So, what you are saying is that the site ultimately sucked, right? Then you seem to concur with the original poster. He didn't say it was designed badly or that he hated it from the moment it started. He merely stated that he "despised it". Your comment sure doesn't evoke much love for the site either.
You are right, I missed that from the article; the file does not contain the original uncompressed format: it is compressed losslessly. Thank you for the correction.
However, according to the following passage from the article: "Simply put, it works by storing a conventional lossy MP3 track that standard players can play, alongside a 'lossless' version -- both audio streams are contained in one single MP3 file. It's similar to how hybrid SACDs work."
the new format is just a wrapper containing both the old MP3 compressed stream, which is lossy, and a version compressed losslessly. This still means that every MP3-HD is larger than a regular MP3, which brings us back to my original question: what's the point?
Pressumably people use MP3s in their portable players to fit more songs than would be possible with lossless formats (or because they transfer faster due to their smaller size), and therefore accept any loss in perceptible quality or any compression artifacts, as a trade-off between space and quality. But if your songs are all of a sudden going to take more storage space, why put up with the lossy quality at all?
This seems to be a strategy conceived purely to exact as much licensing revenue from the MP3 patents and prevent the (possibly inevitable) move to more open, already common lossless formats.
"It utilises both lossless and lossy audio contained inside a single.mp3 file"
If the file contains both the original uncompressed signal and the compressed signal, wouldn't it be larger than the original uncompressed signal by itself?
Unless, of course, the compressed format offers at least 100:1 compression ratio, taking zero or less storage space. Now, that's a feat!
Does this seem pointless to anyone else? An audio compression technology that takes more storage space than the original, uncompressed format--FTW!
I guess that if your reason for listening to MP3s is purely because of the lossiness it brings to your ears, then having a non-lossy format that still allows you to playback at that wonderful lossy quality, would be a great thing.
I, however, was under the impression that compression technologies were invented, you know, to compress the original signal so that it fit more densely in storage media or consumes less bandwidth during transmission; and that the lossy quality was a trade-off, not the feature.
>> Consider an online game like World of Warcraft. You can't resell it legally, the new "owner" would need to purchase their own key for online play even if you gave them your box + disc.
Actually, I can sell my copy of World of Warcraft, legally--even if the box is opened--and there's nothing preventing me from doing so. However, the buyer must understand that the activation key for the 30 (or whatever) days of play that come in the box has already been used, and he'll have to activate his own account. Basically, I sell the discs, box and manuals; unless I haven't used the activation key, then the buyer gets the whole package.
The difference is that it is an "online game", which requires an online account in order to play. On the other hand, Steam sells single-player, "offline" games which have no such restrictions within the game itself, yet they require online activation. In such cases, if I have no Internet connection, I cannot use the game even if it does not include--or I do not plan on ever using--any networking capabilities.
So, if the police decide to implant a chip on every person and track them all the time, but then only prosecute those who commit crimes; is that treating people like presumed-innocent civilians?
What I didn't see discussed in the article is the alternative of not increasing the AI and exploring deeper paths in order to choose a weaker move, but to, you know, actually change the algorithm to match how a human would arrive at an action.
For example, in the case of a FPS, instead of having perfect accuracy and omniscient awareness of every opponent, the computer could use search algorithms to look in front, up to a reasonably human visual range, taking into consideration any obstacles in the way which will affect the computation. This way, the AI player is not artificially ignoring opponents behind walls and bushes (while tracking every single one of them), but is instead realistically not even aware of them--just like a human would not be aware of opponents hiding in the environment.
As for the accuracy, it could certainly be affected by random probabilities (like occurs in real life), but also by other environmental and stress factors. For instance, if the AI player is a sniper in hiding, and it seems apparent that the opponent hasn't become aware of them, then they have a natural advantage. But if they are in the open, and running, their accuracy should be affected negatively. Also, if the opponent happens to be farther away, or slightly masked by environmental obstacles, or moving fast, this should decrease the accuracy.
