Not enough importance and effort is given to latency with software. Clicking between tabs, resizing windows, opening/closing tabs, clicking back/forward (which isn't ideal in Chrome btw), opening and closing the software - they all are underrated imo.
All I can say is fine; use adblock and similar scripts for yourselves, but don't try to advertise it too heavily. Let people come hunting for it, rather than vice versa.
Many websites depend on adsense revenue otherwise they die. I think Chrome should support something like adblock, but it would be sad for it to take off to the point where its advantages are outweighed by the negative effect on webmasters, especially since many surfers actually find these adverts useful anyway.
Don't we have enough knowledge about the carbon atom so as to predict the properties of this new material? Or is it that we do have the knowledge, but lack the necessary computing power? (e.g. would 1000000000000x faster PC be able to perfectly simulate the material?)
Interesting. Though I tried to imitate the system with normal big loud speakers (fairly cheap), and putting the volume really quiet so you can barely hear it (to imitate the output that headphones give), and it didn't suffer from the bass problem at all. The music was normal sounding and just really quiet, regardless of how close my ear was to it.
Perhaps he really meant to say "how far the ear is from the headphone speaker", as I've noticed that bass drops of heavily according to distance. I still can't figure out why that should happen.
I think his point is that you can get *arbitrarily close* to 'identical' according to what bit rate you choose. It goes without saying that above certain numbers the human ear can't tell the difference anyway. And if it could, you could just double those numbers etc. until it couldn't.
Heh, I'm the original poster who started this all off.
Okay just for argument's sake, let's assume that barely anyone hears above 44khz.
Isn't there the issue of 'splitting'. For example, at the higher end, waves could go say: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1. Think of the 0 as the bottom of the wave, and 1 as the top of the waveform.
In other words, that frequency wants there to be 2.5 zeros between each one, something only possible if we double the sampling rate from 44khz to 88khz. So in theory, even if we can't notice frequencies above 44khz if they were *pure*, the fact that there's this aliasing problem indicates there could be problems with artifacts.
I think a parallel would be with screen displays. Think of resizing an image a little bit higher or lower. You can see that some pixels disappear, or are duplicated. Anti-aliasing removes that, but then blurs the picture. Perhaps the same applies with sound?
I remember encoding a piece of music in MP3 format at a very low rate, something stupid like 12 kbps. Although it was much worse than the original in most ways, there was a weird but cool 'echo/watery' sound to it. Same kind of thing goes for amplified distortion (heavy metal), and even the cool C64 sound (pure square wave / cut off).
But it goes without saying - a higher resolution/bit rate/sample rate will *emulate* all of these 'interesting' side effects (and lots more), if the composer wants it that way. In the same way that a good pair of speakers should be able to emulate the sound of all of the crappier speakers (even if a bad pair might play all music 'warmer', perhaps with more low end or whatever, that's not necessarily how the composer recorded it). No doubt a parallel can be made with the wide color gamut of a good monitor.
At high enough bit rates and hertz rates, the're effectively the same anyway. But I honestly doubt you can hear the difference between 16bit digital sound and analogue, and can you really hear past 44khz for the sample rate?
Re:Still plenty of SDTVs around
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 1
Interesting again thanks. I guess half of that may again be solved when higher resolutions become commplace (I think I've heard good things about using the 1080p screens for this kind of thing).
Moving the neck sounds like an issue. However, with such high resolutions one can:
a: Move the display further back (this way more, people can see it too)
b: Count it as 'two monitors in one', and have apps centralized (but not maximized) on the screen to allow for what you would usually have, but with extra space on the side/s to allow for other apps to multitask if need be.
c: A mix of the above two
When we eventually have displays that cover the wall (for either TV or computer usage), I'm guessing the GUI will undergo a slight revamp...
Interesting, thanks. I'm guessing those extras will become mute as TVs begin to receive higher def signals in the future, and where people will want speakers and a TV tuner in their monitor. Or maybe we'll just eventually always receive TV over the internet.
