doing a little double checking (my History and Philosophy of Science and Technology seminars are now better than 15 years ago... give me a break, kthx).
Here of some of Copernicus' heliocentric predicessors, but there were contemporaries of his that have remained anonymous... Copernicus was the beard of a generation of astronomers that believed heliocentrism, but were far to meek to publicly make the claim.
Who exactly had suggested Copernicus's "theories" before?
The man didn't live in a vacuum. Most historians realize this. Copernicus shared his theories with his friends, but they also contributed to his theories. Besides some perceptive ancient greeks, such as Aristarchus of Samos, there were anonymous contemporaries of Copernicus, likely his colleagues, who also believed the heliocentric theory prior to Copernicus' sharing his material. Everyone working on the issue KNEW there was something wrong with the accepted paradigm... and many had come to the solution of heliocentrism... but no one would come forward, and rightly so... the Church didn't like new theories, no matter how well they fit the data. Copernicus wasn't the GREAT MAN that came up with this theory all by himself, he's just the one that gets the credit... consider him the Columbus of astronomy.... like Columbus, he almost got it right (ellipses, not concentric circles).
To be fair, I exaggerated ever so slightly when I said he published posthumously, and when I said the Church would have killed him. The day he died, legend has it, the first printing was placed in his hands. But Copernicus very likely knew that his time was limited... and he delayed publication as much as possible. It is absolutely reasonable to assume that Copernicus knew exactly what he was doing afa publishing close to death. Posthumous excommunication is extremely rare.
Frankly, I don't believe the legend. It smacks too much of a 'Hollywood Ending.' I think he was quite dead by the time the first editions came off the press. And to say the Church wouldn't have given him some serious hassle about the theory is like denying the Church ever did anything irrational.
Copernicus had proposed a heliocentric system almost a century before Galileo, and yet suffered no persecution by the Church because of it.
Ah, but this is only because Copernicus, a devoute Catholic, feared and respected the Church, recognized that his theories (which actually others had suggested before, though none would take credit (blame) for them) would be disruptive, and cleverly published his theories posthumously. Had he been alive, the Church surely would have killed him.
Fair enough, but even if not for your sake, needed to be said. I myself ruined the synchonizers in my rocket car (242ti), but this was due to rugs the reseller put in that were not original... taken out, after the trouble presented itself (pops out of second when clutching now... I call it autoshifting), I had a full extra inch of travel.
What you need to add to your story is that you have some other manual transmission vehical with 200,000 miles and the original clutch, because otherwise, the other issues notwithstanding, it appears that you ride your clutches religiously.
On the very first day of driving the manual shift lever jumped out of 2nd gear, hit me in the wrist and cracked a bone.
Yes, if you don't clutch all the way to the floor, the synchronizers will strip, and shift levers pop out of gear. This damage occurs fast. Some manual transmissions are more forgiving, but fully clutching is of prime importance if you want a clutch to last.
That car went through 7 clutches in one year.
Another way to say that is that you, as a driver, went through 7 clutches in a year. If you ever had to replace a clutch in any other vehical, then it is clear the problem exists between clutch pedal and car seat. Ever considered an automatic transmission? If you're not ready to clutch, keep your foot away from the pedal... it's not a foot rest. If you're ready to clutch, press that pedal all the way to the floor... push it all the way down before gearing. It's far better to pop the clutch than smoothly grab the grear by gasing and clutching simultaneously. A clutch should last the life of a car.
No, it isn't. We can scientifically and accurately measure sound pressure with a decibel sound meter.
that any legislative attempt to deal with the problem will need to take all of that into account.
not really.... simply stipulate that everything gets broadcast with a nominal signal level of, say, -5db, and that the difference between the average signal levels of the commercials and the programs not exceed 3db. Really, its that simple. Talking about psychoacoustics and 'perceived loudness' is unnecessary.
When you say that the commercials are louder because they turn them up, to which "they" do you refer?
