Incidentally, Vorbis seems well suited to mobile replay, especially with bitrate peeling, you can have files stored on your harddrive at very high bitrates, and reduce them to lower bitrates very radpidly while downloading them to your device.
I have personally commented on this page. I own a Samsung Yepp YP-t7z. The vorbis playback is not perfect. I seem to be able to exhaust the processortime on the box with high bandwidth vorbis files (around 180kbps or higher). However, this hasn't bothered me, I just encode around 150kbps average. I would recommend the device cautiously. The user interface is not sleek or elegant, but usable and satisfactory. It is a 1 gig flash-based player.
Apparently the IOPS line of players have the best OGG Vorbis support, and generally seem to be good devices.
The iRiver vorbis support historically has been inferior, with various issues plaguing the devices.
I said it should ultimately lower fees and increase competition. You counter with a comment about sellers of the moment and their current practices. This is kind of a nonsequitor. The question was raised: "what is the point?" One of the points of it, is that the technology has the promise of openness, which has secondary order benefts. That it is not generally deployed in the marketplace is one reason that it is not yet fulfilling all of its promise.
To respond to the child of your post as well, "Free as in Beer" is one reflection of the openness. Technologies that come with fees which can be raised arbitrarily at any point have real limitations in terms of how they end up being used. One issue, for example, is that commercially trafficing in AAC or mp3 as a content generator is reasonably priced at very large volumes, but very expensive at small volumes. This has a chilling effect upon the ability of smaller content providers to coexist with larger ones, a situation I personally find undesirable.
Despite your claims to the contrary, bitrates below 256kb/s are still regularly used. Perhaps not by you, or your friends, but they are used for a variety of applications, including portable replay, network streaming, and so on.
For most listeners, the quality achieved by 256kb/s mp3 can be achieved at around 192kb/s with quality encoders such as LAME. That is, at this bitrate, the decoded material is indistinguishable from the original source by most (the majority of) listeners. This has been confirmed by a number of independent blind tests. Note that this is not universal for all listeners nor all source material, but it is generally found to be true. For these reasons, some people place their trust in psychoacoustic models to automatically choose a rate, or they add a "headroom" and pick a value like 256, as you state.
Comparably, ogg vorbis tends to achieve general transparency at around 160kb/s as compared to mp3. Again this is of course not for all listeners and all source material, but for the significant majority. I personally encode my music at -q 6 which tends to result in files of around 150 to 180 kbps, the encoder decides what is necessary from moment to moment.
Of course, modern AAC (and I say modern because the AAC format has been extended over time) seems to be able to achieve transparency at even lower bitrates, but less extensive tests have been done, so a precise number is hard to quote. However, Ogg/Vorbis has another significant benefit, in that it does not contain, or claims not to contain, any patented algorithms or technology, which is of real benefit to a variety of players including companies who wish to provide content in lossy formats, and companies who wish to provide players of lossy formats. Generally, individual do not see direct benefits of these issues, but avoiding of patent licenses should ultimate lower fees and increase competition among providers of both devices and content, and thus will result in greater choice and lower costs to end users, which should be of benefit to them.
Thus, in essence, ogg sits in a middling position in absolute quality, but holds a promise of improving the overall marketplace for all players, and using and supporting the format may bring about long range benefits to yourself.
To most listeners, mp3 files become transparent somewhere around 192kb/s, wheras for most listeners ogg/vorbis becomes transparent at around 160kb/s. So assuming a good encoder, you won't "hear" mp3 at that bitrate, and also won't "hear" ogg.
However, if you drop to around 160kb/s, you will 'hear' mp3, but will still not 'hear' ogg.
That's the bitrate story.
For what it's worth, the design of vorbis provides room for further improvment, so the situation may be different in the future, but there isn't a lot of significant work going on at the moment.
It doesn't add extra complexity when the data is coming from the same files anyway. The program could
1 - parse the files itself using the same exact code dlopened from a library and hidden entirely from the applications asking. 2 - autofire the settings daemon again entirely hidden from the the host app 3 - do something entirely stupid that doesn't work reliably
I disagree that it should be in the preferences. I think if programs are going to be able to launch nautilus, it should launch with or without the desktop intelligently.
If i actually launched gnome with like gnome-session & , I'd want a desktop, but if totem opens a single nautilus window to allow me to drag plugins into it, it shouldn't create a desktop. And I don't think this is totem's job. Totem just says "show me this directory". Nautilus should be aware of the context of the request, because it's the one starting up as a result of the request or knowing it's already in charge of the whole desktop.
Basically I think the problem of how to launch is quite solvable, and could be documented fully to avoid surprises. And it frustrates me that the nautilus developers have not done so.
