This also has some truth to it. I think what has happened is that Bush & Co. recognized early on that by controlling the media, not necessarily the majority of the media, but the media the reaches the majority of the people, that they can get away with whatever they like, that only a vocal minority would even be aware of what was going on around them, and that this minority are not the group of people that would protest in a fashion that would actually effect a change.
Painting with a very broad brush, you can probably say that people fall into one of three categories: they are ignorant of the ongoing situation, they have been instilled with too much fear or disenfranchisement in those elected to defend them, or they simply have no idea of any real means to make a difference.
Given the ease at which you can be branded a terrorist these days I bet a large chunk of the/. audience falls into the second category.
Some of you people need to get over yourselves. You're not important enough for the government to care about. The government wants to know about everyone so that they can data mine to identify people they do care about, and you better hope through some ill twist of fate you don't end up matching their criteria - and who knows what that is? The ACLU reports that the US terror watch list now has nearly one million names on it. Do you actually believe there are nearly one million terrorists in the country? Hmmm?
While he's Evil, he's fortunately not a dictator. George W. Bush:
I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And while we laughed and cried in apathy and disenchantment, he decided. And no man, law, constitutional or human right could stop him.
Do you really think they will wait for a jury or even a judge's approval before acting on real-time information that they will undoubtedly argue is time sensitive?
The NSA could already retroactively get approval for emergency wiretaps, but at some point they just stopped seeking approval and tapped everyone. Maybe they will have laws that allow retroactive approval of time-sensitive overhead surveillance. Here is an interesting thing to consider: Who says the matter ever has to make it to a judge for approval? Without oversight (which we know has not existed in any of Bush's other programs) the government, military, or law enforcement could take action on surveillance data, nobody would ever have to hear about it, and nobody would be any the wiser.
Scary, no?
Why even have a law for retroactive approval in fact, when by definition you're basically monitoring everyone in plain sight?
Last year CNET reported on at least one county in North Carolina already using a UAV to "monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air -- close enough to identify faces".
Discovery Channel's Future Weapons has provided insight into numerous UAVs, including the Fire Scout, Global Hawk, Predator 2, and the Dominator, their coverage of the Predator 2 particularly demonstrating surveillance and tracking capabilities of these units.
According to DefenseNews the US Air Force just announced the purchase of 28 Predators as part of a contract awarded to General Atomics. The US Air Force has just begun running ads on cable TV as part of their "Above All" campaign that feature the UAVs (sorry, no online video yet).
Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes.
If we take the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. .. how does this apply to aerial or satellite surveillance where we are now talking about technologies that can monitor us everywhere we go and using different techniques than we are used to?
Examples:
If I am reading e-mail on my phone outdoors (for the sake of argument lets assume it was transmitted securely) and I'm not openly displaying it to others, yet a UAV can see the text because it's above me, am I secure in my effects? What if it is a public place but there is nobody near me and it would be unreasonable to assume that anyone could see what I'm looking at? Even in the workplace, when I type my password into my desktop my coworkers, should they be near my desk, look away because their is an assumed need for privacy under some circumstances.
Satelites and UAVs do not just see in the visible spectrum. What happens when they are capable of looking into our homes either actively or passively via different ranges of the spectrum? One one hand, if I am yelling inside my house and there are people outside who overhear, that's my own fault. If a UAV can discern objects and people through a roof, monitor radio emissions and so forth, is that the same thing? My intuition says no, but I doubt it's defined.
Satelites, UAVs, and even cell networks have the ability to track our every move, and by monitoring us all build a social probability map (if you are regularly near other individuals and perhaps at some point have travelled to the same points at the same time or along the same route, you probably know them, can be expanded to group relationship probabilities). Although I don't have much of an expectation of privacy in public places, I do not have an expectation that I should be monitored in my every move and in every relationship I have with other individuals by any entity. However, increasingly that is a) possible, and b) likely.
Where are Americans, and the in fact the rest of the world, going to draw the line?
I am also gravely disappointed in Congress these days. The ask "is it legal?", or "can we manage privacy?" instead of noting that these kind of activities go against fundamental principles on which the United States was founded. "Is it legal?" is a gateway to allow anything, because as the Bush administration has demonstrated the law can be so easily changed, ignored, or interpreted, that it is a useless guard against any desire of the president.
