XBOX is pricier when you put together the cost of the last XBox, and the cost of the current XBox, and the inherent issue that games will STOP WORKING on it in 3 years (i.e. new games).
Whereas my box, which I bought for 500-600 dollars 2.5 years ago runs great today, plays doom3 pretty fine (only played the demo) runs half life 2 great...
the HIGHEST level of detail on HL2 will not be available on the XBOX versions anyway, not when some PC cards cost more than the XBOX. The idea is, I pay 600 dollars, I PWN the machine, I can do what I want with it, play flash games, install transport tycoon, install quake 3, anything, linux, etc etc, without worrying too much about crappy closed systems.
I see fewer problems in the UK... a little more in Germany (suprising) and forget about going to cinema in Greece, where people actually have to speak up to hear themselves over the film and each other.
Oh in Greece, if someones phone rings, the etiquette is for them to answer it (forget how bright a phone screen is while ringing, and you are in a dark cinema) and carry on a normal conversation, albeit slightly louder to compensate for the movie.
Of course, dialing out is also not a problem, or sending a text message (again that bright screen).
It is all much better than watching the movie, because if a person in greece actually watches the movie, they start talking 10 to the dozen about it (or I like to hope it is about the movie) not jus to the person next to them, but to someone 4 seats away.
Also, they are all commentators, and cannot just laugh, but have to say 'oh wow that was funny, did you see that, the guy walked into the wall... ahahhaa, I am hungry lets eat a gyros later, what did you do last friday?' instead.
Of course, I am assuming, I can't understand a word they say (well I can, but I like to switch it off).
(One ethnic group in particular seems to have a monopoly on these creeps).
I am honestly an innocently curious to know, and I am not asking out of some sarcasm. Being from the UK, I just see twatish white kids (15-25) with gelled down hair, sports clothing, spots, dirty 150 quid nike trainers and a nokia phone.
As they story points out, some people own 2+ consoles, play MMORPGs and need their web fix.
There are only 7 nights in a week!
I agree with kids and mobiles. Perhaps if they made an > 18 cinema (not rating! I would PREFFER the > 18 played the U/PG movies that TEND to have so many kids - you cannot beat a decent Pixar animation, and obviously >18 movies shouldn't have too many kids (in my old age a kid is < 22))
Back on point. Not enough time (stick) not enough good movies (carrot) too many movies of yesteryear means too many DVD's of newish films you haven't seen (bale of hay).
So. Is it me or the only development done on slashdot is the fucking 'word in image'. It seems to change its algorithm every fucking day. Right now it does multi-resolution shit.
To confirm you're not a script, please type the word in this image: longer
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
Overclocking is taking something that is stated and supported at a certain level, and going beyond that supported level.
So, if they do it, it is not more different than AMD/Intel shifting the boundary for chips that fail the 4ghz test, and are rated at 3.8, despite being more than good enough for 4ghz, but they have to avoid nasty bad batches.
But, if it is running faster than the 'advertised' 'speed' (deliberate use of ''s) then you could assume it was overclocking / nefarious activity.
What if you legs aren't magically stuck together and do not trigger the central area.
Would be a kinda sexy concept, except one other thing - the draft of particles would be high because as you pass through the surface area of the hole s lowered, so any wind/draft cause a whip of dust and shit near your face.
"someone is recording an audio file with some content on it, that they could have typed out, but hey, its more fun using your downpipe to listen to someone day 'erm, ok, so, thats what, now, uh, and' as well as other verbal ticks that make these things so annoying."
That kind of story won't get published on slashdot.
Call it a podcast tough... and through the magic of obscure jargon and hipe 'buzz' this story gets posted!
Wooooooooow!
Forget paying people to blog, lets all start recording audio, shit, I mean podcasting!!
Download my whole website as one auto-generated sound file!! hurrah for TTS!!
podcasting: like a file containing audio data, but like, you know... called something else.
padcasting: If you cannot afford a fucking streaming server, and if it was live you would have to broadcast for 11 weeks to rack up 4 listeners... in total.
CAN WE DROP PODCASTING PLEASE.
In other news, websites that are fetched from xml based 'link' files (such as RSS) are now called 'webcasts' and for those who don't 'webcast' you should, it is cool! than photograph yourself with an ugly self proclaimed 'blogebrity' and be all hip!'
To confirm you're not a script, please type the word in this image: wherein
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
BTW this isn't a normal slashdot post!! no it is an iSlashdot-post-cast-log !!1phi
Wrong, PERL was the original, and became Perl as a rebranding, and people confuse this with it being a backronym. Practical Extraction & Reporting Language.