It works like this... the advertisers want their commercials louder than the programs, so they request this, and the networks and affiliates are only too happy to comply, as advertisers pay all their salaries. Some director or vp sends it down the chain "tell the studio engineers... more gain on the commercials." It's likely the whole plan was formed to precisely have commercials at a standard 10db louder than the program (as that's mostly what I've personally experienced, and confirmed with my own sound pressure decibel meter... yes, I'm an audio geek and engineer with 15 years studio work under ma belt).
They obviously forgot to employ sheep's bladders for earthquake prevention. Quite an oversite as this technique has been around at least since the 6th Century A.D.
All of the signals, irrespective of frequency or natural amplitude are boosted up to a uniform level.
no, well, maybe... but you've sort of got it wrong. Compression compresses. It doesn't boost. The gain is what boosts the signal level, and this will correspond to an increase in sound pressure. Compression alone cannot increase sound pressure levels, and actually will reduce sound pressure levels... so they turn up the gain to return the compressed signal to some arbitrary volume.
You don't need a 'compression detector,' just use your ears. That's what engineers do.
The commercials really are louder, i.e. they have more sound pressure than the programs. Anyone with a decibel meter and a TV show and commercials to watch can prove this.
Actually, if anyone would care to take a db meter to a TV, they would see that the commercials hit anywhere from 10-25db higher than the program. This is not merely perceived increased loudness. This is an actual, measurable increase in sound pressure. The incorrect (and absurd) notion that compression increases sound pressure keeps getting repeated by these idiots that think they are clever, but they are absolutely incorrect. The commercials are louder.
oh, ffs. What exactly did you do for this TV station? Because you obviously were not an engineer. The absurd notion you suggest is repeated ad infinitum. You don't understand compression, nor the difference between signal level and sound pressure. Compression merely reduces dynamic range. Let's say the original signal has 40db of dynamic range, and peaks at 50db of sound pressure. Compression can reduce the range of 40db to, well... almost nothing... compression can squash it at a ration of 1:2, 1:4, 1:20, or 1: , making the dynamic range anything from 20db down to nothing... but this will do nothing to increase the 50db of sound pressure. Adding gain increases sound pressure. Yes, they compress commercials dynamic range, but what makes the commercials louder (and sound louder) is the added gain. Using a db meter, it is academic to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. The commercials come in at least 10db higher in the real world (not just the 'perceived' world of some deluded slashdotters). Another way to achieve the same results is using limiters. They set the limits of the program lower than the limits of the commercials. Strictly speaking, limiting is a kind of compression, but its not the compression itself that makes the commercials louder... its that the program is limited lower than the commercials are limited.
not just irrelevant. Actually, he's wrong. The commercials really are louder, not just perceived louder, but honest to goodness factually actually, technically and any other conceivable way, louder.
This is now my forth post correcting this absurd notion. What you suggest is impossible. Yes, they compress commercials, and this does increase perceived loudness. However, perceived loudness does not translate in the real world as actual higher sound pressures. Get a db meter, check the sound pressure levels on the program and the commercials, and you will see without a doubt that the commercials come back 10-25db higher than the program. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH COMPRESSION!! I REPEAT, THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH COMPRESSION.
The commercials are louder. Also, we know this BECAUSE THEY'VE ADMITTED TO IT. Every station in the world uses limiters. Compressors reduce dynamic range, but limiters only compress noises louder than the set limit down to the set limit. The limits on the program are set lower than the commercials. The translates to actual real world sound pressure increase, not some mystical psychoacoustic perception. Again, it sounds louder because it is.
What you describe sounds reasonable, and it is true that advertisers and radio stations compress the heck out of ads, reducing the dynamic range, and lifting all signals close to theoretical maximums. However, the commercials are louder because THEY TURN THEM UP. What you suggest keeps getting repeated, and it is incorrect, impossible, and absurd. Get a db meter, check the sound pressure level of the program, and then of the commercials... the commercials will come back at least 10db higher. THIS CAN NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH COMPRESSION!!!! The commercials sound louder because they really really are louder.