What the hell is wrong with a community that instantly rejects any suggestion of racism NOTHING. Nothing is wrong with them, because a) we're all tired of hearing it, b) the situation is changing, gradually, but it is changing, c) the problem is often somewhere else, like equal quality of education, d) many of us "young adults" live in multi-cultural and multi-ethnic societies, and in the tech industry work with people of many races, and it is the older generation who insist on repeatedly highlighting what they see as racism, thus further fueling the segmentation of groups of people based on race and creating barriers.
Look, there may be a low percentage of black people doing game development today. What do you want us to do, start hiring random black people? No, clearly what we should do is ensure that african americans get the same standard of education as anyone else who is ultimately motivated to choose game development as a career. Over time the issue will resolve itself naturally, without breeding resentment between races.
Heck, we are very close to having a black president. If I wasn't a migrant worker I would absolutely vote for him over both of the white candidates, and I'm as white as they come. I'd vote for him because of his values, promises, genuineness, willingness to address difficult issues, and so forth, and not because he's black and black presidents are statistically under represented. And if I was in the gaming industry I'd hire developers because of their skills, not because they are underrepresented in my industry.
I read TFA with an open mind, and it is clearly the same old rhetoric. If MTV wanted to do something valuable to contribute to a more balanced situation then they could have ran a show on game development featuring notable african american individuals in the industry (e.g. some of the people they interviewed) without focusing on racial issues, and this way young black adults could see that "Hey, these people are making a good life in an industry I'm interested in, and the prospect of me achieving the same doesn't seem so absurd". Obviously they decided to go with a series of interviews where a lot of the questions were "tell me your minority sob story from this angle?".
I don't want to read one more article about how african american people are under represented in this, that, or the other. It makes me angry even to see such headlines because yes racism exists but we only fuel racism by carving out sectors of society by race and speaking to how disadvantaged they are. Why are we not discussing how there are too few Indian characters in modern-day computer games, or Phillipino's, or any other race? Because blacks are a racial crux that we like to fall back on and discuss whenever matters of race and equality come into play.
I personally work with people of all races from all over the world, and though I can't say I have absolutely no prejudices whatsoever I certainly do not consciously discriminate against anyone because of their ethnicity. And I think a very large percentage of the current/next generation are the same - we're growing up in multi-cultural environments with mixed ethnicity and we're learning to value our differences rather than look on them negatively. It is the older generation who still wants to talk about the past, who still wants to talk about stereotyping and martyrdom. TFA does nothing to break from the conventional mold, and it's infuriating to me.
In college [Computer Science] courses, I was typically one of maybe four black students, and I was certainly the only black female. In the industry, the makeup is pretty much the same. It's intimidating at times. I'm one of a handful, but I don't let these things hold me back. It's intimidating at times? Is it really? Were you singled out at college, or because you were too aware psychologically of your ethnicity did you single yourself out and limit your interactions between the other black students? Today, do your coworkers look at you funny when you walk down the hallway? Does the conversation stop at the water cooler when you arrive? Do you have to use a specially designated bathroom? No. Why is it intimidating? It's intimidating because you are all too aware of your race and concern yourself with the possibility of prejudice, not because it necessarily exists.
On counting the number of black women at GDC: "The grand total was six, including myself, and I hear that [the Game Developers Conference] had an attendance of over 18,000 this year." And how many white women were there? I hazard a guess at not too many, based on the industries history of mainly male developers. Yes, women are still under-represented in certain industries, too. But if they work as hard as men and are equally qualified over time the situation finds a more natural balance.
I think a lot of folks are just now starting to see it as a career choice. Young people are starting to realize that game development is something you can make a real living at. It's not like running off to join the circus. There are curriculums that are centered specifically around it, and the industry is looking for talent above all else. A-ha! Some intelligence. There may not be a lot of african american developers because we're only now promoting it to those teens as a viable career choice!
I could go on. If we want to end racial bias and under representation, I support the free market model: Provide people equal opportunities not by artificially advantaging one group above another or by continually highlighting racial under-representation, but through a good education across all people, and simply let things work themselves out over time. The problem will obviously not go away tomorrow, but does that really mean we have to keep highlighting it today, over and over, repeating the same old talking points?
