventing them from shooting 50m into an audience. Several companies made bass boost/recovery electronics that had low-end boosts and high-end bandpass or low-reject filters. These were good ideas. And there's little detection of distortion at very low frequencies. Only parasitic oscillations are detectable as above-fundamental freqs.
But I waffle between the British Purist/audiophile approach and the more rational budget-with-deafened-ears approach. Budget wins now more than ever.
If you look at the response curve of that mike and others, you'll see there' s a rolloff, but a fast rise time in energy produces results nearly to DC, just not a lot of them. Cheap cardiods can have some awesome LF characteristics if that's what you need. You don't need it every day, or even month, but once in a while, LF is good info in a mix. Some of my samples, like door slams, munitions, and aperiodic sounds go really low, -5db at 6hz in one case. But I used to mix a wide variety of stuff.
There are all sorts of reasons to shape sounds, and the use isn't empirical. If there's no information, then it cleans up the mix to use all kinds of equalization to cut noise, transients, and so on. But an overall mix can sound very AM Radio (e.g. bandwidth limited) if too much equalization is used. When I did masters, I'd use a 36db/octave slope starting at about 18hz, then check to see if there was something useful that I'd tamped down. Sometimes, there was useful percussiveness that was cut, and the only real way to detect that was by using a pretty loud playback with floor-mounted 3-ways or the best Sennheiser headphones that I had (which usually didn't help much at that freq).
A lot of LF energy tends to bottom out traditional woofers, no matter how good their inner compliance is. Add low-level DC, then add a kick-drum thump, and the voice coil bottoms, maybe damaging the woofer in some way-- usually voice coil cracking or distortion. So, I rarely changed the filter, but had to re-slope it to make the impact as realistic as was rational.
The point of the post is to connote that the final mix will have a lot of energy in some genres in the LF range. Individual channel feeds are commonly shaped to suit the needs of the mix. But you don't want to rob the overall mix of information to suit the problems with one feed, re-mix, etc.
Contra Bassoon goes below 30hz, as does an 88 piano, and every pipe organ work its salt.
Percussion goes to >1hz although lots of energy happens all across the region you can hear or feel.
But their ability to reproduce sound below 30hz isn't new. Many speaker companies have boasted of their low frequency reproduction. What's interesting about this one is that it employs the room more efficiently into the experience. You see, you can't detect where low frequencies come from; this is why you don't need stereo subwoofers as your ears don't detect the stereo effect at such low frequencies. This removes the need for two subwoofers to achieve the 'stereo' or apparent locational effect of the sound at those frequencies.
This device appears to more readily couple the room's acoustic properties at low frequencies (which have long, long waves). This sort of coupling happens when you put a subwoofer in the corner of a room so as to use the walls as a more efficient 'horn' to propagate the sound to the room, hence your ears.
But the price, while not out of the range of the perfectionist/obsessive/compulsive/audiophile, is a bit high for its seemingly small benefit.
Cerwin-Vega! (the exclamatio point is part of the name) made the 18" E-horn "Earthquake" subwoofer for theatres years ago. They produced enormous amounts of low frequency energy based on random noise below 30hz. They went boom, in a big way. Their SPL cold exceed 126db.
It's rare for an sound/recording/editing engineer to cut off low frequencies, after all this is where there's a lot of percussiveness (and the lowest note of the contra bassoon is actually lower than 30hz). Some used to use roll-off filters that 'shaped' the DC-20hz region, believing there was no information down there, but that's not true-- there is.
Part of music and information transfer is through bone conduction and resonance in the gelatinous materials of your body (e.g. the ones that have lots of fluid in them). This is why the disco sound (thumpa thumpa) was felt in places like your testicles, buttocks, breasts, and so on. You don't literally hear the sounds through cochlea-ear processes but you 'hear' them nonetheless. There's energy and information, even past the magical '1hz' point.
Who wants to relearn something when they don't want to. Toolmakers make the mistake of building great new tools and expect everyone to see the merits of them. But tool users just need to get work done. They care not one whit about the geegaws that go into them, so long as they don't have to learn too much, RTFM, and use their old data that took them years to make.
It doesn't matter if it's a holy GnuWidget. People don't know (F)OSS from dog poop. They know Microsoft because that's what came on their machine. There are people that swear by Microsoft Works, perhaps the most awful 'office suite' ever written, because they finally figured out how to make it work. There's a lesson in that for the community.
FOSS has no marketing department, and will always battle those with budgets that can spread the word, or make it part of a bundle on a newbie's PC. Fight that, and you'll win, if winning is important.
Of many motivations, there are greed and fear. These are the drivers. After 9/11, the US was scared. We had to find the culprit. It turned out to be, according to somewhat reliable evidence, a largely obscure group called Al Qaeda. They were hiding in Afghanistan, sheilded by some religious zealots, the Taliban. So, if you'll remember, we wiped the floor with Taliban in the quest to wipe them out. It wasn't a battle as the Taliban was the terribly weak governance of a huge country full of tribes and warlords, as it is today. Then, trumped up evidence was found to invade Iraq, and smite that awful murderer, Saddam Hussein. Yes, he was a stinker, no doubt, but the US went it alone, still full of retribution over having the WTC and Pentagon so easily and embarrassingly nailed.
What a jolly good idea for a war it was. It was also based on false connections on each driving point, points that didn't wait for the UN or a consensus of countries to act upon. Instead, we acted with the UK, Spain (who withdrew early), Denmark, Italy, Poland, and some others to dethrone Hussein.