I do thank you for mentioning this setting and it mostly does what I want, although I continue to be sad about gconf..nautlusrc would be preferred. A hive of xml is not more discoverable or accessible, it is less in both ways.
Yeah, I'm unwilling to do this since it uses more memory than is reasonable when I use gnome apps pretty infrequently. I'm kind of baffled why they can't just fall back to configfiles.
Yeah, this is exactly what I was referring to when I said:
It is possible to manually ask nautilus to please not draw to the root window. This request will also ask it not to open the useless desktop sized annoyance window that some window managers aren't aware it intends to _be_the desktop.
The obnoxious thing is, however, that if some other app, for example totem when chosing something to do with plugins, launches nautilus, it does not know that it needs to pass --no-desktop. And so by choosing an item in totem, suddenly my whole screen is covered with a big dumb window, and my root window is painted with useless trash, which stays around even after I find the nautilus process id and kill it, since the desktop "background window" doesn't respond to the close box correctly.
It used to be (as of Gnome 2.10), that if I would launch Natilus from a shell, or if another application (such as totem) launched Nautilus withous asking me, that I would get a window where every icon was a grey piece of paper. Apparently Nautilus is incapable of showing the correct icons for the files unless gnome-settings-daemon was launched beforehand. Further, Nautilus would open a window the size of the screen and draw the desktop onto this, as well as draw a static image of the desktop to the root window.
It is possible to manually ask nautilus to please not draw to the root window. This request will also ask it not to open the useless desktop sized annoyance window that some window managers aren't aware it intends to _be_the desktop. It is _not_ seemingly possible to ask nautilus, such as in a settings file, to please launch gnome-settings-daemon if it is not running. Since I do not run the gnome panel, and other gnome desktop tools, it is never already running, and the behavior of the window and the look of the icons is so unhelpful to make me upset that the window is on the screen.
It would be a pleasure if the Gnome developers were to consider improving the behavior of Nautilus and/or the gnome-settings-daemon to handle users of gnome applications who are not necessarily interested in running the entirety of the gnome desktop experience.
Thus underlining the divergent needs: Passage of Time vs Time of Day.
UTC is a system for determining a universal Time of Day. It is the only Time of Day useful for global time correlation. Passage of Time cannot be very accurately tracked by UTC (it does not offer very much in significantly sub-second accuracy), and so people use regular timekeeping sources such as atomic clocks, etc.
GPS is actually a distribution of UTC which happens to be more precise than NTP. However, GPS will vary on leap seconds etc, just like NTP. For some people, it satisfies both their neesd. For others, the leap second jumps and software problems of 1998 (see article) suggest they continue to rely on local high precision time advancement sources.
Whoah there cowboy. I was with you up until you equated actively roleplaying to immersion. Immersion can play out without such elements, or it can come about because of them. People are pretty adaptable to different play environments of make believe.
Smalltalk failed, essentially, because the companies providing Smalltalk tools in the early commercialization window decided that it was a _premium_ technology and that they should therefore charge people up the wazoo. Multiple thousands of dollars a developer seat did not a popular language make.
I'm confused. Your post sounds sarcastic, but what is the point? The ingredients list of course shows what sweetener is used. The sucky part is that mexican coke used to be available with sugar which was a pleasant experience, and now is being made available with corn syrup, denying the pleasant experience. No one is alleging that the consumer is being lied to.
Sadly, I have started to encounter Mexican-sourced soda containing Corn Syrup. I don't know how this has started, but I'm sure some trade manipulation has accomplished it.
Okay, well, I don't pretend to know what they actually did, but there is a BIOS edition of their software, and there are such things as "reserved areas" in the ATA spec, disk areas which are not visible in the normal formatting/addressing space of the drive, but are intended for special recovery/restore type activities in conjunction with the BIOS or operating system.
With a BIOS set up for this and a reserved area that is not removed with special tools, this could survive an entire disk wipe.
I kind of doubt you could fit much useful in the mbr for this purpose. It's only 452 bytes or something and needs to include functional boot code as well.
It bars certain felons, such as those convicted of drunk driving..... A special measure was passed in their legislature to allow our dear leader to enter their country.
Drug posession is not on the list.
And yeah, there are a number of societies who don't view drug users as pariahs. Some sectors of US society don't either, (see San Francisco for example) but larger US companies for whatever reason tend to be smallminded in their ethics.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a wiki page on exactly this topic. I encourage you to track it and comment if you make such a purchase.
http://wiki.xiph.org/VorbisHardware
Incidentally, Vorbis seems well suited to mobile replay, especially with bitrate peeling, you can have files stored on your harddrive at very high bitrates, and reduce them to lower bitrates very radpidly while downloading them to your device.