Slightly off topic - read the adblock listing for the first link... they have 'popupunder' and 'antipopup' testing. (even says it in the dns of the link)
Did any other firefox users get a zedo.com popup? I hit adblock, and blocked about 20 large swathes of abc advertising.
You know, if they hadn't hijacked my computer and opened a window without my consent, then I wouldn't have had to. 0.0.0.0 zedo.com also.
ON TOPIC: Will is be SIP compatible like gizmo, or proprietary like skype?
Skype it nice, works, and is free but proprietary. Gizmo will work with hardware phones and uses a standard SIP.
If Y!A!H!O!O!S!!! own software is SIP based, then I might give it a go if they don't opt for msn style heeeowwj tabs and interface. minimalism.. and no ads. evar.
Corrections:
Yahoo! Readies New VoIP Service Communications | Posted by samzenpus on Thursday August 18, @04:25AM from the do-you-yahoo!-phone dept. Rob writes "Yahoo! is readying to capture a larger piece of the VoIP market and will announce a new VoIP product during the next two weeks. The new service would be comparable to Skype Technologies SA's, said Safa Rashtchy, senior research analyst at Wall Street researcher Piper Jaffray Co, which makes a market in Yahoo! stock. The impending move by Sunnyvale, California-based Yahoo! into the VoIP arena would potentially be disruptive."
Great, except for the format specific headers, both use a Modified Discrete Cosine Transform, which is, in laymans terms:
Grab some signal (music) and represent it ina way that all the important audio information (within our hearing range, loud enough etc) is at one end, and all the less important (perceivable) information is at the other end.
Chop all the less important info off.
To decode, reverse the process, and the main stuff will be there, minus the fluff in the record grooves (the small bits of info... of fluff does make bangs and clicks... but bad analogy)
So in summation, the quality lost between the two shoudl not be that bad, as the two methods would target the same information from a raw wav data set.
Therefore, it should be not to painful to make the switch, but I will need to test to substantiate this.
I don't want to invest 4 hours to learn the Java sound API's right now (encode mp3, decode wav, store, reencode that wav to ogg, then back to wav, compare both wavs using java)
Perl users are happy when it gets used for EVERYTHING and anything, its like, shit, I have spent all this time learning, now I want every technology to be doable in Perl! 3d, yes, internet sites, yes, databases, yes, write one in perl. operating systems, yes, write one in perl!
PERL is very scripty and cgi'y. I used PERL (sorry perl) while doing some basic CGI about 6/7 years ago.
Never used it since. Have used PHP since... don't use either. All Jsp, Java SE, JSF and Python now.
Evolution is one of those things that seem like "magic" if one looks at the complexity of the human heart or the human eye. Stydying how the trick was performed (studying the very simple heart of a fish or an amphib and then studying the hearts of increasing complexity towards the human heart) takes away the mystery.
I know it is difficult, but keep track, the MAGIC I spoke of was the complete existence complex we underwent when the universe suddenly existed.
Your claim that seeing 'how the heart came around' is stupid! because that is like thinking the marvel of an acorn turning into an oak can be solves by solving a wooden sliding puzzle.
No, you are quite right. "I" have not proven anything, all I said anything against is your claims that evolution is unproven. The proof is found in papers written by others, not me. Are these real proofs? They are more than enough that pope JP II admitted evolution to be real. Obviously you rank your level of knowledge in this field higer thant the scientific advisors of the Catholic church, I sure as hell (and I'm not a Christian) don't rank my knowledge that high. Talk about being arrogant... (and no, that the Catholic church said so does not necessarily make it so, so don't go there).
Firstly, I am not pushing my 'knowledge' but showing you the holes in yours and the lenghts you will go to declare this as 'proven' and real. You are unshaking, not even allowing doubt, and in the light of it you look stupid, because any scientist who does not doubt his work is stupid. You tout all these high ideals, and at the same time sound like a/. trolling twat who hides behind some assumed title in research.
No ammount of research and your adamant ability to leap a cognitive gap will get me to admit, or make me overlook your efforts to say this is 'proven'.
Do you even venture into the realms of peer-reviewed science?
Again trying to use belittling comments and present yourself as intellectual. I have said, that finding out how things work does NOTHING to further the grander theory of Evolution.
Cutting life into smaller and smaller pieces, and making further reaching theories isn't hacking it.
You talk so much crap, and are trying so hard to convince me (ok deny it) that evolution is proven, yet show me the paper that says it is proven, and the/. article of people saying 'oh crap, whaddayaknow they were right all along'
I read an article about how intelligent people often defend bad ideas, or invalid points of view. Now, you are certainly above average intelligence, or put yourself there, so perhaps that is why you are defending your 'look it is proven ok' position, hoping, as the article stated, that you can debate your way out of it.