I've posted corrections to this notion a few times, and, inexplicably, I keep getting modded down. Slashdotters, you're being too clever for your own good. Remember Occam's Razor? Compression is there, and compression can raise the perceived loudness... but it can't actually give an extra 10db of sound pressure! That's nuts. That's like saying your amplifier is louder because it goes to 11.
The maximum allowed db levels are not to be exceeded (maximum volume if you want). According to my colleague - these values are fixed, they are not allowed to exceed these.
yes, they are fixed at 0db, as that is the maximum theoretical level for a digital signal... anything over that will 'clip'
no, audio signals don't work at all like you've described, your colleague is confused afa "not allowed," unless that's a local vernacular for "not possible."
Actually, no. I must stress that the volume REALLY is the same.
Actually, you are incorrect, and I must stress this to infinity because this idea keeps getting repeated. It's flat wrong.
The reason I know this so well, is because I am both a technician AND an animator,
... which makes you... a layman, and gives you no insight into how audio really works...
and my former colleagues at a tv station
...obviously don't work in audio either.
What they also do - is to take advantage of the lower volume content has (eg. a movie), and the ads are broadcast at the maximum allowable volume set by rules and regulations (yes - we have a law in our country about this, incredibly enough).
No... this is ridiculous. If this was true, you could have your car stereo on, but volume on minimum, and if the source was broadcast with "maximum volume" you could hear the broadcast. Of course you can't. You can't broadcast volume pressure on radio waves. It's an absurd notion.
All compression does is reduce the dynamic range. If the headroom is x db, you can use a compressor to make the whole track, soft noises and loud ones, become the same decibel level, and use up all x db of available headroom. But sound pressure is different from meter level on consoles (though they use the same units).
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what compression can do. Gain staging, of course, increases volume pressure. Most compressors have a gain control. But it can't go beyond the available headroom (most if not all modern studios can track audio right up to 0db in digital, and +12db or more in analog). When people say CD's are getting louder... strictly speaking, this isn't true. Yes, they pumped out a few more db... but what makes new CDs 'loud' is the reduction in dynamic range... not some mystical process that makes your hifi louder.
the ONLY possible way that commercials are louder is that the gain is set louder than the program. Compression adds to the effect... but its simple enough to prove. Get a db meter (there's even a few db meter iphone apps). If the program you're watching (with your tv set at some nominal level) is averaging, say, 45db of pressure, the commercials will come in about 10db higher. This is impossible, I repeat, this is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with compression. If the volume wasn't louder, but only seemed louder, the db meter would reflect that. But it won't, trust me (I'm a profession audio engineer for the last 15 years). The commercials REALLY ARE LOUDER.
But... why? It is, of course, by design. The advertisers request it, and the networks are happy to comply. Loud commercials get noticed. Noticed ads lead to more sales. I've seen at least 3 news stories about this 'perception,' and in all of them, the networks ADMIT the gain is higher on commercials. It's not the compression, its the gain. Commercials seem louder because they are.
Don't take my word for it, and stop listening to'experts.' Go get a db meter. Check for yourself.
What you suggest doesn't really work that way, and the idea that it does keeps being repeated, and it's mostly incorrect. I'm an audio engineer, so I know what compressor can do, and if you're listening to 80dB of sound pressure, that's all it is regardless of dynamic compression. All compression is doing is shrinking the dynamic range... making the soft quiet sounds as loud as the louder elements (and/or vise versa). Psycho-acoustics is a fascinating field, but that's not really what's happening. Yes, commercials are compressed. No, this certainly can NOT account for a real world 10db increase in sound pressure when the commercials start. The gain on the commercials is set higher than the gain set for programs. The networks are doing this... it's not the compression. The compression is there... but the perceptions of increased volume levels are coming from increased volume levels, not compression (which is a rather absurd notion that compression somehow can do that... magically make something seem louder when it actually isn't). All it does is squeeze dynamic range.
well... you're right and you're wrong. The first sentence of your post is almost entirely incorrect. The commercials sound louder because they really are louder. Yes, yes, advertisers use compression and adding gain in an attempt to thwart the limiters built into most new TVs. However, at the same time, yes, the grunt in the network's production hole has actually set the actual gain of the commercials up to 10-25dB higher volume pressure than the program you are watching. They do this because advertisers have requested it, and advertisers pay for them to exist. And we know that the networks are doing this because they have admitted to doing so. Every story I've seen on it details this fact.
nice post, and what you've said about compression is true enough, however, it is also the networks and affiliates, and they have admitted as such. The way you describe it sounds like magic: If you have your volume muted, all they have to do is compress enough, add enough gain, and bam, mute is no longer mute! Not quite that easy.