I have personally commented on this page. I own a Samsung Yepp YP-t7z. The vorbis playback is not perfect. I seem to be able to exhaust the processortime on the box with high bandwidth vorbis files (around 180kbps or higher). However, this hasn't bothered me, I just encode around 150kbps average. I would recommend the device cautiously. The user interface is not sleek or elegant, but usable and satisfactory. It is a 1 gig flash-based player.
Apparently the IOPS line of players have the best OGG Vorbis support, and generally seem to be good devices.
The iRiver vorbis support historically has been inferior, with various issues plaguing the devices.
I said it should ultimately lower fees and increase competition. You counter with a comment about sellers of the moment and their current practices. This is kind of a nonsequitor. The question was raised: "what is the point?" One of the points of it, is that the technology has the promise of openness, which has secondary order benefts. That it is not generally deployed in the marketplace is one reason that it is not yet fulfilling all of its promise.
To respond to the child of your post as well, "Free as in Beer" is one reflection of the openness. Technologies that come with fees which can be raised arbitrarily at any point have real limitations in terms of how they end up being used. One issue, for example, is that commercially trafficing in AAC or mp3 as a content generator is reasonably priced at very large volumes, but very expensive at small volumes. This has a chilling effect upon the ability of smaller content providers to coexist with larger ones, a situation I personally find undesirable.
Despite your claims to the contrary, bitrates below 256kb/s are still regularly used. Perhaps not by you, or your friends, but they are used for a variety of applications, including portable replay, network streaming, and so on.
For most listeners, the quality achieved by 256kb/s mp3 can be achieved at around 192kb/s with quality encoders such as LAME. That is, at this bitrate, the decoded material is indistinguishable from the original source by most (the majority of) listeners. This has been confirmed by a number of independent blind tests. Note that this is not universal for all listeners nor all source material, but it is generally found to be true. For these reasons, some people place their trust in psychoacoustic models to automatically choose a rate, or they add a "headroom" and pick a value like 256, as you state.
Comparably, ogg vorbis tends to achieve general transparency at around 160kb/s as compared to mp3. Again this is of course not for all listeners and all source material, but for the significant majority. I personally encode my music at -q 6 which tends to result in files of around 150 to 180 kbps, the encoder decides what is necessary from moment to moment.
Of course, modern AAC (and I say modern because the AAC format has been extended over time) seems to be able to achieve transparency at even lower bitrates, but less extensive tests have been done, so a precise number is hard to quote. However, Ogg/Vorbis has another significant benefit, in that it does not contain, or claims not to contain, any patented algorithms or technology, which is of real benefit to a variety of players including companies who wish to provide content in lossy formats, and companies who wish to provide players of lossy formats. Generally, individual do not see direct benefits of these issues, but avoiding of patent licenses should ultimate lower fees and increase competition among providers of both devices and content, and thus will result in greater choice and lower costs to end users, which should be of benefit to them.
Thus, in essence, ogg sits in a middling position in absolute quality, but holds a promise of improving the overall marketplace for all players, and using and supporting the format may bring about long range benefits to yourself.
To most listeners, mp3 files become transparent somewhere around 192kb/s, wheras for most listeners ogg/vorbis becomes transparent at around 160kb/s. So assuming a good encoder, you won't "hear" mp3 at that bitrate, and also won't "hear" ogg.
However, if you drop to around 160kb/s, you will 'hear' mp3, but will still not 'hear' ogg.
That's the bitrate story.
For what it's worth, the design of vorbis provides room for further improvment, so the situation may be different in the future, but there isn't a lot of significant work going on at the moment.
It doesn't add extra complexity when the data is coming from the same files anyway. The program could
1 - parse the files itself using the same exact code dlopened from a library and hidden entirely from the applications asking.
2 - autofire the settings daemon again entirely hidden from the the host app
3 - do something entirely stupid that doesn't work reliably
let's go with #3.
I read that as the sarcastic point of the comment.
I disagree that it should be in the preferences. I think if programs are going to be able to launch nautilus, it should launch with or without the desktop intelligently.
.nautlusrc would be preferred. A hive of xml is not more discoverable or accessible, it is less in both ways.
If i actually launched gnome with like gnome-session & , I'd want a desktop, but if totem opens a single nautilus window to allow me to drag plugins into it, it shouldn't create a desktop. And I don't think this is totem's job. Totem just says "show me this directory". Nautilus should be aware of the context of the request, because it's the one starting up as a result of the request or knowing it's already in charge of the whole desktop.
Basically I think the problem of how to launch is quite solvable, and could be documented fully to avoid surprises. And it frustrates me that the nautilus developers have not done so.
I do thank you for mentioning this setting and it mostly does what I want, although I continue to be sad about gconf.