I know that I get very frustrated when I play games that give the appearance of perfect awareness of the environment, even when they don't really. As the article mentions, even when the computer opponent gains an advantage by pure chance, any previous appearance of omniscience adds up and distracts from the illusion of "humanity" or fallibility. It just does not seem like a fair challenge. It also feels rather stupid when the AI has been artificially crippled and then compensated by pure brute force; like when you get attacked by a few gazillion zombies at once, any one of which being insanely boneheaded in its individual moves, but all of them running towards you simultenously, giving you little chance to aim or escape.
I think we can reach the conclusion that we plainly have differing views towards advertising. I will not say you are wrong, I just disagree with your perspective. I hope that in kind you accept mine as merely different than yours.
For instance: >> Which I would think would not be something many people would want to do.
While I grant that many people may not want to, still many would (and do). I disagree with the proposition that everyone rather have something for free. Most people understand that "there is no such thing as a free lunch"; although the costs may be non-monetary, they still exist, and some (me included) deem them sometimes too high a price.
>> if I had the choice, I'd rather get ad-supported stuff for free, than have to pay for it.
And here's the critical bit: although I accept that people like you rather watch ads to get free stuff than to pay for it, and that this is your right and prerrogative, it seems to be incomprehensible to some that there may be people like me who absolutely would rather pay for a service than to be interrupted, bothered, or bombarded by advertisements.
If you can accept this as a different and valid perspective rather than a mere aberration of the norm by some freaks who use AdBlock because they don't understand how good it is to get free stuff, then we can agree to disagree.
>> Yep, and I think they disagree because they're blissfully unaware of what downloading something like Adblock might do to all the free content they're getting at the moment. There's a lot of sites that would instantly stop working if advertising dollars dried up overnight, and that would make me sad.
Again, most of us are very much aware what the consequences of using AdBlock are to "free content". While I understand you will be unhappy if your favorite free sites stopped working, there are those who really would not mind nor miss them. Sure, I like Slashdot (to some degree), but if it were to disappear, I would not lose any sleep over it.
In fact, if subscription-based sites were all there were on the Web, perhaps I would subscribe to some (as I currently do) if I find the content valuable. If, on the other hand, I can't seem to find a site worth paying for, then what does that tell me about the quality of the content when it has no value to me? At such point I would re-evaluate my necessity of using the Internet altogether. After all, although I enjoy it immensely, I lived most of my life without it. "Free", ad-supported content is not necessarily the best model for everyone, it is just the current one in vogue.
Here's to greater understanding among disputing minds.
First, I agree that my analogy was faulty, but your alteration makes it worse. I believe the proper ammendment would be if after everyone attends, I decide that--because I am providing free beer and chips--everybody now has to sit and watch my rather large collection of LOLCATZ pictures on my hi-def TV, as I narrate with sound effects and voice characterizations. I then get indignant when people walk off to the other room and start talking and dancing, instead of viewing my presentation--how dare them?! After drinking my beer and eating my chips!
Second, your outcomes seem fair. However, I would disagree with your assertion that "it's better for everyone if we don't have to charge them AND they don't block our ads"; that may be better for you and to those who enjoy or do not mind advertising, but as you may be aware, this is not everyone. I suspect that most people who do not mind advertising, would mind even less if it were not there.
Advertisers should understand that some people (maybe even most) really do not mind paying for services and products. In fact, there used to be a time when people paid for everything, and yet the societies did not collapse. I'm not advocating the disolution of all advertising, it has its purpose and place in an industrialized nation. I'm merely stating that it is not a righteous gift to humanity.
As per your second outcome, that war is already engaged--this is the reason we are having this discussion ("Re: Adblock?", remember?). It just means that advertisers (and notice that I am generalizing, as I do not know you personally, nor your organization, enough to make judgement) feel entitled to some sort of privilege while, at least a sector of the population, disagrees.
Here's my key point: Advertising is not a right. It is not a righteous endeavor, and it is not (necessarily, by nature) a benefit to our society. The fact that advertisers provide a purported "free" service or product does not give them any rights nor privileges; inspite of what they have come to expect, they can only reasonably expect remuneration or reciprocity if they demand it (but as I mentioned that may descend them from the moral high-ground). Furthermore, the fact that even a large amount of people are consuming a free product or service does not make that product or service indispensable to them, much less to society as a whole.
You could wish everybody liked advertising and agreed with your position, but this will not make it so. If you were to stop providing such service or product altogether, I have the deepest conviction that the world will still turn, somehow, and that people will find something else to buy or use, or even change the business model and provide their own.
