I know, I did not read the patent but it was repeated often enough in the discussion. It was intend to be a joke, because this is so fucking stupid, and so very obvious: obviously if something needed a cable so far, and the cable got in the way, it is a good idea to do it wirelessly. I think this started at least with TV remotes in the 60ies-70ies.
You don't see a difference between a few dozen/hundreds nutcases and a country full of millions of nazis (in 1945) that a short time ago had the state under control and partly still functioning organizations?
When Germany came out of nazism and WWII, with millions of nazis still around, there was no way around banning it. And nowadays there are still many survivors alive who should not have to be harassed by neonazis. We can start talking about lifting the ban in 20 years or so.
I think we have exhausted the music theme. Regarding me calling your statement "racist":
It was not meant as an insult -- I should have kept in mind that there are many different definitions. I meant it in the sense that is commonly used in social science in European: attributing certain characteristics to a person or group solely on the basis of perceived race. This does not even mean that the attributed characteristics have to be negative. What you did was to attribute to the (ill-defined) "caucasian" race an underdeveloped ability to differentiate faces of an (ill-defined) black race. This certainly qualifies under this definition.
Your loose definition of "fact" == "I asked a couple of people who agreed with me" should be a good hint that you are probably wrong. I cannot cite any studies either, but am just as sure as you that upbringing, social environment, interest, etc. have a huge influence on this ability, and belonging to "caucasian" race has none.
Are you telling me you cannot hear the difference between the live sound* and an mp3 played at home? Come on! You are indeed ignorant, and I one could call that blissful. Your comment about black faces** hits the nail on the head though: it's not that "caucasians cannot differentiate black faces. They can do that just as well as white ones, it just depends on
Whether they are content with seeing black people as an anonymous mass or are interested in seeing individuals just as they are with causcasians
Whether they have practice
Same as with music.
* What kind of concert are we talking about anyway? Strings? Jazz? Punk? Stadium Rock? ** Be glad that your comment came so late, otherwise you would have been bashed left and right for this very stupid and racist remark. And rightly so
This is a very general question, isn't it? I guess you have a point, but then it is also better to be dumb and not having to live with the complexities you start to see when you feel the need to think about things.
It is also not something you can completely choose willfully: if you ever go to a concert, you will know how the instruments really sound, and it will be hard to ignore that knowledge when listening to recorded music. I guess you can choose never to go to a concert but will that make your life richer? I doubt it.
Finally someone who makes some sense in this discussion. I agree with most points you made (I will disagree with one a bit further down). "One cannot hear a difference" is one of the most annoying/. memes to me, regardless of whether it is applied to lossy codecs or good audio equipment in general.
About lossyness: I agree with you that ears can be trained, and that you won't miss stuff if you don't know it should be there in the first place, or don't care whether it is. When I decided how I want to encode my music I did a quite extensive test and I found that to me even high-bitrate mp3 encodings made by lame can sound noticeably different from the CD. For example, I encoded the first track of Mike Watt's Contemplating the Engine Room CD. It starts with an e-bass solo, and using reasonable lame presets there were no artifacts and I certainly could hear the notes played. Somebody expecting nothing more will probably be happy with the compressed sound. However when you know how a bass can sound and listen to the CD, you realize that there is so much more in Watt's bass sound: it is full of harmonics that make the bass come alive and turn it into the recognizable Watt bass in the first place. And these harmonics are gone even in the highest lame preset. (And oggenc adds a nasty hiss which makes the song completely unlistenable.)
About equipment: You said "All of the high end audio products generally have no benifit for the average consumer, but in a studio setting, when trained ears are listening, that expensive gear tends to be more valued", and that's where I disagree a bit because you make it sound as if only a professional sound person could appreciate good gear. I's agree that someone who is not particularly interested in music has no need for good gear. That's pretty obvious. If you're going to listen to music only as background noise while cooking, go with the cheap stuff by all means. However I would argue that everyone who likes music and spends time actually listening to it will profit from good gear. To everyone who doubts that I can just recommend to grab a few favorite CDs and make an appointment at a good hifi shop for a listening session. "Good" means "a shop that has solid equipment from the lower to very high price ranges, but that will not rip you off by trying to sell you air conditioners."