Admit it, or make a plain statement (although you did in this post) that evolution is/isn't proven. And by proven I mean it was proven, and not 'hey look ok proven, but you know, not actually officially, but you know'. It is proven like the world is spherical? No. So? What does that mean for your previous statements that it is proven?
But this is the fundamental issue where your arguments fall. That thing you call Evolution is the same as what you call evolution (not that there even was something as Evolution). You cannot say those processes are completely separate from eachother as you do when you make claims about artificial relationships.
Evolution as an umbrella term for forces that work within living organisms, and 'inheritence'. You seem to think that by discovering how inheritence works, you are somehow proving evolution. A lot of your 'scientific proof' are just observations that fall under the umbrella of concerns for evolution, therefore any activity there you suddenly automatically think furthers the cause of evolution.
Evolution as an idea that we can from single celled organisms, or even non living funny shaped things, is completely silly.
Please read the posts before restating the obvious and spouting some rubbish.
The query was, can you transcode MP3 to ogg without any perceptual loss in quality.
The why is questionable, BUT if there is no perceptual loss in quality, then it becomes why not, personally I would re-encode all my mp3's to ogg's to cut the tie in one quick go.
No need to search for MP3's on my system again. That is all. A preffered format. As I state (and why should I reitterate?) I imagine the loss will not be that much.
In the tradition of slashdot, I will explain my ironic statements!
And who says CD's are high quality - When I said "High-Quality CD", I was referring to the average music CD
I was being sarcastic, 44khz is enough for me. Look up sony's super cd, something like 120khz? check out SACD in plain english I don't pretend that you might not have heard of this before, just bringing it up.
The LAME encoder can only do wav to MP3 - Wrong. The LAME encoder can also decode mp3's, as it has a built-in decoder.
It was semantics: codec is the word that means encode/decode. An encoder cannot decode. A codec can do both. LAME is a encoder/decoder, therefore it is a codec. The encoder component could be described as 'decoding from wav to mp3' though... but it is strange to think like that!
- When you encode an original lossless source, into mp3, you lose some of the original information. Wether you can percieve this loss or not, is irrelevant to the fact that loss does occur.
No need to add emphasis, I am quite well read on compression schemes, I know this. I mention in my message, if you have some real evidence of the cost incurred to recompress an mp3 as ogg I would be interested, but I used an educated guess to say that I wouldn't notice the difference, and that isn't a slight to my own hearing capabilities, but a general hunch about how ogg works.
The loss from the interpolation of mp3 and ogg encoding
Interpolation? I don't think anything is interpolated... maybe you meant something else?
If you transcode your mp3 file into ogg, the result will always be lower quality than the source
Since I didn't argue against that, I merely asked what would the loss be (see original post) I find the added emphasis you gave this sentence to be rather insulting, as it makes it out that I was under the impression this would not be the case.
I haven't looked at the algorithm ogg uses, I guess this means I will now have to.
This means that the jpeg would not get re-encoded after each save.
Oh no, it does, the data stream will get reencoded with no knowledge of its previous encoding.
However, if you use a different algorithm, then of course each time a different part of the file would be deemed, in a different way, redundant. Be it a DCT and quantization ala Jpeg97 or wavelet transforms like Jpeg2000. Or even Limel-Ziff-Welsch's algorithm for gif compression.
I reference image formats because I have more experience, the reasoning is the same.
Look, we are going into this and saying the same things. I didn't expect you to take objection to anything I wrote, particularly not say the same thing back.
Again, my original question was ****WHAT**** was the additional loss from mp3 to ogg, not a generic 'lossy to lossy is bad'. Just to point that out!
Anyway, forget it, I will stick with mp3's, maybe it is your audiophile side pushing this too far!:-) I am ok with 48/96 kbps most of the time! not even 128kbps!
The excessive use of I and me make this an opinionated blog which doesn't lend credibility to her argument or 'findings'. In short, this is basically a troll.
And nothing breaks up usability than interpersing links with iconic meta-data about their meaning.
OOoooh a shopping basket next to the dell logo, give me a break.
There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all operating system that is right for every scenario in every environment
Well, if there is no one-size-fits-all than I do not assume one could be right for every scenario in every environment... else it would be one size fits all.
I read an article about overuse of words and redundant writing, designed to sound more academic than it is. This is a prime example.
We should stop giving giving too much credit to everything published online.
I hate that every week I end up on a new 'news site'. Newsfactor... again I think this is the first time I am seeing this source.
When people can gain more recognition through bad writing ('is often written off') then people tend to listen more and more... her bad writting is fuelling people apprent interest in her articles.
It smacks of trying to hard and comes off like a college undergrad doing philosophy or sociology.
Of course, I realize the irony of attacking someone writing style coming from a slashdot user, let alone myself. However, I cannot read this while visualizing the type self affirmed 'intellectuals' who write with their tongue lolling around.