* Most nations look up to the quality of the BBC, even though it's hotly debated inside the UK * People are complaining that they are more busy these days than ever * We complaining that our education system is failing us and our children are growing up to be louts * We keep hearing stories of kids being parented to greater and greater extents by TV * We want to see the top public broadcasters cutting costs and funding to put a few more pennies back into our pockets
I challenge you to compare the BBC as a news network to any of the popular American TV news channels for level of political bias and fear or coercion that causes them to collectively avoid reporting significant news stories unfavorable to the Bush administration, or world events that may sit as unpopular with the American viewers and thus impact their advertisers.
Whether "popular" programs are imported or not is irrelevant. It makes sense for the BBC to supplement its own productions with the best productions from other bodies. It is the quality of the programming overall that is significant in the case of the BBC, and I have seen very little to rival it. Just as the shows you mentioned may be the most popular in the UK, they are also some of the most popular in the US. But take that list of shows, divide it among well over 100 channels broadcasting 24 hours a day, and perhaps you can start to see a picture of how sparse high quality programming is here.
I can't speak to the salaries of the BBC, nor do I claim that I'm familiar with their internal operations or that they are appropriate. I will say, however, that you might want to compare the typical interview with Jeremy Paxman to any number of interviews from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, and see how that turns out. I believe you'll find plenty of samples on YouTube.
Yes, America also has loads of reality shows, but the point is that they are funded by advertisement and if you don't want to watch it you don't have to still pay for it. Where I live basic cable costs me $50/month, and it's 100 channels which are mostly garbage, or nothing. I can pick up exactly two channels over the air with a lot of fuzz.
What a joke. It's because of deluded fools like DigitalAI that the rest of us have to suffer this extortion. Maybe they should simply create a PBS tax instead of charging for a TV license. I think this is a better representation. I actually agree with you that you should not have to pay a fee just because you own a television, but I also believe that the BBC should remain publicly funded for the good of British society.
The BBC may have political bias, but until you have lived in the US and witness the likes of Fox news you really have no idea how good you have it. Their individual party biases aside, the media here, across half-a-dozen "news" networks, appears to be fully coerced in their coverage (or lack there-of) of major political and world events.
You get to choose with your remote and your wallet That may be true, but it is the wrong way to understand the effect of public broadcast. Where there is competent and broadly targeted public broadcasting a bar is set for the quality of programming of for-profit networks. Without the BBC, for example, I think you would see a very different and quickly degrading television landscape. In fact I know you would, because that's exactly what I see here where there is public broadcast, but unless you're into jazz music, movies from the seventies, or watching senators debating on CSPAN, you would never watch it anyway, and so it doesn't really have much influence on the other networks.
1. Nearly everyone I know who doesn't pay for cable TV downloads all their favorite TV shows, so they are making use of the content, just not through conventional channels.
2. The BBC and other public broadcasting services must be sustained. I've lived in the US for over four years now and I cannot even begin to express how terrible TV here is in comparison to programs by the BBC. There are a few exceptions, of course, but I would gladly give up my entire cable package consisting of nearly one hundred channels, just to get the handful of BBC channels available in the UK. Having lived in the UK most of my life I too used to criticize the TV tax but this was certainly a case of not knowing what you've got 'till it's gone.
Even if you from part of a minority who truly does not "make use of any of that content" you do indirectly benefit from living in a society where for-profit networks can't completely dumb-down television programming to the point that turning on the box literally causes your brain to rot, and where watching an hour of television also implies watching twenty minutes of commercials.
Public broadcasting benefits society, and taxes are designed to benefit society even though specific taxes may not benefit every individual. So long as the taxes are reasonable and produce real results I would be in favor of them.
You're on the right track with SNR, but still a little off I feel.
I agree that at 120db SNR you do need very good equiptment to hear the difference, but the jump from the Audigy 2 to the X-Fi Elite Pro was certainly noticeable. Hi-fi equiptment is not necessary, a pair of headphones in the $150+ range will suffice so long as you don't need surround sound.
80db, though, is a terrible SNR and very obvious even on rather low-end headphones. I will grant you though that for users who prefer desktop speakers, especially in the $100 range, that you'd be hard pressed to notice since these tend to have much deeper flaws than poor SNR, often frequency response is entirely unbalanced and the ability of the speakers to deal with high power signals very poor.
customers: "I was using Linux, and someone drained my account!" bankers: "Did you have anti-virus and anti-spyware running?" customers: "On Linux?? No!" bankers: "Then it's your own fault!"