Not directed at you, but I need to say this once on/. because it has been bugging me a long time: To those discussion contributors who lose all ability to differentiate when they hear the word "audiophile": one cannot deny that wackos exist in this field. On the other hand, since when is being an analog geek not allowed on/. anymore? Sound recording and reproduction (that is, turning a complex air vibration into an electric current, storing it in some form, and later turning it back into an air vibration again that sounds as close to the original as possible despite this happening in a completely different room situation) is an extremely complex topic. And, like it or not, there is still a significant analogue part to this, and will be for the foreseeable future. This means that you have to live with the difficulty of interacting with the real world in a less deterministic way. Only recently has it become possible to simulate microphones, amps, and speakers digitally, and sound reproduction has benefited tremendously, especially by making good gear much cheaper. But until then the only way to become better was to design analogue gear and try it out, relying on basic measuring equipment and your ears to assess the sound quality. This IMHO is hardcore geekdom worthy of honorable mention on/. and not ridicule. There were and are serious practitioners out there like Nelson Pass or the naim guys who have dedicated d
Perhaps what you said is true for certain types of IT graduates
I work in a business consultancy, we employ top-tier graduates from all kinds of professions.
Pay --check; benefits -- check; name recognition -- check; prospects -- check; upward mobility opportunities -- check; afterhours compensation -- of course not, lunchroom selection -- check, breakroom coffee/soda quality -- check, company junkets --check, types of hand moisturizers in the restroom -- check.
Type of OS deployed? -- IMPORTANT factor for a lot of people (not all, but a significant part). Same for the model of Blackberry, etc. If a new version of anything comes out and it is not deployed within months, people start to bitch on the internal company blogs.
Funny how you choose these two music styles: both were started using techniques that would be illegal today (well, they were at the time but people cared less). Both Jazz and Rap are full of adapted musical material produced by others, be it chord sequences, melodies, "standards", scratching or sampling.
Is there a grounding for this in Mein Kampf or in speeches Hitler has made?
Hitler is by far not the only source of Nazi ideology. Other main contributors were Alfred Rosenberg, Gottfried Feder, Carl Schmitt, Karl Haushofer, Josef Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, and many others. In general, "National Socialism" was far more complicated and ingrained into (not only) German thinking of the times than seems to be taught in US schools today (which does not make the ideology and its deeds less horrific of course.)
If you hadn't just linked but also read your source, you'd know that Godwin's law just states that
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Specifically it does not say that it is never appropriate to mention or compare to Nazism, and it says nothing about ending the thread. There are some corollaries that state that the thread is over when a comparison to Nazism is made, but even those have logical bounds: obviously valid comparisons exist.
"1. Try Googling. Everyone knows France is socialist" "you know I'm right"
'nuff said. Hint: it is not about being "the winner". It is about understanding the world. I have a long way to go. You haven't even started. Good luck.
Look, I don#t have enough time to correct the brainwashing they do in the schools you attended wherever this is, so I'll stick to the small sample of things you are wrong about I have started with:
* France: 1.) Wikipedia is not a source. 2.) You didn't even read that * You pick 5 democracies from one third of the world's countries that britannica.com lists as democracies. Why shouldn't I question that? * Yes, we were talking about bureaucracies, so 1) why do you bring up the ability to do cool things (can and has been done in bureaucratic countries)? 2) if you were right it would just proof that being unbureaucratic buys you nothing (I'd rather live in France than Nazi Germany) * Holland and Sweden are monarchies just in name, in reality they are democratic countries and have nothing to do with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy * You don't get it do you? The monarchs are figureheads, these are democracies; removing the monarchs would have NO effect except less sales for yellow press. You should maybe take up traveling * You know, communism is an economic set of rules. * We didn't talk about tax but bureaucracy. Of youres they had low tax since they simply stole what they needed from the Jews, communists, gays, anarchists, and half of Europe. You are a fucking idiot * This is simply not true, most European nations have less taxes than ten years ago. They also have fewer state-owned businesses if any, and they have fewer state employees.
It is of little use discussing with you because you have no fucking idea what you talking about. In no particular order:
* France: never was communist * It seems you recognize only 5 democracies in the world, one of which is Chile * You seem to think it was possible to do cool things in Nazi Germany or fascist Italy * You lump Nazi Germany and fascist Italy together with Holland or Sweden, totally ignoring the huge differences in favor of superficial similarities * You ignore that that Holland and Sweden are democracies * If you believe France is communist, why not Sweden? * You ignore that Nazi Germany had a huge bureaucracy * You ignore that many democracies in Europe actually have cut bureaucracies over the last 3 decades. Not enough for some tastes, but nevertheless.
Slashdot Mirror
I know, I did not read the patent but it was repeated often enough in the discussion. It was intend to be a joke, because this is so fucking stupid, and so very obvious: obviously if something needed a cable so far, and the cable got in the way, it is a good idea to do it wirelessly. I think this started at least with TV remotes in the 60ies-70ies.