How did she get such a wide distribution and voice? Now I realize. Anyone can bet published if they really want to, just write a fairly well written piece, and you are magically the seeder of keywords to a news site.
People get paid to blog, I hope she isn't curling her toes up at her literary success.
I am suprised she didn't use words like juxtaposition or procrastinate.
I would have been more informative if I didn't now have to highlight the errors.
BTW I specialise in human perception based lossless compression techniques, such as images based, scene based or (not yet - but well known) audio based.
postscript, erm, added up here, because I can edit anywhere after preview: If you want to see good scene based compression, check out F.E.A.R and see the multi resolution decals that nucleate around areas of interest, which is simple idea, but now it is being used more and more! (back to the original programming)
MP3 being lossy, and removing certain characteristics I hoped by uncompressing it to a wav, if visualised it would have similar to the rings and highlights of wavelet compression (not the same, but similar, in a hypothetical visualisation) I hoped ogg would not alias on these, and still produce a comparative sound.
It was just a way of forgeting to look for mp3 and ogg support in future.
I am not an audiophile. I know various lossless compression techniques, from basic RLE to huffman encoding.
It is not a very very bad idea. It might not be as good as getting all my originals and converting them, but I would prefer to dump all my MP3's to 128kps ogg or something, jsut for convenience.
If you convert from a lossy format to a lossy format, you will lose significant amounts of quality. DO NOT CONVERT FROM LOSSY TO LOSSY!
Yes, which is why I hoped about not loosing too much. I am not an audiophile, my speakers are crap and I wouldn't perceive too much of a difference, if at all.
To transcode your.mp3 files into.ogg, you'd need to first convert all of your.mp3 files into ogg. This would require the use of the LAME encoder (To convert the mp3's to wav)
Nitpick: codec mean enCOder and DECoder. The LAME encoder can only do wav to MP3 (for arguments sake) you need the LAME decoder to move from MP3 to wav!
It does not matter if you convert a 320kbps mp3 into super-high-quality ogg - You still get huge amounts of loss due to the fact that the original material is lossy.
This is the bit that narked me. This is unsubstantiated. The lossy characteristics of MP3 are known to me, the ogg characteristics are not.
People say if you resave a jpeg multiple times you degrade it. Technically wrong. The pattern is symmetric, you can decode, and re-encode without any problems as long as you do not change the data in between. (this is true for most, you could have a specific encoder that would break this rule by using some maxima and minima that would chance with each re-encoding, but it is not inherent in the technology, and I am talking abotu wavelet compression).
So if the MP3 characteristics in the wav file did not degrade the performance of ogg (by making it hard for the encoder to chew) or make the wave format more susceptible to the ogg encoders quantization algorithms, then I would say that your theory, in general is sound, and true, in the bass of the evidence, but not on a scale that warrants particular interest.
Again, if you can back it up, that is the info I was hoping for! Thanks!:-)
I guess a simple binary diff of the resulting wav files> orig, mp3'd, mp3'd>ogg'd. This would show the unencoded signature of the data, that would allow you to calculate errors... but further algorithms would have to be taken into account to give perceivable errors, which means you must define a consumer of the data, i.e. an observer (or in this case a listener).
You could model this to something like a car stereo, and you could apply specialised compression to model the perception of someone in a car. But then, why the feck bother.
Fourth. If you want to test out ogg Vorbis, then encode any of your legally bought hi-quality cd's to ogg, and listen to wether you like the result.
I find your insinuation that the 30gigs of MP3's on various media strewn across my desk,
Slashdot Mirror
XBOX is pricier when you put together the cost of the last XBox, and the cost of the current XBox, and the inherent issue that games will STOP WORKING on it in 3 years (i.e. new games).
Whereas my box, which I bought for 500-600 dollars 2.5 years ago runs great today, plays doom3 pretty fine (only played the demo) runs half life 2 great...
the HIGHEST level of detail on HL2 will not be available on the XBOX versions anyway, not when some PC cards cost more than the XBOX. The idea is, I pay 600 dollars, I PWN the machine, I can do what I want with it, play flash games, install transport tycoon, install quake 3, anything, linux, etc etc, without worrying too much about crappy closed systems.
Next gen PDA over PSP? maybe. I like flexibility.
Don't support proprietary platforms that only play games, just buy good PC hardware and swap it out, and play games on PC. Consoles suck!
Anyway, less trollish, except for the PS3, I see no reason to buy a console. The PS3 has innovation, it is a new platform.
XBOX is a PC which costs more than a PC, and has expensive proprietary attachments.
Why do people buy them? THEY BUY a console just to play a few games?
Stupid!
