does CDMA still run out there? it's a while since i was somewhere _really_ remote, but back then there was no 3G with any network. just CDMA, and there was talk of turning it off.
they lost me years ago when they repeatedly hassled me for money (a year after i'd switched to someone else), inexplicably calling me by my father's name (i've never had my phone linked to his account, though back in the day we were all linked to mum's), then refusing to tell me what the bill is and how much is owed because due to privacy they can't tell me - it has to be the account holder. when i tell them i am the account holder for the number they called they get confused and go away for another 2 weeks, then repeat. i even got letters from debt collectors.
eventually i got them to forward me to complaints, told them if they don't know what number or what name the bill is under, they can't possibly know how much is owed and by who, so the only sane thing to do is fuck off and leave me alone - they agreed i owe them nothing, nor does my father who had nothing to do with anything.
i guess the far inferior single-lens system could cause some fuckettry with the eyes and brain, but i fail to see how twin-lens polarized 3D could be any different than a regular digital 2D screening.
do not require the distributor to pay to have all this stuff captioned!
they already paid for the right to distribute it, and paid for each audio track they plan to offer, and will pay for any subtitle tracks that have been made.
if the licensor hasn't bothered to make a CC track, make THEM fucking pay for it!
the film production process is just a complex way of ignoring important things and passing the problem down the line. in my case, DVD is the end of the line, but in Netflix's case it's them. they have to fix everything that should have been fixed before it came in the door, because the filmmakers have blown their own budgets and wont meet their obligations.
how about, if a film is to be rated by the MPAA (i understand classification is voluntary in the USA), it should come with a closed caption track. if the filmmakers don't want to do that, they can suffer the losses from releasing an unrated film on less screens.
requiring the distributor to create their own media is like asking ebay to make their own products. it can be done, but doesn't really make a lot of sense.
but even a dumb, unweighted RMS over 200ms measured _at the output_ would be more useful than -20 EBU-R128 LUFS measured on the tape before it goes to the broadcaster. get my point? in the latter scenario, the broadcaster has free reign to turn the volume up as much as they want. in the former, that's taken into account, because they're measuring the loudness that goes into the viewer's TV.
more a matter of "no regulation". just a medium with a defined peak and no consequences in hardware for driving the average too high.
vinyl had physical limits that would make the music sound like shit if they were exceeded, and in extreme cases would cause the disc to be unplayable. CDs don't have that problem. they can be 16khz, fullscale, 100% of the time and pass verification, but will pass the hardware problems down the line (to your tweeters in this case - they'll burn even if the speaker is running well below it's rated max power).
things were made worse considering people in the pop music target audience would often brag about blowing their speakers up...
interestingly enough, regulation like the CALM act (and OP48 here in Australia) were entirely a response to the public. given that the public is who the broadcasters rely on, i'd say it's a market response through a different avenue.
having an objective loudness measure is simply adding some accuracy to what was already widely practised in the industry - TVCs would be routinely rejected if they were too loud. this consisted of a peak test (no more than -10dBFS usually) and a VU test (a little analog device, set to read 0dB on a sine with amplitude -20dBFS, and averaging over about 200ms). if it sat consistently above 0 VU, it'd be rejected, and if it exceeded -10dBFS (unless it was analog, which needs a bit of headroom), it'd be rejected.
this has been practised since the beginning, but this happens on the production and distribution side. the TV networks were free to crank the volume when they cut to the ad break if they wanted (and i suspect some did, as ad's i'd checked myself would be different volumes on different channels).
the OP48 guideline actually made things a little worse, because ALL ads were required to follow it, and it was marked on the title slates (and rejected if not). when people called in saying the ads were too loud, the networks would simply say "no they aren't - look at this document!" and continue to abuse our eardrums.
i haven't read CALM (i'm not in the USA), but i sincerely hope it defines the level as measured on the end-user's playback device (or on the multiplex that is transmitted) rather than before the ad reaches the broadcaster, as it is here.
in response to TFA, this will not affect the loudness war on music, but that seems to be waning anyway. certainly engineers will have the tools to measure, but producers will continue to not give a fuck, and bands, producers and engineers will continue to numb their hearing with copious amounts of cocaine and crank the master gain instead of the monitor gain to compensate.
if Apple or one of the big hardware manufacturers could implement (and use by default) a loudness measure at playback time, this will hopefully indicate to the industry that it's time to make it sound good rather than just loud.
iTunes has "soundcheck", and many software players implement "replaygain", but i'd love to see these become the default on the actual hardware, so remove the user from the equation. not hating on the users, or wanting to pull wool over their eyes, but most users are casual listeners who don't want or need the hassle of learning new tools for the trivial pursuit of having all their music play at the same volume. in my experience people love the idea but would like it to happen without manual intervention.
commercial presses standardize their input at 300dpi... just saying.
what comes off the press is often a bit less than that, but it's hard to place it with offset printing (except for black-only text, which is often well above 300dpi)
it makes sense when you're out and about and want to use the keyboard attachment - click the tablet into the keyboard, and suddenly you have an extra 8 hours of battery.