Yeah, I'm unwilling to do this since it uses more memory than is reasonable when I use gnome apps pretty infrequently. I'm kind of baffled why they can't just fall back to configfiles.
Yeah, this is exactly what I was referring to when I said:
The obnoxious thing is, however, that if some other app, for example totem when chosing something to do with plugins, launches nautilus, it does not know that it needs to pass --no-desktop. And so by choosing an item in totem, suddenly my whole screen is covered with a big dumb window, and my root window is painted with useless trash, which stays around even after I find the nautilus process id and kill it, since the desktop "background window" doesn't respond to the close box correctly.
Filed long ago. I'm just bringing it up in hopes of discussion.
It used to be (as of Gnome 2.10), that if I would launch Natilus from a shell, or if another application (such as totem) launched Nautilus withous asking me, that I would get a window where every icon was a grey piece of paper. Apparently Nautilus is incapable of showing the correct icons for the files unless gnome-settings-daemon was launched beforehand. Further, Nautilus would open a window the size of the screen and draw the desktop onto this, as well as draw a static image of the desktop to the root window.
It is possible to manually ask nautilus to please not draw to the root window. This request will also ask it not to open the useless desktop sized annoyance window that some window managers aren't aware it intends to _be_the desktop. It is _not_ seemingly possible to ask nautilus, such as in a settings file, to please launch gnome-settings-daemon if it is not running. Since I do not run the gnome panel, and other gnome desktop tools, it is never already running, and the behavior of the window and the look of the icons is so unhelpful to make me upset that the window is on the screen.
It would be a pleasure if the Gnome developers were to consider improving the behavior of Nautilus and/or the gnome-settings-daemon to handle users of gnome applications who are not necessarily interested in running the entirety of the gnome desktop experience.
Thus underlining the divergent needs: Passage of Time vs Time of Day.
UTC is a system for determining a universal Time of Day. It is the only Time of Day useful for global time correlation. Passage of Time cannot be very accurately tracked by UTC (it does not offer very much in significantly sub-second accuracy), and so people use regular timekeeping sources such as atomic clocks, etc.
GPS is actually a distribution of UTC which happens to be more precise than NTP. However, GPS will vary on leap seconds etc, just like NTP. For some people, it satisfies both their neesd. For others, the leap second jumps and software problems of 1998 (see article) suggest they continue to rely on local high precision time advancement sources.
I can't stop myself though.
It's "losing" not "loosing".
Like, in the past?
This can (bottle actually) said Corn Syrup and did not say Suagar. It was a tacked-on label to put american Nutrition Facts on a Mexican-made product.
Whoah there cowboy. I was with you up until you equated actively roleplaying to immersion. Immersion can play out without such elements, or it can come about because of them. People are pretty adaptable to different play environments of make believe.
Hmm let's see. Melbourne is a major world city and Redmond is an anonymous plot of cancerous sprawl.
Seattle isn't even comparable to Melbourne in global significance, let alone a suburb of a suburb.
And it shows rail! I'm quite annoyed that google hasn't figured out how to add this.
Smalltalk failed, essentially, because the companies providing Smalltalk tools in the early commercialization window decided that it was a _premium_ technology and that they should therefore charge people up the wazoo. Multiple thousands of dollars a developer seat did not a popular language make.
I'm confused. Your post sounds sarcastic, but what is the point? The ingredients list of course shows what sweetener is used. The sucky part is that mexican coke used to be available with sugar which was a pleasant experience, and now is being made available with corn syrup, denying the pleasant experience. No one is alleging that the consumer is being lied to.
Sadly, I have started to encounter Mexican-sourced soda containing Corn Syrup. I don't know how this has started, but I'm sure some trade manipulation has accomplished it.
I have had a magazine refuse to honor that and send collections after me anyway.
After writing and mailing a letter to collections explaining the situation, collections went away.
Okay, well, I don't pretend to know what they actually did, but there is a BIOS edition of their software, and there are such things as "reserved areas" in the ATA spec, disk areas which are not visible in the normal formatting/addressing space of the drive, but are intended for special recovery/restore type activities in conjunction with the BIOS or operating system.
With a BIOS set up for this and a reserved area that is not removed with special tools, this could survive an entire disk wipe.
I kind of doubt you could fit much useful in the mbr for this purpose. It's only 452 bytes or something and needs to include functional boot code as well.
Probably as many as possible, if he or she is gay. ;-)
It bars certain felons, such as those convicted of drunk driving. .... A special measure was passed in their legislature to allow our dear leader to enter their country.
Drug posession is not on the list.
And yeah, there are a number of societies who don't view drug users as pariahs. Some sectors of US society don't either, (see San Francisco for example) but larger US companies for whatever reason tend to be smallminded in their ethics.