I don't see Microsoft "fixing" this problem ever. Of course not. Next thing you know we'll have subscriptions just to keep our system running with anything more than bare bones functionality, "activation" will become a "subscription update", and we'll have to do it every month.
I thought anti-piracy technologies were pitched as adding value for paying customers and reducing the cost of goods? Well guess what, as paying customer, Microsoft's anti-piracy technologies have been nothing but a thorn in my side, I've never realized any added value (heck the pirates get their hands on all the Windows Updates anyway, and I'm glad they do as it keeps malware down), and Microsoft hasn't lowered the cost of goods. Look at Vista, half a dozen versions, the lower end of the line arguably being crippled versions, the high end IMO over priced.
They didn't have any real competition, until recently. Now the ASUS XONAR, and the slightly lower spec'd Razer Barracuda are direct competitors for the X-Fi, minus the later revisions of EAX. However, I could not be happier if EAX died on it's ass, because it's one of the few things locking consumers into Creative boards these days, and the sooner we can wave goodbye to Creative's monopoly the better.
Onboard sound is fine for most applications, but it is not suitable for audio enthusiasts such as musicians who need low latency ASIO. The ASIO implementation on most on-board chipsets (that I have used) is atrocious to the point of being unusable.
Indeed, and a simple solution would be for each major video standard (MPEG-1/2/4pt2/4pt10) to define the maximum average quantizer over a second for 95% of all content that would allow a channel to be classified as HD. That solution would not be 100% perfect, but the quantizer is the most significant factor to the quality, and it would come very close to a consistently applicable standard.
Maybe we could have a few classifications: HD Bronze - Barely passes some maximum average quantizer check HD Silver - The channel is running at a maximum average quantizer that will guarantee high quality video HD Gold - The channel is running at a maximum average quantizer suitable for premium content HD Platinum - Nose to screen archival quality material
It's not HD if the quantization is so great that taking a standard def source and upsampling it would produce similar results, which is what some of those Comcast screenshots look like.
I'll personally be sad when analog eventually goes away, purely because of the tricks that are being played with compression for digital broadcast.
As much as I can agree that there is perhaps some unnecessary bashing taking place, what has the world come to when you have to re-install a monitor driver just because it isn't certified?
You're no longer in control of your own PC, Microsoft is.
I agree to an extent, but Intel does have to be given some credit for the Core 2 Duo's. Until my most recent custom-build PC all of my boxes have been powerful but noisy. Then the Core 2 Duo came along and promised up to 40% better performance than comparably clocked chips from AMD/Intel's older lines, and they also ran much cooler. I snapped up one of the cheapest models and stuck a Thermaltake Big Tyhoon on it (the original model, not the one with the speed control dial which spins up intermittently, making it completely useless for noise control), and it's so quiet that I can barely hear a whisper from the system. Granted, a big typhoon is not going to fit inside a laptop, but if you want a quiet laptop the lower clocked Core 2's should make that possible without sacrificing performance.
Of course, cases that are poorly designed such that when you sit with the laptop in your lap/on a bed cover the vents get covered are always going to be a problem.
Thank you, that is a much clearer explanation than WaMu was able to muster.
However, even given that explanation, it does appear that simply having a debit card is a severe security risk for any customer - the bank seems to be unwilling to prevent the capture of funds when an account holder flags an authorization as false, and refunding fraudulent transactions may take well over a month. I've never seen any of my debit card transactions blocked for security purposes either - I have only ever received calls questioning certain transactions 24-28 hours after the fact, and the transaction that I mentioned in the grandparent post was an international transaction for thousands of dollars which was authorized immediately without the card CVC code (accurately reflected in my account statement as a "Debit without PIN" transaction).
It is no wonder to me that identity theft is so easy to perform and so hard to recover from. As a customer, you have very little protection and nearly no power to resolve the matter beyond the effort the bank is willing to expend on its own accord.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can shoot down a Predator at 25,000 feet you win a cookie.
This also has some truth to it. I think what has happened is that Bush & Co. recognized early on that by controlling the media, not necessarily the majority of the media, but the media the reaches the majority of the people, that they can get away with whatever they like, that only a vocal minority would even be aware of what was going on around them, and that this minority are not the group of people that would protest in a fashion that would actually effect a change.