Buy a cheap PC and play flash games or MMORPGS!
Thats all folks.
I am selling advertising space on Just letters. Currently I am advertising for a distraught Halo gamer, "pwned"
:-) oops! h4x0r. Anyone wants to buy spamvertising on there, let me know! :-) Fridge Magnet Spam!
:-)
I am not kidding, check it out and wait for 30 seconds, and you will see pwned written:
PWNED
PWNED
PWNED
PWNED
or a variation!!
MODs: check out link and verify story before modding up +interesting!
Tod - H4x0r
To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: bramble
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
I see fewer problems in the UK... a little more in Germany (suprising) and forget about going to cinema in Greece, where people actually have to speak up to hear themselves over the film and each other.
Oh in Greece, if someones phone rings, the etiquette is for them to answer it (forget how bright a phone screen is while ringing, and you are in a dark cinema) and carry on a normal conversation, albeit slightly louder to compensate for the movie.
Of course, dialing out is also not a problem, or sending a text message (again that bright screen).
It is all much better than watching the movie, because if a person in greece actually watches the movie, they start talking 10 to the dozen about it (or I like to hope it is about the movie) not jus to the person next to them, but to someone 4 seats away.
Also, they are all commentators, and cannot just laugh, but have to say 'oh wow that was funny, did you see that, the guy walked into the wall... ahahhaa, I am hungry lets eat a gyros later, what did you do last friday?' instead.
Of course, I am assuming, I can't understand a word they say (well I can, but I like to switch it off).
(One ethnic group in particular seems to have a monopoly on these creeps).
I am honestly an innocently curious to know, and I am not asking out of some sarcasm. Being from the UK, I just see twatish white kids (15-25) with gelled down hair, sports clothing, spots, dirty 150 quid nike trainers and a nokia phone.
How does this compare with the US side?
When?
As they story points out, some people own 2+ consoles, play MMORPGs and need their web fix.
There are only 7 nights in a week!
I agree with kids and mobiles. Perhaps if they made an > 18 cinema (not rating! I would PREFFER the > 18 played the U/PG movies that TEND to have so many kids - you cannot beat a decent Pixar animation, and obviously >18 movies shouldn't have too many kids (in my old age a kid is < 22))
Back on point. Not enough time (stick) not enough good movies (carrot) too many movies of yesteryear means too many DVD's of newish films you haven't seen (bale of hay).
So. Is it me or the only development done on slashdot is the fucking 'word in image'. It seems to change its algorithm every fucking day. Right now it does multi-resolution shit.
To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: longer
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
Overclocking is taking something that is stated and supported at a certain level, and going beyond that supported level.
So, if they do it, it is not more different than AMD/Intel shifting the boundary for chips that fail the 4ghz test, and are rated at 3.8, despite being more than good enough for 4ghz, but they have to avoid nasty bad batches.
But, if it is running faster than the 'advertised' 'speed' (deliberate use of ''s) then you could assume it was overclocking / nefarious activity.
I love it how the thing doesn't actually work.
What if you legs aren't magically stuck together and do not trigger the central area.
Would be a kinda sexy concept, except one other thing - the draft of particles would be high because as you pass through the surface area of the hole s lowered, so any wind/draft cause a whip of dust and shit near your face.
Wish it did work, and looked all liquidy.
Richard_at_work (517087)
NewStarRising (580196) said: "1) You must be new here."
Check his uid! Anyway, yes, the 1TB dvd recorder title was far worse. Gmail will always be in beta, until Duke Nukem Forever comes out.
I was worried it would all go! Please get me one quick before my ailing 120GB + 250GB + 4 * 140GB drives die! I got another 70gb on DVD's.
:-)
Now, 1TB of pr0n, that *should* be enough for anybody!
To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: consult
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
"someone is recording an audio file with some content on it, that they could have typed out, but hey, its more fun using your downpipe to listen to someone day 'erm, ok, so, thats what, now, uh, and' as well as other verbal ticks that make these things so annoying."
That kind of story won't get published on slashdot.
Call it a podcast tough... and through the magic of obscure jargon and hipe 'buzz' this story gets posted!
Wooooooooow!
Forget paying people to blog, lets all start recording audio, shit, I mean podcasting!!
Download my whole website as one auto-generated sound file!! hurrah for TTS!!
podcasting: like a file containing audio data, but like, you know... called something else.
padcasting: If you cannot afford a fucking streaming server, and if it was live you would have to broadcast for 11 weeks to rack up 4 listeners... in total.
CAN WE DROP PODCASTING PLEASE.
In other news, websites that are fetched from xml based 'link' files (such as RSS) are now called 'webcasts' and for those who don't 'webcast' you should, it is cool! than photograph yourself with an ugly self proclaimed 'blogebrity' and be all hip!'