>> Those "services" are being offered by companies of their own free will under the unwritten social contract that you will look at their ads in return for getting their content.
No, you are thoroughly incorrect. Those services are being offered by companies in the hopes--or expectation--that enough people will watch the ads and thus potentially become customers or patrons of their advertising clients. This increases the value of their advertising and, of course, their revenue.
There is no "unwritten social contract", there is no entitlement provided by virtue of advertising.
If I plan a party and invite a lot of people, I hope they come and I would expect that at least my friends and family come; but there is no "unwritten social contract" stipulating the requirement of invitees to attend by the mere act of me planning a party. It may seem rude to me if they don't attend after I invited them, but some people may just have other or even better things to do.
Such it is with ads, too. It is time the advertisement industry stop feeling themselves entitled to some special "unwritten" privilege: if you provide a service for free and you want to require your patrons to view advertisements, say and do so. But in doing so, understand that the service is no longer "free"--as it requires paying a price, albeit a non-monetary one--and some will decide to refuse the terms, and thus abdicate the use of the service or product altogether.
Of course, this will decrease your traffic (since you are no longer counting casual patrons whom did not meet your expectations), and affect the value you provide to your advertising clients. I suspect this is why they rather keep it quiet and view it as an "unwritten social contract": they can see themselves as victims and grandstand about their purported social value.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry Mr. Jobs, I meant no offence, really! I love my iPod and will buy another one, I swear. Please don't hit me!
-dZ.
I thought so too, but it appears to be optional. I would imagine that spammers will disable this feature.
-dZ.
Yeah? And how does it prevent you from writing the wrong address in the "To" field?
-dZ.
Wait five seconds.
-dZ.
I always everything before sneding.
-dZ.
Outbound qué?
-dZ.
You misspelled "Noony".
-dZ.
Or pancreatic cancer.
-dZ.
>> JavaScript is the new p-Code.
May $DEITY help us.
-dZ.
So, what you are saying is that the site ultimately sucked, right? Then you seem to concur with the original poster. He didn't say it was designed badly or that he hated it from the moment it started. He merely stated that he "despised it". Your comment sure doesn't evoke much love for the site either.
-dZ.
You are right, I missed that from the article; the file does not contain the original uncompressed format: it is compressed losslessly. Thank you for the correction.
However, according to the following passage from the article:
"Simply put, it works by storing a conventional lossy MP3 track that standard players can play, alongside a 'lossless' version -- both audio streams are contained in one single MP3 file. It's similar to how hybrid SACDs work."
the new format is just a wrapper containing both the old MP3 compressed stream, which is lossy, and a version compressed losslessly. This still means that every MP3-HD is larger than a regular MP3, which brings us back to my original question: what's the point?
Pressumably people use MP3s in their portable players to fit more songs than would be possible with lossless formats (or because they transfer faster due to their smaller size), and therefore accept any loss in perceptible quality or any compression artifacts, as a trade-off between space and quality. But if your songs are all of a sudden going to take more storage space, why put up with the lossy quality at all?
This seems to be a strategy conceived purely to exact as much licensing revenue from the MP3 patents and prevent the (possibly inevitable) move to more open, already common lossless formats.
-dZ.
My understanding came from this:
"It utilises both lossless and lossy audio contained inside a single .mp3 file"
If the file contains both the original uncompressed signal and the compressed signal, wouldn't it be larger than the original uncompressed signal by itself?
Unless, of course, the compressed format offers at least 100:1 compression ratio, taking zero or less storage space. Now, that's a feat!
-dZ.
Does this seem pointless to anyone else? An audio compression technology that takes more storage space than the original, uncompressed format--FTW!
I guess that if your reason for listening to MP3s is purely because of the lossiness it brings to your ears, then having a non-lossy format that still allows you to playback at that wonderful lossy quality, would be a great thing.
I, however, was under the impression that compression technologies were invented, you know, to compress the original signal so that it fit more densely in storage media or consumes less bandwidth during transmission; and that the lossy quality was a trade-off, not the feature.
-dZ.
>> Consider an online game like World of Warcraft. You can't resell it legally, the new "owner" would need to purchase their own key for online play even if you gave them your box + disc.