/. audience falls into the second category.
Painting with a very broad brush, you can probably say that people fall into one of three categories: they are ignorant of the ongoing situation, they have been instilled with too much fear or disenfranchisement in those elected to defend them, or they simply have no idea of any real means to make a difference.
Given the ease at which you can be branded a terrorist these days I bet a large chunk of the
Is this he not a dictator?
Do you really think they will wait for a jury or even a judge's approval before acting on real-time information that they will undoubtedly argue is time sensitive?
The NSA could already retroactively get approval for emergency wiretaps, but at some point they just stopped seeking approval and tapped everyone. Maybe they will have laws that allow retroactive approval of time-sensitive overhead surveillance. Here is an interesting thing to consider: Who says the matter ever has to make it to a judge for approval? Without oversight (which we know has not existed in any of Bush's other programs) the government, military, or law enforcement could take action on surveillance data, nobody would ever have to hear about it, and nobody would be any the wiser.
Scary, no?
Why even have a law for retroactive approval in fact, when by definition you're basically monitoring everyone in plain sight?
Last year CNET reported on at least one county in North Carolina already using a UAV to "monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air -- close enough to identify faces".
Discovery Channel's Future Weapons has provided insight into numerous UAVs, including the Fire Scout, Global Hawk, Predator 2, and the Dominator, their coverage of the Predator 2 particularly demonstrating surveillance and tracking capabilities of these units.
According to DefenseNews the US Air Force just announced the purchase of 28 Predators as part of a contract awarded to General Atomics. The US Air Force has just begun running ads on cable TV as part of their "Above All" campaign that feature the UAVs (sorry, no online video yet).
Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes.
Examples:
Where are Americans, and the in fact the rest of the world, going to draw the line?
I am also gravely disappointed in Congress these days. The ask "is it legal?", or "can we manage privacy?" instead of noting that these kind of activities go against fundamental principles on which the United States was founded. "Is it legal?" is a gateway to allow anything, because as the Bush administration has demonstrated the law can be so easily changed, ignored, or interpreted, that it is a useless guard against any desire of the president.
Look, there may be a low percentage of black people doing game development today. What do you want us to do, start hiring random black people? No, clearly what we should do is ensure that african americans get the same standard of education as anyone else who is ultimately motivated to choose game development as a career. Over time the issue will resolve itself naturally, without breeding resentment between races.
Heck, we are very close to having a black president. If I wasn't a migrant worker I would absolutely vote for him over both of the white candidates, and I'm as white as they come. I'd vote for him because of his values, promises, genuineness, willingness to address difficult issues, and so forth, and not because he's black and black presidents are statistically under represented. And if I was in the gaming industry I'd hire developers because of their skills, not because they are underrepresented in my industry.
I read TFA with an open mind, and it is clearly the same old rhetoric. If MTV wanted to do something valuable to contribute to a more balanced situation then they could have ran a show on game development featuring notable african american individuals in the industry (e.g. some of the people they interviewed) without focusing on racial issues, and this way young black adults could see that "Hey, these people are making a good life in an industry I'm interested in, and the prospect of me achieving the same doesn't seem so absurd". Obviously they decided to go with a series of interviews where a lot of the questions were "tell me your minority sob story from this angle?".
I personally work with people of all races from all over the world, and though I can't say I have absolutely no prejudices whatsoever I certainly do not consciously discriminate against anyone because of their ethnicity. And I think a very large percentage of the current/next generation are the same - we're growing up in multi-cultural environments with mixed ethnicity and we're learning to value our differences rather than look on them negatively. It is the older generation who still wants to talk about the past, who still wants to talk about stereotyping and martyrdom. TFA does nothing to break from the conventional mold, and it's infuriating to me. In college [Computer Science] courses, I was typically one of maybe four black students, and I was certainly the only black female. In the industry, the makeup is pretty much the same. It's intimidating at times. I'm one of a handful, but I don't let these things hold me back. It's intimidating at times? Is it really? Were you singled out at college, or because you were too aware psychologically of your ethnicity did you single yourself out and limit your interactions between the other black students? Today, do your coworkers look at you funny when you walk down the hallway? Does the conversation stop at the water cooler when you arrive? Do you have to use a specially designated bathroom? No. Why is it intimidating? It's intimidating because you are all too aware of your race and concern yourself with the possibility of prejudice, not because it necessarily exists. On counting the number of black women at GDC: "The grand total was six, including myself, and I hear that [the Game Developers Conference] had an attendance of over 18,000 this year." And how many white women were there? I hazard a guess at not too many, based on the industries history of mainly male developers. Yes, women are still under-represented in certain industries, too. But if they work as hard as men and are equally qualified over time the situation finds a more natural balance. I think a lot of folks are just now starting to see it as a career choice. Young people are starting to realize that game development is something you can make a real living at. It's not like running off to join the circus. There are curriculums that are centered specifically around it, and the industry is looking for talent above all else. A-ha! Some intelligence. There may not be a lot of african american developers because we're only now promoting it to those teens as a viable career choice!