Advertisers request that certain levels for their ads, and they give it to them. Its no accident, and it can't be completely done through production, as you've said. Advertisers figured out that the more people that see or hear their ads, the more effective they are. Turning up the relative volume sort of makes it hard to ignore.
The legislation seems like it'd be tricky, except that it shouldn't. It is the networks changing the volume levels of commercials... so... legislating it away should be academic (Article 17, Section 31: "Stop doing that, assholes!")
Malware infiltration on Windows is no more Microsoft's fault than a leaky roof is the fault of the builder: "no matter what you do/ don't put the blame on you/ blame it on the rain (yeah yeah)"
And it's incorrect as I stated above. Your mistake is trying to make it appear as though light could be observed as FTL. It never* can. However, to observe an FTL motion is possible... imagine waves as they crash the beach at an angle, the closer the wave is to parallel with the beach, the intersection of the wave and the beach WILL move FTL just before the wave and beach are parallel. Same could be said of a galactic pair of sissors (as they are closed, the intersection of the blades will become FTL).
*light travels through different mediums at different speeds. There are mediums that light moves through faster than light moves through a vacuum. (sorry, forget what it's called, forget which uni or mad scientists were working with it, but nearly certain slashdot covered it and google is your friend).
the laser would never go faster than light, although from your location, point C, it might seem to
Yes, the laser light would never go faster than light, but no it would never appear to go faster than light from any observer's point of view. Light ALWAYS appears to be going the speed of light regardless of an observers frame of reference. Yes, pretty weird.
Slashdot Mirror
doing a little double checking (my History and Philosophy of Science and Technology seminars are now better than 15 years ago... give me a break, kthx). Here of some of Copernicus' heliocentric predicessors, but there were contemporaries of his that have remained anonymous... Copernicus was the beard of a generation of astronomers that believed heliocentrism, but were far to meek to publicly make the claim.
Who exactly had suggested Copernicus's "theories" before?
The man didn't live in a vacuum. Most historians realize this. Copernicus shared his theories with his friends, but they also contributed to his theories. Besides some perceptive ancient greeks, such as Aristarchus of Samos, there were anonymous contemporaries of Copernicus, likely his colleagues, who also believed the heliocentric theory prior to Copernicus' sharing his material. Everyone working on the issue KNEW there was something wrong with the accepted paradigm... and many had come to the solution of heliocentrism... but no one would come forward, and rightly so... the Church didn't like new theories, no matter how well they fit the data. Copernicus wasn't the GREAT MAN that came up with this theory all by himself, he's just the one that gets the credit... consider him the Columbus of astronomy.... like Columbus, he almost got it right (ellipses, not concentric circles).
To be fair, I exaggerated ever so slightly when I said he published posthumously, and when I said the Church would have killed him. The day he died, legend has it, the first printing was placed in his hands. But Copernicus very likely knew that his time was limited... and he delayed publication as much as possible. It is absolutely reasonable to assume that Copernicus knew exactly what he was doing afa publishing close to death. Posthumous excommunication is extremely rare.
Frankly, I don't believe the legend. It smacks too much of a 'Hollywood Ending.' I think he was quite dead by the time the first editions came off the press. And to say the Church wouldn't have given him some serious hassle about the theory is like denying the Church ever did anything irrational.
Copernicus had proposed a heliocentric system almost a century before Galileo, and yet suffered no persecution by the Church because of it.