I seem to recall that there are other slight differences one has to be careful of as well. For example, TVs may have extra lag, or not allow 1:1 pixel mapping.
The screen size issue can be solved when people realize that giant screens (as long as they are high def) are great for computer usage as well as watching TV:)
What I mean though is that they should be the same device. It should be a TV/monitor. They should be marketed as open to both types of usage. All a computer monitor is - in effect - is a TV without a tuner, so why can't manufacturers just stick a tuner into them all and be done with. This way you can swap and switch to your heart's content, and have all displays in your house as capable of displaying anything.
On a sort of related note, I'm confused as to why TVs haven't completely merged with computer monitors. They're similar enough now that they should be one and the same - they do pretty much the same thing - that's for sure.
I'm guessing the 'patchwork' allows more competition for companies to one-up each other, and also allows for a more modular design. I loved the Amiga, but as long as decent interfaces and standards are used, it makes sense to modularize.
Even though I may not agree with what you initially said, I preferred your 'wrong' version of the saying:) Very true also about how people with less sophisticated taste (in design, music, art) don't know it. Though as you might guess, the situation is complicated somewhat since a person can have worse taste in one way (say a music's harmony or placement of gadgets in a window) than someone else, but better in another (say melody/rhythm, or striking that balance between feature creep and versatility in a program) etc.
Steady, anyone would think you were trying to advertise for verizon;)
Do you recommend I purchase the verizon service myself? I'm salivating, and almost falling over myself in a desperate bid to register with them. I hope they offer their services in the UK soon - well one can dream eh?
By the way, your post probably does serve a useful purpose in the sense Verizon would lose customers as a result.
Actually, even though I disagree with the original poster, his addition of the word 'bad' actually improved upon the old saying. Sorry, just like the saying 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and other (hardline) relativist crap, such sayings express little and are probably more misleading than true.
Maybe, just maybe we can have the best of both worlds. That would be lots of functionality, where the UI takes less than 5 seconds to navigate, *and* where the most commonly used functions take fewer clicks than less used ones. Definable hotkeys too - that sort of thing. It can still look nice too.
How do you quote by the way? I use bold/italic at the moment...
Positive results are obtained through positive action. Negative results are obtained through negative action. Behaviourism, while not good as a total philosophy, has certainly been well demonstrated to be effective. If you wish to promote the greatest happiness etc, you implement a system of punishment and reward to encourage positive action and discourage negative action.
Okay, as far as it stops future crimes, I'm happy with that. As long as it's done for that reason.
Nonsense. A portion will, but many people will moderate their behaviour based on expected outcomes, including but not limited to punishments. You clearly have not done even the most cursory research of this topic. Granted, punishment is not enough to stop a behaviour given strong enough reasons to engage in it, but in general it is very effective. I've been told by people who have been to countries with Sharia law that you can leave your wallet on the bonnet of your car and it won't be taken. That's not meant to be an endorsement of Sharia but the claim that punishment doesn't discourage the targeted behaviour is not true.
Well you're right about the research thing to an extent. However, people on here have said that punishment and/or prison doesn't drop the crime rate one bit. I think they mentioned studies too - who do I listen to? Any peer reviewed studies out there? But great news - I agree with you if it really does help prevent crimes.
Plea with them? HA! You think force won't stop them but asking them nicely will?
I'm talking about for the cases where they are even starting to think about what they've done. Obviously there will be many people who can't be helped, and I suppose a livable prison is the only answer here, since the damage they will cause outside prison is greater than the 'punishment' for that criminal in prison.
but a terrible injustice if it is forced on you
Well of course, but I mean it's not really the kind of thing that can forced anyway (easy to hide, but the bitterness can still be hidden inside). It's up to each person. I'm just speaking ideally...
Slashdot Mirror
Not enough importance and effort is given to latency with software. Clicking between tabs, resizing windows, opening/closing tabs, clicking back/forward (which isn't ideal in Chrome btw), opening and closing the software - they all are underrated imo.
All I can say is fine; use adblock and similar scripts for yourselves, but don't try to advertise it too heavily. Let people come hunting for it, rather than vice versa.