I could go on. If we want to end racial bias and under representation, I support the free market model: Provide people equal opportunities not by artificially advantaging one group above another or by continually highlighting racial under-representation, but through a good education across all people, and simply let things work themselves out over time. The problem will obviously not go away tomorrow, but does that really mean we have to keep highlighting it today, over and over, repeating the same old talking points?
* Most nations look up to the quality of the BBC, even though it's hotly debated inside the UK
* People are complaining that they are more busy these days than ever
* We complaining that our education system is failing us and our children are growing up to be louts
* We keep hearing stories of kids being parented to greater and greater extents by TV
* We want to see the top public broadcasters cutting costs and funding to put a few more pennies back into our pockets
Good move everybody, good move.
Whether "popular" programs are imported or not is irrelevant. It makes sense for the BBC to supplement its own productions with the best productions from other bodies. It is the quality of the programming overall that is significant in the case of the BBC, and I have seen very little to rival it. Just as the shows you mentioned may be the most popular in the UK, they are also some of the most popular in the US. But take that list of shows, divide it among well over 100 channels broadcasting 24 hours a day, and perhaps you can start to see a picture of how sparse high quality programming is here.
I can't speak to the salaries of the BBC, nor do I claim that I'm familiar with their internal operations or that they are appropriate. I will say, however, that you might want to compare the typical interview with Jeremy Paxman to any number of interviews from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, and see how that turns out. I believe you'll find plenty of samples on YouTube. Yes, America also has loads of reality shows, but the point is that they are funded by advertisement and if you don't want to watch it you don't have to still pay for it. Where I live basic cable costs me $50/month, and it's 100 channels which are mostly garbage, or nothing. I can pick up exactly two channels over the air with a lot of fuzz. What a joke. It's because of deluded fools like DigitalAI that the rest of us have to suffer this extortion. Maybe they should simply create a PBS tax instead of charging for a TV license. I think this is a better representation. I actually agree with you that you should not have to pay a fee just because you own a television, but I also believe that the BBC should remain publicly funded for the good of British society.
I have two responses to that:
1. Nearly everyone I know who doesn't pay for cable TV downloads all their favorite TV shows, so they are making use of the content, just not through conventional channels.
2. The BBC and other public broadcasting services must be sustained. I've lived in the US for over four years now and I cannot even begin to express how terrible TV here is in comparison to programs by the BBC. There are a few exceptions, of course, but I would gladly give up my entire cable package consisting of nearly one hundred channels, just to get the handful of BBC channels available in the UK. Having lived in the UK most of my life I too used to criticize the TV tax but this was certainly a case of not knowing what you've got 'till it's gone.
Even if you from part of a minority who truly does not "make use of any of that content" you do indirectly benefit from living in a society where for-profit networks can't completely dumb-down television programming to the point that turning on the box literally causes your brain to rot, and where watching an hour of television also implies watching twenty minutes of commercials.
Public broadcasting benefits society, and taxes are designed to benefit society even though specific taxes may not benefit every individual. So long as the taxes are reasonable and produce real results I would be in favor of them.
You're on the right track with SNR, but still a little off I feel.
I agree that at 120db SNR you do need very good equiptment to hear the difference, but the jump from the Audigy 2 to the X-Fi Elite Pro was certainly noticeable. Hi-fi equiptment is not necessary, a pair of headphones in the $150+ range will suffice so long as you don't need surround sound.