Actually, I can sell my copy of World of Warcraft, legally--even if the box is opened--and there's nothing preventing me from doing so. However, the buyer must understand that the activation key for the 30 (or whatever) days of play that come in the box has already been used, and he'll have to activate his own account. Basically, I sell the discs, box and manuals; unless I haven't used the activation key, then the buyer gets the whole package.
The difference is that it is an "online game", which requires an online account in order to play. On the other hand, Steam sells single-player, "offline" games which have no such restrictions within the game itself, yet they require online activation. In such cases, if I have no Internet connection, I cannot use the game even if it does not include--or I do not plan on ever using--any networking capabilities.
-dZ.
So, if the police decide to implant a chip on every person and track them all the time, but then only prosecute those who commit crimes; is that treating people like presumed-innocent civilians?
And don't get me started with the car analogies!
-dZ.
What I didn't see discussed in the article is the alternative of not increasing the AI and exploring deeper paths in order to choose a weaker move, but to, you know, actually change the algorithm to match how a human would arrive at an action.
For example, in the case of a FPS, instead of having perfect accuracy and omniscient awareness of every opponent, the computer could use search algorithms to look in front, up to a reasonably human visual range, taking into consideration any obstacles in the way which will affect the computation. This way, the AI player is not artificially ignoring opponents behind walls and bushes (while tracking every single one of them), but is instead realistically not even aware of them--just like a human would not be aware of opponents hiding in the environment.
As for the accuracy, it could certainly be affected by random probabilities (like occurs in real life), but also by other environmental and stress factors. For instance, if the AI player is a sniper in hiding, and it seems apparent that the opponent hasn't become aware of them, then they have a natural advantage. But if they are in the open, and running, their accuracy should be affected negatively. Also, if the opponent happens to be farther away, or slightly masked by environmental obstacles, or moving fast, this should decrease the accuracy.
I know that I get very frustrated when I play games that give the appearance of perfect awareness of the environment, even when they don't really. As the article mentions, even when the computer opponent gains an advantage by pure chance, any previous appearance of omniscience adds up and distracts from the illusion of "humanity" or fallibility. It just does not seem like a fair challenge. It also feels rather stupid when the AI has been artificially crippled and then compensated by pure brute force; like when you get attacked by a few gazillion zombies at once, any one of which being insanely boneheaded in its individual moves, but all of them running towards you simultenously, giving you little chance to aim or escape.
-dZ.
I think we can reach the conclusion that we plainly have differing views towards advertising. I will not say you are wrong, I just disagree with your perspective. I hope that in kind you accept mine as merely different than yours.
For instance:
>> Which I would think would not be something many people would want to do.
While I grant that many people may not want to, still many would (and do). I disagree with the proposition that everyone rather have something for free. Most people understand that "there is no such thing as a free lunch"; although the costs may be non-monetary, they still exist, and some (me included) deem them sometimes too high a price.
>> if I had the choice, I'd rather get ad-supported stuff for free, than have to pay for it.
And here's the critical bit: although I accept that people like you rather watch ads to get free stuff than to pay for it, and that this is your right and prerrogative, it seems to be incomprehensible to some that there may be people like me who absolutely would rather pay for a service than to be interrupted, bothered, or bombarded by advertisements.
If you can accept this as a different and valid perspective rather than a mere aberration of the norm by some freaks who use AdBlock because they don't understand how good it is to get free stuff, then we can agree to disagree.
>> Yep, and I think they disagree because they're blissfully unaware of what downloading something like Adblock might do to all the free content they're getting at the moment. There's a lot of sites that would instantly stop working if advertising dollars dried up overnight, and that would make me sad.
Again, most of us are very much aware what the consequences of using AdBlock are to "free content". While I understand you will be unhappy if your favorite free sites stopped working, there are those who really would not mind nor miss them. Sure, I like Slashdot (to some degree), but if it were to disappear, I would not lose any sleep over it.
In fact, if subscription-based sites were all there were on the Web, perhaps I would subscribe to some (as I currently do) if I find the content valuable. If, on the other hand, I can't seem to find a site worth paying for, then what does that tell me about the quality of the content when it has no value to me? At such point I would re-evaluate my necessity of using the Internet altogether. After all, although I enjoy it immensely, I lived most of my life without it. "Free", ad-supported content is not necessarily the best model for everyone, it is just the current one in vogue.