Is wireless the new internet?
Die die die. Idiots.
You don't see a difference between a few dozen/hundreds nutcases and a country full of millions of nazis (in 1945) that a short time ago had the state under control and partly still functioning organizations?
So, Linus is stupid, now?
In questions of licensing and use of unfree software if it scratches his itch? That's at least debatable.
When Germany came out of nazism and WWII, with millions of nazis still around, there was no way around banning it. And nowadays there are still many survivors alive who should not have to be harassed by neonazis. We can start talking about lifting the ban in 20 years or so.
Only in the US can someone believe that trans fats are well-tasting food.
4 billion to be exact.
It has Dolby Pro Logic, I fail to see how that is not good enough
I think we have exhausted the music theme. Regarding me calling your statement "racist":
It was not meant as an insult -- I should have kept in mind that there are many different definitions. I meant it in the sense that is commonly used in social science in European: attributing certain characteristics to a person or group solely on the basis of perceived race. This does not even mean that the attributed characteristics have to be negative. What you did was to attribute to the (ill-defined) "caucasian" race an underdeveloped ability to differentiate faces of an (ill-defined) black race. This certainly qualifies under this definition.
Your loose definition of "fact" == "I asked a couple of people who agreed with me" should be a good hint that you are probably wrong. I cannot cite any studies either, but am just as sure as you that upbringing, social environment, interest, etc. have a huge influence on this ability, and belonging to "caucasian" race has none.
You are indeed ignorant, and I one could call that blissful
Early morning comment. I wanted to write, "You are indeed ignorant, and I don't think one could call that blissful"
- Whether they are content with seeing black people as an anonymous mass or are interested in seeing individuals just as they are with causcasians
- Whether they have practice
Same as with music.* What kind of concert are we talking about anyway? Strings? Jazz? Punk? Stadium Rock?
** Be glad that your comment came so late, otherwise you would have been bashed left and right for this very stupid and racist remark. And rightly so
whether it's better to be blissfully ignorant?
This is a very general question, isn't it? I guess you have a point, but then it is also better to be dumb and not having to live with the complexities you start to see when you feel the need to think about things.
It is also not something you can completely choose willfully: if you ever go to a concert, you will know how the instruments really sound, and it will be hard to ignore that knowledge when listening to recorded music. I guess you can choose never to go to a concert but will that make your life richer? I doubt it.
Finally someone who makes some sense in this discussion. I agree with most points you made (I will disagree with one a bit further down). "One cannot hear a difference" is one of the most annoying /. memes to me, regardless of whether it is applied to lossy codecs or good audio equipment in general.
/. because it has been bugging me a long time: /. anymore? Sound recording and reproduction (that is, turning a complex air vibration into an electric current, storing it in some form, and later turning it back into an air vibration again that sounds as close to the original as possible despite this happening in a completely different room situation) is an extremely complex topic. And, like it or not, there is still a significant analogue part to this, and will be for the foreseeable future. This means that you have to live with the difficulty of interacting with the real world in a less deterministic way. Only recently has it become possible to simulate microphones, amps, and speakers digitally, and sound reproduction has benefited tremendously, especially by making good gear much cheaper. But until then the only way to become better was to design analogue gear and try it out, relying on basic measuring equipment and your ears to assess the sound quality. This IMHO is hardcore geekdom worthy of honorable mention on /. and not ridicule. There were and are serious practitioners out there like Nelson Pass or the naim guys who have dedicated d
About lossyness:
I agree with you that ears can be trained, and that you won't miss stuff if you don't know it should be there in the first place, or don't care whether it is. When I decided how I want to encode my music I did a quite extensive test and I found that to me even high-bitrate mp3 encodings made by lame can sound noticeably different from the CD. For example, I encoded the first track of Mike Watt's Contemplating the Engine Room CD. It starts with an e-bass solo, and using reasonable lame presets there were no artifacts and I certainly could hear the notes played. Somebody expecting nothing more will probably be happy with the compressed sound. However when you know how a bass can sound and listen to the CD, you realize that there is so much more in Watt's bass sound: it is full of harmonics that make the bass come alive and turn it into the recognizable Watt bass in the first place. And these harmonics are gone even in the highest lame preset. (And oggenc adds a nasty hiss which makes the song completely unlistenable.)