To confirm you're not a script,
please type the word in this image: wherein
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
BTW this isn't a normal slashdot post!! no it is an iSlashdot-post-cast-log !!1phi
Wrong, PERL was the original, and became Perl as a rebranding, and people confuse this with it being a backronym. Practical Extraction & Reporting Language.
Same with PHP in fact.
Slightly off topic - read the adblock listing for the first link... they have 'popupunder' and 'antipopup' testing. (even says it in the dns of the link)
Did any other firefox users get a zedo.com popup? I hit adblock, and blocked about 20 large swathes of abc advertising.
You know, if they hadn't hijacked my computer and opened a window without my consent, then I wouldn't have had to. 0.0.0.0 zedo.com also.
pain in the ass bitches.
ON TOPIC: Will is be SIP compatible like gizmo, or proprietary like skype?
Skype it nice, works, and is free but proprietary. Gizmo will work with hardware phones and uses a standard SIP.
If Y!A!H!O!O!S!!! own software is SIP based, then I might give it a go if they don't opt for msn style heeeowwj tabs and interface. minimalism.. and no ads. evar.
Corrections:
Yahoo! Readies New VoIP Service
Communications | Posted by samzenpus on Thursday August 18, @04:25AM
from the do-you-yahoo!-phone dept.
Rob writes "Yahoo! is readying to capture a larger piece of the VoIP market and will announce a new VoIP product during the next two weeks. The new service would be comparable to Skype Technologies SA's, said Safa Rashtchy, senior research analyst at Wall Street researcher Piper Jaffray Co, which makes a market in Yahoo! stock. The impending move by Sunnyvale, California-based Yahoo! into the VoIP arena would potentially be disruptive."
Check out square heads demo (google for the webstart) and 'Trails' on miniclip.com.
Brilliant.
Great, except for the format specific headers, both use a Modified Discrete Cosine Transform, which is, in laymans terms:
Grab some signal (music) and represent it ina way that all the important audio information (within our hearing range, loud enough etc) is at one end, and all the less important (perceivable) information is at the other end.
Chop all the less important info off.
To decode, reverse the process, and the main stuff will be there, minus the fluff in the record grooves (the small bits of info... of fluff does make bangs and clicks... but bad analogy)
So in summation, the quality lost between the two shoudl not be that bad, as the two methods would target the same information from a raw wav data set.
Therefore, it should be not to painful to make the switch, but I will need to test to substantiate this.
I don't want to invest 4 hours to learn the Java sound API's right now (encode mp3, decode wav, store, reencode that wav to ogg, then back to wav, compare both wavs using java)
thanks for links and discussions.
Perl users are happy when it gets used for EVERYTHING and anything, its like, shit, I have spent all this time learning, now I want every technology to be doable in Perl! 3d, yes, internet sites, yes, databases, yes, write one in perl. operating systems, yes, write one in perl!
PERL is very scripty and cgi'y. I used PERL (sorry perl) while doing some basic CGI about 6/7 years ago.
Never used it since. Have used PHP since... don't use either. All Jsp, Java SE, JSF and Python now.
Evolution is one of those things that seem like "magic" if one looks at the complexity of the human heart or the human eye. Stydying how the trick was performed (studying the very simple heart of a fish or an amphib and then studying the hearts of increasing complexity towards the human heart) takes away the mystery.
/. trolling twat who hides behind some assumed title in research.
/. article of people saying 'oh crap, whaddayaknow they were right all along'
I know it is difficult, but keep track, the MAGIC I spoke of was the complete existence complex we underwent when the universe suddenly existed.
Your claim that seeing 'how the heart came around' is stupid! because that is like thinking the marvel of an acorn turning into an oak can be solves by solving a wooden sliding puzzle.
No, you are quite right. "I" have not proven anything, all I said anything against is your claims that evolution is unproven. The proof is found in papers written by others, not me. Are these real proofs? They are more than enough that pope JP II admitted evolution to be real. Obviously you rank your level of knowledge in this field higer thant the scientific advisors of the Catholic church, I sure as hell (and I'm not a Christian) don't rank my knowledge that high. Talk about being arrogant... (and no, that the Catholic church said so does not necessarily make it so, so don't go there).
Firstly, I am not pushing my 'knowledge' but showing you the holes in yours and the lenghts you will go to declare this as 'proven' and real. You are unshaking, not even allowing doubt, and in the light of it you look stupid, because any scientist who does not doubt his work is stupid. You tout all these high ideals, and at the same time sound like a
No ammount of research and your adamant ability to leap a cognitive gap will get me to admit, or make me overlook your efforts to say this is 'proven'.
Do you even venture into the realms of peer-reviewed science?