Ah, but this is only because Copernicus, a devoute Catholic, feared and respected the Church, recognized that his theories (which actually others had suggested before, though none would take credit (blame) for them) would be disruptive, and cleverly published his theories posthumously. Had he been alive, the Church surely would have killed him.
I'm reminded of Sun's inability to shift to commodity processors
That wasn't the problem... it's that they switched to commodity everything else.
Fair enough, but even if not for your sake, needed to be said. I myself ruined the synchonizers in my rocket car (242ti), but this was due to rugs the reseller put in that were not original... taken out, after the trouble presented itself (pops out of second when clutching now... I call it autoshifting), I had a full extra inch of travel.
* 1958: The GT 750 is the first car fitted with seatbelts as standard.[26]
Key word here being 'standard,' as they were invented by Mercedes, and first implemented by Volvo.
On the very first day of driving the manual shift lever jumped out of 2nd gear, hit me in the wrist and cracked a bone.
Yes, if you don't clutch all the way to the floor, the synchronizers will strip, and shift levers pop out of gear. This damage occurs fast. Some manual transmissions are more forgiving, but fully clutching is of prime importance if you want a clutch to last.
That car went through 7 clutches in one year.
Another way to say that is that you, as a driver, went through 7 clutches in a year. If you ever had to replace a clutch in any other vehical, then it is clear the problem exists between clutch pedal and car seat. Ever considered an automatic transmission? If you're not ready to clutch, keep your foot away from the pedal... it's not a foot rest. If you're ready to clutch, press that pedal all the way to the floor... push it all the way down before gearing. It's far better to pop the clutch than smoothly grab the grear by gasing and clutching simultaneously. A clutch should last the life of a car.
Well, the thinner the wheel and tire, the better traction in snow (which is why snow tires are thinner). IIRC, the Model A used freakin wagon wheels.
That's absurd, and futile. We'll be fine when it blows as long as we develop enough lava vaccine.
because "loudness" is a subjective judgement
No, it isn't. We can scientifically and accurately measure sound pressure with a decibel sound meter.
that any legislative attempt to deal with the problem will need to take all of that into account.
not really.... simply stipulate that everything gets broadcast with a nominal signal level of, say, -5db, and that the difference between the average signal levels of the commercials and the programs not exceed 3db. Really, its that simple. Talking about psychoacoustics and 'perceived loudness' is unnecessary.
When you say that the commercials are louder because they turn them up, to which "they" do you refer?
It works like this... the advertisers want their commercials louder than the programs, so they request this, and the networks and affiliates are only too happy to comply, as advertisers pay all their salaries. Some director or vp sends it down the chain "tell the studio engineers... more gain on the commercials." It's likely the whole plan was formed to precisely have commercials at a standard 10db louder than the program (as that's mostly what I've personally experienced, and confirmed with my own sound pressure decibel meter... yes, I'm an audio geek and engineer with 15 years studio work under ma belt).
They obviously forgot to employ sheep's bladders for earthquake prevention. Quite an oversite as this technique has been around at least since the 6th Century A.D.
All of the signals, irrespective of frequency or natural amplitude are boosted up to a uniform level.
no, well, maybe... but you've sort of got it wrong. Compression compresses. It doesn't boost. The gain is what boosts the signal level, and this will correspond to an increase in sound pressure. Compression alone cannot increase sound pressure levels, and actually will reduce sound pressure levels... so they turn up the gain to return the compressed signal to some arbitrary volume.
You don't need a 'compression detector,' just use your ears. That's what engineers do.
The commercials really are louder, i.e. they have more sound pressure than the programs. Anyone with a decibel meter and a TV show and commercials to watch can prove this.