80db, though, is a terrible SNR and very obvious even on rather low-end headphones. I will grant you though that for users who prefer desktop speakers, especially in the $100 range, that you'd be hard pressed to notice since these tend to have much deeper flaws than poor SNR, often frequency response is entirely unbalanced and the ability of the speakers to deal with high power signals very poor.
Even better:
customers: "I was using Linux, and someone drained my account!"
bankers: "Did you have anti-virus and anti-spyware running?"
customers: "On Linux?? No!"
bankers: "Then it's your own fault!"
I thought anti-piracy technologies were pitched as adding value for paying customers and reducing the cost of goods? Well guess what, as paying customer, Microsoft's anti-piracy technologies have been nothing but a thorn in my side, I've never realized any added value (heck the pirates get their hands on all the Windows Updates anyway, and I'm glad they do as it keeps malware down), and Microsoft hasn't lowered the cost of goods. Look at Vista, half a dozen versions, the lower end of the line arguably being crippled versions, the high end IMO over priced.
They didn't have any real competition, until recently. Now the ASUS XONAR, and the slightly lower spec'd Razer Barracuda are direct competitors for the X-Fi, minus the later revisions of EAX. However, I could not be happier if EAX died on it's ass, because it's one of the few things locking consumers into Creative boards these days, and the sooner we can wave goodbye to Creative's monopoly the better.
Onboard sound is fine for most applications, but it is not suitable for audio enthusiasts such as musicians who need low latency ASIO. The ASIO implementation on most on-board chipsets (that I have used) is atrocious to the point of being unusable.
Surprisingly forward thinking on Intel's part, who are providing the engine, and have a business selling faster and faster multicore CPUs.
Indeed, and a simple solution would be for each major video standard (MPEG-1/2/4pt2/4pt10) to define the maximum average quantizer over a second for 95% of all content that would allow a channel to be classified as HD. That solution would not be 100% perfect, but the quantizer is the most significant factor to the quality, and it would come very close to a consistently applicable standard.
Maybe we could have a few classifications:
HD Bronze - Barely passes some maximum average quantizer check
HD Silver - The channel is running at a maximum average quantizer that will guarantee high quality video
HD Gold - The channel is running at a maximum average quantizer suitable for premium content
HD Platinum - Nose to screen archival quality material
It's not HD if the quantization is so great that taking a standard def source and upsampling it would produce similar results, which is what some of those Comcast screenshots look like.
I'll personally be sad when analog eventually goes away, purely because of the tricks that are being played with compression for digital broadcast.
Makes you feel good about RealID, doesn't it? :)
As much as I can agree that there is perhaps some unnecessary bashing taking place, what has the world come to when you have to re-install a monitor driver just because it isn't certified?
You're no longer in control of your own PC, Microsoft is.
Come on now Bill, enough with these alias accounts. We know it's you...
I agree to an extent, but Intel does have to be given some credit for the Core 2 Duo's. Until my most recent custom-build PC all of my boxes have been powerful but noisy. Then the Core 2 Duo came along and promised up to 40% better performance than comparably clocked chips from AMD/Intel's older lines, and they also ran much cooler. I snapped up one of the cheapest models and stuck a Thermaltake Big Tyhoon on it (the original model, not the one with the speed control dial which spins up intermittently, making it completely useless for noise control), and it's so quiet that I can barely hear a whisper from the system. Granted, a big typhoon is not going to fit inside a laptop, but if you want a quiet laptop the lower clocked Core 2's should make that possible without sacrificing performance.
Of course, cases that are poorly designed such that when you sit with the laptop in your lap/on a bed cover the vents get covered are always going to be a problem.
Thank you, that is a much clearer explanation than WaMu was able to muster.
However, even given that explanation, it does appear that simply having a debit card is a severe security risk for any customer - the bank seems to be unwilling to prevent the capture of funds when an account holder flags an authorization as false, and refunding fraudulent transactions may take well over a month. I've never seen any of my debit card transactions blocked for security purposes either - I have only ever received calls questioning certain transactions 24-28 hours after the fact, and the transaction that I mentioned in the grandparent post was an international transaction for thousands of dollars which was authorized immediately without the card CVC code (accurately reflected in my account statement as a "Debit without PIN" transaction).
It is no wonder to me that identity theft is so easy to perform and so hard to recover from. As a customer, you have very little protection and nearly no power to resolve the matter beyond the effort the bank is willing to expend on its own accord.