Again trying to use belittling comments and present yourself as intellectual. I have said, that finding out how things work does NOTHING to further the grander theory of Evolution.
Cutting life into smaller and smaller pieces, and making further reaching theories isn't hacking it.
You talk so much crap, and are trying so hard to convince me (ok deny it) that evolution is proven, yet show me the paper that says it is proven, and the
I read an article about how intelligent people often defend bad ideas, or invalid points of view. Now, you are certainly above average intelligence, or put yourself there, so perhaps that is why you are defending your 'look it is proven ok' position, hoping, as the article stated, that you can debate your way out of it.
Admit it, or make a plain statement (although you did in this post) that evolution is/isn't proven. And by proven I mean it was proven, and not 'hey look ok proven, but you know, not actually officially, but you know'. It is proven like the world is spherical? No. So? What does that mean for your previous statements that it is proven?
But this is the fundamental issue where your arguments fall. That thing you call Evolution is the same as what you call evolution (not that there even was something as Evolution). You cannot say those processes are completely separate from eachother as you do when you make claims about artificial relationships.
Evolution as an umbrella term for forces that work within living organisms, and 'inheritence'. You seem to think that by discovering how inheritence works, you are somehow proving evolution. A lot of your 'scientific proof' are just observations that fall under the umbrella of concerns for evolution, therefore any activity there you suddenly automatically think furthers the cause of evolution.
Evolution as an idea that we can from single celled organisms, or even non living funny shaped things, is completely silly.
We see forces governing our lives,
Please read the posts before restating the obvious and spouting some rubbish.
The query was, can you transcode MP3 to ogg without any perceptual loss in quality.
The why is questionable, BUT if there is no perceptual loss in quality, then it becomes why not, personally I would re-encode all my mp3's to ogg's to cut the tie in one quick go.
No need to search for MP3's on my system again. That is all. A preffered format. As I state (and why should I reitterate?) I imagine the loss will not be that much.
Now leave it. ffs.
In the tradition of slashdot, I will explain my ironic statements!
:-) I am ok with 48/96 kbps most of the time! not even 128kbps!
And who says CD's are high quality
- When I said "High-Quality CD", I was referring to the average music CD
I was being sarcastic, 44khz is enough for me. Look up sony's super cd, something like 120khz? check out SACD in plain english I don't pretend that you might not have heard of this before, just bringing it up.
The LAME encoder can only do wav to MP3
- Wrong. The LAME encoder can also decode mp3's, as it has a built-in decoder.
It was semantics: codec is the word that means encode/decode. An encoder cannot decode. A codec can do both. LAME is a encoder/decoder, therefore it is a codec. The encoder component could be described as 'decoding from wav to mp3' though... but it is strange to think like that!
- When you encode an original lossless source, into mp3, you lose some of the original information. Wether you can percieve this loss or not, is irrelevant to the fact that loss does occur.
No need to add emphasis, I am quite well read on compression schemes, I know this. I mention in my message, if you have some real evidence of the cost incurred to recompress an mp3 as ogg I would be interested, but I used an educated guess to say that I wouldn't notice the difference, and that isn't a slight to my own hearing capabilities, but a general hunch about how ogg works.
The loss from the interpolation of mp3 and ogg encoding
Interpolation? I don't think anything is interpolated... maybe you meant something else?
If you transcode your mp3 file into ogg, the result will always be lower quality than the source
Since I didn't argue against that, I merely asked what would the loss be (see original post) I find the added emphasis you gave this sentence to be rather insulting, as it makes it out that I was under the impression this would not be the case.
I haven't looked at the algorithm ogg uses, I guess this means I will now have to.
This means that the jpeg would not get re-encoded after each save.
Oh no, it does, the data stream will get reencoded with no knowledge of its previous encoding.
However, if you use a different algorithm, then of course each time a different part of the file would be deemed, in a different way, redundant. Be it a DCT and quantization ala Jpeg97 or wavelet transforms like Jpeg2000. Or even Limel-Ziff-Welsch's algorithm for gif compression.
I reference image formats because I have more experience, the reasoning is the same.
Look, we are going into this and saying the same things. I didn't expect you to take objection to anything I wrote, particularly not say the same thing back.
Again, my original question was ****WHAT**** was the additional loss from mp3 to ogg, not a generic 'lossy to lossy is bad'. Just to point that out!
Anyway, forget it, I will stick with mp3's, maybe it is your audiophile side pushing this too far!
Just to highlight the irony:
'to hard'
'too hard'
tsk. Anyway it was style not spelling. Almost anyone can spellcheck / proofread. (if they want)
She has covered operating systems and related security issues for 18 years as an analyst
18 frikking years?
In mid-late 1987 the security concerns were viruses on copied Amiga games. I think someone is polishing their resume a bit.