Actually, if anyone would care to take a db meter to a TV, they would see that the commercials hit anywhere from 10-25db higher than the program. This is not merely perceived increased loudness. This is an actual, measurable increase in sound pressure. The incorrect (and absurd) notion that compression increases sound pressure keeps getting repeated by these idiots that think they are clever, but they are absolutely incorrect. The commercials are louder.
oh, ffs. What exactly did you do for this TV station? Because you obviously were not an engineer. The absurd notion you suggest is repeated ad infinitum. You don't understand compression, nor the difference between signal level and sound pressure. Compression merely reduces dynamic range. Let's say the original signal has 40db of dynamic range, and peaks at 50db of sound pressure. Compression can reduce the range of 40db to, well... almost nothing... compression can squash it at a ration of 1:2, 1:4, 1:20, or 1: , making the dynamic range anything from 20db down to nothing... but this will do nothing to increase the 50db of sound pressure. Adding gain increases sound pressure. Yes, they compress commercials dynamic range, but what makes the commercials louder (and sound louder) is the added gain. Using a db meter, it is academic to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. The commercials come in at least 10db higher in the real world (not just the 'perceived' world of some deluded slashdotters). Another way to achieve the same results is using limiters. They set the limits of the program lower than the limits of the commercials. Strictly speaking, limiting is a kind of compression, but its not the compression itself that makes the commercials louder... its that the program is limited lower than the commercials are limited.
not just irrelevant. Actually, he's wrong. The commercials really are louder, not just perceived louder, but honest to goodness factually actually, technically and any other conceivable way, louder.
This is now my forth post correcting this absurd notion. What you suggest is impossible. Yes, they compress commercials, and this does increase perceived loudness. However, perceived loudness does not translate in the real world as actual higher sound pressures. Get a db meter, check the sound pressure levels on the program and the commercials, and you will see without a doubt that the commercials come back 10-25db higher than the program. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH COMPRESSION!! I REPEAT, THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH COMPRESSION.
The commercials are louder. Also, we know this BECAUSE THEY'VE ADMITTED TO IT. Every station in the world uses limiters. Compressors reduce dynamic range, but limiters only compress noises louder than the set limit down to the set limit. The limits on the program are set lower than the commercials. The translates to actual real world sound pressure increase, not some mystical psychoacoustic perception. Again, it sounds louder because it is.
I've posted corrections to this notion a few times, and, inexplicably, I keep getting modded down. Slashdotters, you're being too clever for your own good. Remember Occam's Razor? Compression is there, and compression can raise the perceived loudness... but it can't actually give an extra 10db of sound pressure! That's nuts. That's like saying your amplifier is louder because it goes to 11.
The maximum allowed db levels are not to be exceeded (maximum volume if you want). According to my colleague - these values are fixed, they are not allowed to exceed these.
yes, they are fixed at 0db, as that is the maximum theoretical level for a digital signal... anything over that will 'clip'
no, audio signals don't work at all like you've described, your colleague is confused afa "not allowed," unless that's a local vernacular for "not possible."
Actually, no. I must stress that the volume REALLY is the same.
Actually, you are incorrect, and I must stress this to infinity because this idea keeps getting repeated. It's flat wrong.
The reason I know this so well, is because I am both a technician AND an animator,
... which makes you... a layman, and gives you no insight into how audio really works...
and my former colleagues at a tv station
...obviously don't work in audio either.
What they also do - is to take advantage of the lower volume content has (eg. a movie), and the ads are broadcast at the maximum allowable volume set by rules and regulations (yes - we have a law in our country about this, incredibly enough).
No... this is ridiculous. If this was true, you could have your car stereo on, but volume on minimum, and if the source was broadcast with "maximum volume" you could hear the broadcast. Of course you can't. You can't broadcast volume pressure on radio waves. It's an absurd notion.
All compression does is reduce the dynamic range. If the headroom is x db, you can use a compressor to make the whole track, soft noises and loud ones, become the same decibel level, and use up all x db of available headroom. But sound pressure is different from meter level on consoles (though they use the same units).