Here's to greater understanding among disputing minds.
Cheers!
-dZ.
Aha! You almost had me, but--alas--I see right through you, fake Steve!
The REAL Steve Jobs would demand that the pancreas doctor bus over to him!
-dZ.
Maybe everyone just ran really fast towards the bus and rammed it.
-dZ.
First, I agree that my analogy was faulty, but your alteration makes it worse. I believe the proper ammendment would be if after everyone attends, I decide that--because I am providing free beer and chips--everybody now has to sit and watch my rather large collection of LOLCATZ pictures on my hi-def TV, as I narrate with sound effects and voice characterizations. I then get indignant when people walk off to the other room and start talking and dancing, instead of viewing my presentation--how dare them?! After drinking my beer and eating my chips!
Second, your outcomes seem fair. However, I would disagree with your assertion that "it's better for everyone if we don't have to charge them AND they don't block our ads"; that may be better for you and to those who enjoy or do not mind advertising, but as you may be aware, this is not everyone. I suspect that most people who do not mind advertising, would mind even less if it were not there.
Advertisers should understand that some people (maybe even most) really do not mind paying for services and products. In fact, there used to be a time when people paid for everything, and yet the societies did not collapse. I'm not advocating the disolution of all advertising, it has its purpose and place in an industrialized nation. I'm merely stating that it is not a righteous gift to humanity.
As per your second outcome, that war is already engaged--this is the reason we are having this discussion ("Re: Adblock?", remember?). It just means that advertisers (and notice that I am generalizing, as I do not know you personally, nor your organization, enough to make judgement) feel entitled to some sort of privilege while, at least a sector of the population, disagrees.
Here's my key point: Advertising is not a right. It is not a righteous endeavor, and it is not (necessarily, by nature) a benefit to our society. The fact that advertisers provide a purported "free" service or product does not give them any rights nor privileges; inspite of what they have come to expect, they can only reasonably expect remuneration or reciprocity if they demand it (but as I mentioned that may descend them from the moral high-ground). Furthermore, the fact that even a large amount of people are consuming a free product or service does not make that product or service indispensable to them, much less to society as a whole.
You could wish everybody liked advertising and agreed with your position, but this will not make it so. If you were to stop providing such service or product altogether, I have the deepest conviction that the world will still turn, somehow, and that people will find something else to buy or use, or even change the business model and provide their own.
-dZ.
And ponies--don't forget the ponies. Although, as we all know, they are in low abundance around the interwebs.
-dZ.
>> Those "services" are being offered by companies of their own free will under the unwritten social contract that you will look at their ads in return for getting their content.
No, you are thoroughly incorrect. Those services are being offered by companies in the hopes--or expectation--that enough people will watch the ads and thus potentially become customers or patrons of their advertising clients. This increases the value of their advertising and, of course, their revenue.
There is no "unwritten social contract", there is no entitlement provided by virtue of advertising.
If I plan a party and invite a lot of people, I hope they come and I would expect that at least my friends and family come; but there is no "unwritten social contract" stipulating the requirement of invitees to attend by the mere act of me planning a party. It may seem rude to me if they don't attend after I invited them, but some people may just have other or even better things to do.
Such it is with ads, too. It is time the advertisement industry stop feeling themselves entitled to some special "unwritten" privilege: if you provide a service for free and you want to require your patrons to view advertisements, say and do so. But in doing so, understand that the service is no longer "free"--as it requires paying a price, albeit a non-monetary one--and some will decide to refuse the terms, and thus abdicate the use of the service or product altogether.
Of course, this will decrease your traffic (since you are no longer counting casual patrons whom did not meet your expectations), and affect the value you provide to your advertising clients. I suspect this is why they rather keep it quiet and view it as an "unwritten social contract": they can see themselves as victims and grandstand about their purported social value.
-dZ.
moo?
Fine. Then cite an example of such a new proposition for the question. Extra points if you phrase it in the form of a car analogy.
-dZ.
Using the term "to take away" flags you as a marketroid weenie and invalidates all claims to the argument.
Sorry,
-dZ.