And now, we're living in an era where every shread of evidence for invading Iraq (save the ostensible truth that Hussein was a murderer, and certainly not the only one in either the mid-east, Asia, or Africa for that matter) has been proven incorrect or dubious at best. That leaves the actual motivation: fear of the rise of Islam. A show of strength that has also shown our weakness and fear. A small minority of radical Islam was amplified symbolically as the Islamic version of the Crusaders, those bent on the destruction of what they believe US Christians and Jews stand for. Both sides are driven, ostensibly, by the power of God. This is not science. This is anti-science.
The Bush administration and the Congress has tried to turn over prior ecological gains (including ignoring Kyoto), denying any palpable cause for global warming, re-writing scientific analysis to suit its own aims, while driving debt that will take generations to pay off.
It's denial in the name of reality, based upon a belief that God will take care of everything, and that (H)his/(H)her time is coming soon. So, don't worry about the earth, it'll end. We'll all be in heaven, or if you're heathen (you abortionist or gay person you) in hell. The end-time Christian soldiers are in charge now. God help us.
It's fear. Greed. Not the science once used. It's like watching Kinsey or Copernicus being scoffed at. The deity-based belief systems compel denial at the evidence in front of our faces. The confrontation between what was taught as truth versus what we now know about the world around us has caused enormous calamity. And it'll continue.
And so, whether it's broadcast, multiplexed on FTTH, or downloaded via some IP link, it's all here. Today. Not tomorrow. Every PBS station (save a few transulators) are there. Local TV stations are there. There as in running an HD freq, often alongside or even adjacent to their NTSC channel.
So, you're right to say that IP-delivered TV is just around the bend. But where you missed it is that Congress really believes they'll be able to auction a lot of frequencies for new applications and raise money. That and they're embarrassed as hell at missing all of the other deadlines they've announced, and that the FCC has announced. Not one stuck. Not one.
But the money as you perceive it really has to do with the auctions. That's where they believe the $$ is. I don't believe them, but I don't believe a lot of things coming out of Washington.
Digital communities are the future. Analog isn't inefficient, rather, one media is better than the 29 now offered for ATSC tuners + multicast variants + NTSC broadcast video + AM, Stereo AM, Digital AM, FM, Stereo FM, Digital FM, XM, Sirius, and so on. It's pretty goofy and duplicates so much for so little benefit. This media promiscuity will go away in a few years. Just sit tight.
Until it's made illegal, like Kazaa, which Skype is nominally based on, it's free, peer to peer. You pay the Internet connectivity usage costs, and whatever dirtbag computer you're got connected to it.
I won't listen to advertising, or watch it either on a VoIP call. I'll just find another source. Anyone with a PC making 20c/min calls to anywhere needs to dig just a little bit and find a wealth of absolutely free (as in beer) VoIP techniques. If you want to join an Enum/SIP-based network, free ones are forming. No one is going to COPYRIGHT MY DAMN VOICE.
Ummmm, no. First, the title:
A Comparison of Solaris, Linux, and FreeBSD KernelsThen, he picks off three items:
I chose these subsystems because they are common to any operating system (not just Unix and Unix-like systems), and they tend to be the most well-understood components of the operating system.And so, the title of my post was Serious things were missed
My listing was an extemporaneous listing of what was missing. Contrasting to his highly confined treatise of fairly known components of the differences (although they're nice to see listed in such a well-said way) they're still from Sun, still their stance, still their read. Still glossing other highly salient issues. Like I started the post: Serious Things Were Missed.
1. The SELinux kernel wasn't mentioned; it's security model is different, perhaps better in the final analysis than OpenSolaris.
2. The concept of Solaris containers is nearly science fiction. Building them and then watching them through dtrace is a work of art, as in the Sistine Chapel. LVM is a different school of thought that gets to a similar conclusion; this all skewed by the beauties of VMWare and multiple instance/clustering management possibilities.
3. The licenses-- very important differences in licenses-- are glossed==> ignored. There's all that messy intermingling of licensing trivia that's somehow an invisible characteristic of all of this. Fooey.
4. While Sun can speak anytime Sun wants, at least there were other citations mentioned early. This is Sun propaganda. Remember that. Well thought out propaganda, but propaganda, not a third party examination of the facts and implications.
5. There are other *nixes missing. Consider that real-time OS and embedded OS considerations are real, and while BSD and Linux has made progress there, Solaris is essentially missing, unless you consider weird programming profiles still based on non-Solaris OS.
These are just the extemporaneous thoughts. Take this article with a grain of salt, although it's not bad for a vendor-hosted view.
Consider libel and slander. Without laws that protect us from lies, we can be damaged-- reputations undone, loss of income, even our families. So journalistic standards have to have a basis. If journalists cited all sources, then Woodward would have never heard from his now deceased Deep Throat.
Bloggers range from very smart and ethical to the most obscene of blatherers. At least journalists try to ascribe to standards of communications conduct, something that's not imposed on any other kind of speech, saving hate speech in some jurisdictions.
It's not the corporate mob that Lugar is trying to protect, rather to define the basis of individuals that must ascribe to responsible speech above that which is enjoyed by everyone as free, as in truth, fiction, lies, specious nonsense, and what ever one chooses. I applaud the distinctions.
That said, the running dog lackey sycophantic idiots that swallow big fat Disneyland-on-the-Potomac lies deserve a dog's death.