About equipment:
You said "All of the high end audio products generally have no benifit for the average consumer, but in a studio setting, when trained ears are listening, that expensive gear tends to be more valued", and that's where I disagree a bit because you make it sound as if only a professional sound person could appreciate good gear. I's agree that someone who is not particularly interested in music has no need for good gear. That's pretty obvious. If you're going to listen to music only as background noise while cooking, go with the cheap stuff by all means.
However I would argue that everyone who likes music and spends time actually listening to it will profit from good gear. To everyone who doubts that I can just recommend to grab a few favorite CDs and make an appointment at a good hifi shop for a listening session. "Good" means "a shop that has solid equipment from the lower to very high price ranges, but that will not rip you off by trying to sell you air conditioners."
Not directed at you, but I need to say this once on
To those discussion contributors who lose all ability to differentiate when they hear the word "audiophile": one cannot deny that wackos exist in this field. On the other hand, since when is being an analog geek not allowed on
The operating system should be the bare minimum needed to use the computer.
They should install MS-DOS 1.0?
Perhaps what you said is true for certain types of IT graduates
I work in a business consultancy, we employ top-tier graduates from all kinds of professions.
Pay --check; benefits -- check; name recognition -- check; prospects -- check; upward mobility opportunities -- check; afterhours compensation -- of course not, lunchroom selection -- check, breakroom coffee/soda quality -- check, company junkets --check, types of hand moisturizers in the restroom -- check.
Type of OS deployed? -- IMPORTANT factor for a lot of people (not all, but a significant part). Same for the model of Blackberry, etc. If a new version of anything comes out and it is not deployed within months, people start to bitch on the internal company blogs.
What exactly did come out from Microsoft Research that had a big and positive impact on computing?
Or this one by Steve Albini
how rap and jazz got started
Funny how you choose these two music styles: both were started using techniques that would be illegal today (well, they were at the time but people cared less). Both Jazz and Rap are full of adapted musical material produced by others, be it chord sequences, melodies, "standards", scratching or sampling.
What about it? It lost 4 billion dollars and finished a tiny bit ahead of the Gamecube in market share.
Is there a grounding for this in Mein Kampf or in speeches Hitler has made?
Hitler is by far not the only source of Nazi ideology. Other main contributors were Alfred Rosenberg, Gottfried Feder, Carl Schmitt, Karl Haushofer, Josef Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, and many others. In general, "National Socialism" was far more complicated and ingrained into (not only) German thinking of the times than seems to be taught in US schools today (which does not make the ideology and its deeds less horrific of course.)
"1. Try Googling. Everyone knows France is socialist"
"you know I'm right"
'nuff said. Hint: it is not about being "the winner". It is about understanding the world. I have a long way to go. You haven't even started. Good luck.
Look, I don#t have enough time to correct the brainwashing they do in the schools you attended wherever this is, so I'll stick to the small sample of things you are wrong about I have started with:
* France: 1.) Wikipedia is not a source. 2.) You didn't even read that
* You pick 5 democracies from one third of the world's countries that britannica.com lists as democracies. Why shouldn't I question that?
* Yes, we were talking about bureaucracies, so 1) why do you bring up the ability to do cool things (can and has been done in bureaucratic countries)? 2) if you were right it would just proof that being unbureaucratic buys you nothing (I'd rather live in France than Nazi Germany)
* Holland and Sweden are monarchies just in name, in reality they are democratic countries and have nothing to do with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy
* You don't get it do you? The monarchs are figureheads, these are democracies; removing the monarchs would have NO effect except less sales for yellow press. You should maybe take up traveling
* You know, communism is an economic set of rules.
* We didn't talk about tax but bureaucracy. Of youres they had low tax since they simply stole what they needed from the Jews, communists, gays, anarchists, and half of Europe. You are a fucking idiot
* This is simply not true, most European nations have less taxes than ten years ago. They also have fewer state-owned businesses if any, and they have fewer state employees.
I end the discussion now.
It is of little use discussing with you because you have no fucking idea what you talking about. In no particular order:
* France: never was communist
* It seems you recognize only 5 democracies in the world, one of which is Chile
* You seem to think it was possible to do cool things in Nazi Germany or fascist Italy
* You lump Nazi Germany and fascist Italy together with Holland or Sweden, totally ignoring the huge differences in favor of superficial similarities
* You ignore that that Holland and Sweden are democracies
* If you believe France is communist, why not Sweden?
* You ignore that Nazi Germany had a huge bureaucracy
* You ignore that many democracies in Europe actually have cut bureaucracies over the last 3 decades. Not enough for some tastes, but nevertheless.
I am tired of this.