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what compression can do. Gain staging, of course, increases volume pressure. Most compressors have a gain control. But it can't go beyond the available headroom (most if not all modern studios can track audio right up to 0db in digital, and +12db or more in analog). When people say CD's are getting louder... strictly speaking, this isn't true. Yes, they pumped out a few more db... but what makes new CDs 'loud' is the reduction in dynamic range... not some mystical process that makes your hifi louder.
the ONLY possible way that commercials are louder is that the gain is set louder than the program. Compression adds to the effect... but its simple enough to prove. Get a db meter (there's even a few db meter iphone apps). If the program you're watching (with your tv set at some nominal level) is averaging, say, 45db of pressure, the commercials will come in about 10db higher. This is impossible, I repeat, this is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with compression. If the volume wasn't louder, but only seemed louder, the db meter would reflect that. But it won't, trust me (I'm a profession audio engineer for the last 15 years). The commercials REALLY ARE LOUDER.
But... why? It is, of course, by design. The advertisers request it, and the networks are happy to comply. Loud commercials get noticed. Noticed ads lead to more sales. I've seen at least 3 news stories about this 'perception,' and in all of them, the networks ADMIT the gain is higher on commercials. It's not the compression, its the gain. Commercials seem louder because they are.
Don't take my word for it, and stop listening to'experts.' Go get a db meter. Check for yourself.
What you suggest doesn't really work that way, and the idea that it does keeps being repeated, and it's mostly incorrect. I'm an audio engineer, so I know what compressor can do, and if you're listening to 80dB of sound pressure, that's all it is regardless of dynamic compression. All compression is doing is shrinking the dynamic range... making the soft quiet sounds as loud as the louder elements (and/or vise versa). Psycho-acoustics is a fascinating field, but that's not really what's happening. Yes, commercials are compressed. No, this certainly can NOT account for a real world 10db increase in sound pressure when the commercials start. The gain on the commercials is set higher than the gain set for programs. The networks are doing this... it's not the compression. The compression is there... but the perceptions of increased volume levels are coming from increased volume levels, not compression (which is a rather absurd notion that compression somehow can do that... magically make something seem louder when it actually isn't). All it does is squeeze dynamic range.
well... you're right and you're wrong. The first sentence of your post is almost entirely incorrect. The commercials sound louder because they really are louder. Yes, yes, advertisers use compression and adding gain in an attempt to thwart the limiters built into most new TVs. However, at the same time, yes, the grunt in the network's production hole has actually set the actual gain of the commercials up to 10-25dB higher volume pressure than the program you are watching. They do this because advertisers have requested it, and advertisers pay for them to exist. And we know that the networks are doing this because they have admitted to doing so. Every story I've seen on it details this fact.
nice post, and what you've said about compression is true enough, however, it is also the networks and affiliates, and they have admitted as such. The way you describe it sounds like magic: If you have your volume muted, all they have to do is compress enough, add enough gain, and bam, mute is no longer mute! Not quite that easy.
Advertisers request that certain levels for their ads, and they give it to them. Its no accident, and it can't be completely done through production, as you've said. Advertisers figured out that the more people that see or hear their ads, the more effective they are. Turning up the relative volume sort of makes it hard to ignore.
The legislation seems like it'd be tricky, except that it shouldn't. It is the networks changing the volume levels of commercials... so... legislating it away should be academic (Article 17, Section 31: "Stop doing that, assholes!")
Malware infiltration on Windows is no more Microsoft's fault than a leaky roof is the fault of the builder: "no matter what you do/ don't put the blame on you/ blame it on the rain (yeah yeah)"
And it's incorrect as I stated above. Your mistake is trying to make it appear as though light could be observed as FTL. It never* can. However, to observe an FTL motion is possible... imagine waves as they crash the beach at an angle, the closer the wave is to parallel with the beach, the intersection of the wave and the beach WILL move FTL just before the wave and beach are parallel. Same could be said of a galactic pair of sissors (as they are closed, the intersection of the blades will become FTL).
*light travels through different mediums at different speeds. There are mediums that light moves through faster than light moves through a vacuum. (sorry, forget what it's called, forget which uni or mad scientists were working with it, but nearly certain slashdot covered it and google is your friend).
the laser would never go faster than light, although from your location, point C, it might seem to
Yes, the laser light would never go faster than light, but no it would never appear to go faster than light from any observer's point of view. Light ALWAYS appears to be going the speed of light regardless of an observers frame of reference. Yes, pretty weird.