Many websites depend on adsense revenue otherwise they die. I think Chrome should support something like adblock, but it would be sad for it to take off to the point where its advantages are outweighed by the negative effect on webmasters, especially since many surfers actually find these adverts useful anyway.
Don't we have enough knowledge about the carbon atom so as to predict the properties of this new material? Or is it that we do have the knowledge, but lack the necessary computing power? (e.g. would 1000000000000x faster PC be able to perfectly simulate the material?)
Aren't there cases where we need to sometimes give nature a 'helping hand'. Can't think of any atm, but I'm sure I remember something.
Interesting. Though I tried to imitate the system with normal big loud speakers (fairly cheap), and putting the volume really quiet so you can barely hear it (to imitate the output that headphones give), and it didn't suffer from the bass problem at all. The music was normal sounding and just really quiet, regardless of how close my ear was to it.
Perhaps he really meant to say "how far the ear is from the headphone speaker", as I've noticed that bass drops of heavily according to distance. I still can't figure out why that should happen.
I love the implication of artificial scarcity that's in your post :)
Paradoxically, it could be doing those sites a favour, as there isn't a 'nofollow' in the links, so all the PR is passed on.
And those two things don't overlap to any degree?
I think his point is that you can get *arbitrarily close* to 'identical' according to what bit rate you choose. It goes without saying that above certain numbers the human ear can't tell the difference anyway. And if it could, you could just double those numbers etc. until it couldn't.
Heh, I'm the original poster who started this all off.
Okay just for argument's sake, let's assume that barely anyone hears above 44khz.
Isn't there the issue of 'splitting'. For example, at the higher end, waves could go say: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1. Think of the 0 as the bottom of the wave, and 1 as the top of the waveform.
In other words, that frequency wants there to be 2.5 zeros between each one, something only possible if we double the sampling rate from 44khz to 88khz. So in theory, even if we can't notice frequencies above 44khz if they were *pure*, the fact that there's this aliasing problem indicates there could be problems with artifacts.
I think a parallel would be with screen displays. Think of resizing an image a little bit higher or lower. You can see that some pixels disappear, or are duplicated. Anti-aliasing removes that, but then blurs the picture. Perhaps the same applies with sound?
I remember encoding a piece of music in MP3 format at a very low rate, something stupid like 12 kbps. Although it was much worse than the original in most ways, there was a weird but cool 'echo/watery' sound to it. Same kind of thing goes for amplified distortion (heavy metal), and even the cool C64 sound (pure square wave / cut off).
But it goes without saying - a higher resolution/bit rate/sample rate will *emulate* all of these 'interesting' side effects (and lots more), if the composer wants it that way. In the same way that a good pair of speakers should be able to emulate the sound of all of the crappier speakers (even if a bad pair might play all music 'warmer', perhaps with more low end or whatever, that's not necessarily how the composer recorded it). No doubt a parallel can be made with the wide color gamut of a good monitor.
At high enough bit rates and hertz rates, the're effectively the same anyway. But I honestly doubt you can hear the difference between 16bit digital sound and analogue, and can you really hear past 44khz for the sample rate?
Interesting again thanks. I guess half of that may again be solved when higher resolutions become commplace (I think I've heard good things about using the 1080p screens for this kind of thing).
Moving the neck sounds like an issue. However, with such high resolutions one can:
a: Move the display further back (this way more, people can see it too)
b: Count it as 'two monitors in one', and have apps centralized (but not maximized) on the screen to allow for what you would usually have, but with extra space on the side/s to allow for other apps to multitask if need be.
c: A mix of the above two
When we eventually have displays that cover the wall (for either TV or computer usage), I'm guessing the GUI will undergo a slight revamp...
Interesting, thanks. I'm guessing those extras will become mute as TVs begin to receive higher def signals in the future, and where people will want speakers and a TV tuner in their monitor. Or maybe we'll just eventually always receive TV over the internet.
I seem to recall that there are other slight differences one has to be careful of as well. For example, TVs may have extra lag, or not allow 1:1 pixel mapping.