Windows 3 wasn't even out.
The excessive use of I and me make this an opinionated blog which doesn't lend credibility to her argument or 'findings'. In short, this is basically a troll.
And nothing breaks up usability than interpersing links with iconic meta-data about their meaning.
OOoooh a shopping basket next to the dell logo, give me a break.
There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all operating system that is right for every scenario in every environment
Well, if there is no one-size-fits-all than I do not assume one could be right for every scenario in every environment... else it would be one size fits all.
I read an article about overuse of words and redundant writing, designed to sound more academic than it is. This is a prime example.
We should stop giving giving too much credit to everything published online.
I hate that every week I end up on a new 'news site'. Newsfactor... again I think this is the first time I am seeing this source.
When people can gain more recognition through bad writing ('is often written off') then people tend to listen more and more... her bad writting is fuelling people apprent interest in her articles.
Don't feed the trolls.
It smacks of trying to hard and comes off like a college undergrad doing philosophy or sociology.
Of course, I realize the irony of attacking someone writing style coming from a slashdot user, let alone myself. However, I cannot read this while visualizing the type self affirmed 'intellectuals' who write with their tongue lolling around.
How did she get such a wide distribution and voice? Now I realize. Anyone can bet published if they really want to, just write a fairly well written piece, and you are magically the seeder of keywords to a news site.
People get paid to blog, I hope she isn't curling her toes up at her literary success.
I am suprised she didn't use words like juxtaposition or procrastinate.
I would have been more informative if I didn't now have to highlight the errors.
.mp3 files into .ogg, you'd need to first convert all of your .mp3 files into ogg. This would require the use of the LAME encoder (To convert the mp3's to wav)
:-)
BTW I specialise in human perception based lossless compression techniques, such as images based, scene based or (not yet - but well known) audio based.
postscript, erm, added up here, because I can edit anywhere after preview: If you want to see good scene based compression, check out F.E.A.R and see the multi resolution decals that nucleate around areas of interest, which is simple idea, but now it is being used more and more! (back to the original programming)
MP3 being lossy, and removing certain characteristics I hoped by uncompressing it to a wav, if visualised it would have similar to the rings and highlights of wavelet compression (not the same, but similar, in a hypothetical visualisation) I hoped ogg would not alias on these, and still produce a comparative sound.
It was just a way of forgeting to look for mp3 and ogg support in future.
I am not an audiophile. I know various lossless compression techniques, from basic RLE to huffman encoding.
It is not a very very bad idea. It might not be as good as getting all my originals and converting them, but I would prefer to dump all my MP3's to 128kps ogg or something, jsut for convenience.
If you convert from a lossy format to a lossy format, you will lose significant amounts of quality. DO NOT CONVERT FROM LOSSY TO LOSSY!
Yes, which is why I hoped about not loosing too much. I am not an audiophile, my speakers are crap and I wouldn't perceive too much of a difference, if at all.
To transcode your
Nitpick: codec mean enCOder and DECoder. The LAME encoder can only do wav to MP3 (for arguments sake) you need the LAME decoder to move from MP3 to wav!
It does not matter if you convert a 320kbps mp3 into super-high-quality ogg - You still get huge amounts of loss due to the fact that the original material is lossy.
This is the bit that narked me. This is unsubstantiated. The lossy characteristics of MP3 are known to me, the ogg characteristics are not.
People say if you resave a jpeg multiple times you degrade it. Technically wrong. The pattern is symmetric, you can decode, and re-encode without any problems as long as you do not change the data in between. (this is true for most, you could have a specific encoder that would break this rule by using some maxima and minima that would chance with each re-encoding, but it is not inherent in the technology, and I am talking abotu wavelet compression).
So if the MP3 characteristics in the wav file did not degrade the performance of ogg (by making it hard for the encoder to chew) or make the wave format more susceptible to the ogg encoders quantization algorithms, then I would say that your theory, in general is sound, and true, in the bass of the evidence, but not on a scale that warrants particular interest.
Again, if you can back it up, that is the info I was hoping for! Thanks!
I guess a simple binary diff of the resulting wav files> orig, mp3'd, mp3'd>ogg'd. This would show the unencoded signature of the data, that would allow you to calculate errors... but further algorithms would have to be taken into account to give perceivable errors, which means you must define a consumer of the data, i.e. an observer (or in this case a listener).
You could model this to something like a car stereo, and you could apply specialised compression to model the perception of someone in a car. But then, why the feck bother.
Fourth.
If you want to test out ogg Vorbis, then encode any of your legally bought hi-quality cd's to ogg, and listen to wether you like the result.
I find your insinuation that the 30gigs of MP3's on various media strewn across my desk,