The screen size issue can be solved when people realize that giant screens (as long as they are high def) are great for computer usage as well as watching TV :)
What I mean though is that they should be the same device. It should be a TV/monitor. They should be marketed as open to both types of usage. All a computer monitor is - in effect - is a TV without a tuner, so why can't manufacturers just stick a tuner into them all and be done with. This way you can swap and switch to your heart's content, and have all displays in your house as capable of displaying anything.
On a sort of related note, I'm confused as to why TVs haven't completely merged with computer monitors. They're similar enough now that they should be one and the same - they do pretty much the same thing - that's for sure.
I wonder what equations they'd otherwise have to solve, and what kind of CPU power would be needed.
Not too keen on their RIAA-style tactics, but his other artwork is more detailed and colorful if you look. Example: http://www.imageline2.com/pages/ipics2_AnmalTOONS.htm
I'm guessing the 'patchwork' allows more competition for companies to one-up each other, and also allows for a more modular design. I loved the Amiga, but as long as decent interfaces and standards are used, it makes sense to modularize.
Let's assume he's not a troll for one moment. Can you prove to him and me that the update isn't for the 8830?
Even though I may not agree with what you initially said, I preferred your 'wrong' version of the saying :) Very true also about how people with less sophisticated taste (in design, music, art) don't know it. Though as you might guess, the situation is complicated somewhat since a person can have worse taste in one way (say a music's harmony or placement of gadgets in a window) than someone else, but better in another (say melody/rhythm, or striking that balance between feature creep and versatility in a program) etc.
Steady, anyone would think you were trying to advertise for verizon ;)
Do you recommend I purchase the verizon service myself? I'm salivating, and almost falling over myself in a desperate bid to register with them. I hope they offer their services in the UK soon - well one can dream eh?
By the way, your post probably does serve a useful purpose in the sense Verizon would lose customers as a result.
Actually, even though I disagree with the original poster, his addition of the word 'bad' actually improved upon the old saying. Sorry, just like the saying 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and other (hardline) relativist crap, such sayings express little and are probably more misleading than true.
Maybe, just maybe we can have the best of both worlds. That would be lots of functionality, where the UI takes less than 5 seconds to navigate, *and* where the most commonly used functions take fewer clicks than less used ones. Definable hotkeys too - that sort of thing. It can still look nice too.
How do you quote by the way? I use bold/italic at the moment... Positive results are obtained through positive action. Negative results are obtained through negative action. Behaviourism, while not good as a total philosophy, has certainly been well demonstrated to be effective. If you wish to promote the greatest happiness etc, you implement a system of punishment and reward to encourage positive action and discourage negative action.
Okay, as far as it stops future crimes, I'm happy with that. As long as it's done for that reason.
Nonsense. A portion will, but many people will moderate their behaviour based on expected outcomes, including but not limited to punishments. You clearly have not done even the most cursory research of this topic. Granted, punishment is not enough to stop a behaviour given strong enough reasons to engage in it, but in general it is very effective. I've been told by people who have been to countries with Sharia law that you can leave your wallet on the bonnet of your car and it won't be taken. That's not meant to be an endorsement of Sharia but the claim that punishment doesn't discourage the targeted behaviour is not true.
Well you're right about the research thing to an extent. However, people on here have said that punishment and/or prison doesn't drop the crime rate one bit. I think they mentioned studies too - who do I listen to? Any peer reviewed studies out there? But great news - I agree with you if it really does help prevent crimes.
Plea with them? HA! You think force won't stop them but asking them nicely will?
I'm talking about for the cases where they are even starting to think about what they've done. Obviously there will be many people who can't be helped, and I suppose a livable prison is the only answer here, since the damage they will cause outside prison is greater than the 'punishment' for that criminal in prison.
but a terrible injustice if it is forced on you
Well of course, but I mean it's not really the kind of thing that can forced anyway (easy to hide, but the bitterness can still be hidden inside). It's up to each person. I'm just speaking ideally...