damn good point. my wife has an iPad, i have a netbook. she uses her iPad for her personal and business stuff 90% of the time, but 10% of the time she's swearing at the thing and grabbing the netbook from me.
the thing that kills iPads for me is the lack of a filesystem, the lack of proper multitasking (my 13 month old is the only one of us able to correctly swipe between apps consistently), afterthought implementations of essential functions like copypaste, and in-text editing is a pain in the arse - it's quicker to retype the sentence (including backspacing over it) then to select a bit of a word and type in 2 letters.
it's not bad for the 90%, but the 10% is not going away, no matter how much marketing is thrown at it. i'm sick to death of the Apple catch-cry of "why would anybody want to do that?" whenever confronted by a thing i do every day that their gear can't do.
"Wise man admits things weren't as bad as 70's era computers predicted! Says atmosphere is still heating up, but not as much as he thought 40 years ago!"
stop the motherfucking presses. this proves nothing about anything, just that science today is incrementally better than it was in the past.
at best, the anti-warmist (or whatever they want to call themselves) agenda does exactly what the mainstream scientific consensus asks: it's a gamble.
given that the odds of GW (and AGW if you like) being a real thing are pretty good, and that it will act over the long term, i think there can't be much harm in low-risk investment now into ways to mitigate what may be:
- land is cheaper in shitty areas than "good" ones. as the climate changes, formerly good land will become shitty, and formerly shitty land will become desirable. so buy it while it's cheap! it'll either sell for the same price or much, much more. - renewable power will always be worth getting behind, especially that which can be generated locally (or at home). when the zombies come / bombs fall / NWO takes over, you'll have power when nobody else does.
if you don't like acting responsibly for your fellow man, there are still compelling selfish reasons to green up.
Slashdot Mirror
does CDMA still run out there? it's a while since i was somewhere _really_ remote, but back then there was no 3G with any network. just CDMA, and there was talk of turning it off.
yep.
they lost me years ago when they repeatedly hassled me for money (a year after i'd switched to someone else), inexplicably calling me by my father's name (i've never had my phone linked to his account, though back in the day we were all linked to mum's), then refusing to tell me what the bill is and how much is owed because due to privacy they can't tell me - it has to be the account holder. when i tell them i am the account holder for the number they called they get confused and go away for another 2 weeks, then repeat. i even got letters from debt collectors.
eventually i got them to forward me to complaints, told them if they don't know what number or what name the bill is under, they can't possibly know how much is owed and by who, so the only sane thing to do is fuck off and leave me alone - they agreed i owe them nothing, nor does my father who had nothing to do with anything.
telstra suck.
the fact that right now, they can't afford the hard disks for their own population, let alone the rest of the world's.
no coal for you!
how far are we talking? i've had 3 for years, and in many cases i get coverage out at my folks' place where even telstra has trouble.
that said, 3 has shitty coverage IN the city...
seeing depth can bring on migraines?
are there any one-eyed migraine sufferers?
i guess the far inferior single-lens system could cause some fuckettry with the eyes and brain, but i fail to see how twin-lens polarized 3D could be any different than a regular digital 2D screening.
the doctor's name is Geiger?
netflix don't make the movies. they buy the rights and distribute them. this costs less.
making a subtitle track is pricey. look up "captioning services" and get a quote... it's a few days' work for 1 person who you need to pay.
unless it's goddamned anime, in which case some basement dweller has already done it for free :)
do not require the distributor to pay to have all this stuff captioned!
they already paid for the right to distribute it, and paid for each audio track they plan to offer, and will pay for any subtitle tracks that have been made.
if the licensor hasn't bothered to make a CC track, make THEM fucking pay for it!
the film production process is just a complex way of ignoring important things and passing the problem down the line. in my case, DVD is the end of the line, but in Netflix's case it's them. they have to fix everything that should have been fixed before it came in the door, because the filmmakers have blown their own budgets and wont meet their obligations.
how about, if a film is to be rated by the MPAA (i understand classification is voluntary in the USA), it should come with a closed caption track. if the filmmakers don't want to do that, they can suffer the losses from releasing an unrated film on less screens.
requiring the distributor to create their own media is like asking ebay to make their own products. it can be done, but doesn't really make a lot of sense.
a baby's cry can be ignored... but the baby will just try again, and louder (MUCH louder).
i'm so glad my 13 month old is so well behaved.
i'm aware of these things.
but even a dumb, unweighted RMS over 200ms measured _at the output_ would be more useful than -20 EBU-R128 LUFS measured on the tape before it goes to the broadcaster. get my point? in the latter scenario, the broadcaster has free reign to turn the volume up as much as they want. in the former, that's taken into account, because they're measuring the loudness that goes into the viewer's TV.
no, the smart cat gets something land-bound... like a new york subway rat.
but even then, that's wrong.
the BIG cat gets what it wants. the smart cat gets killed by the big cat.
smart is sort of meaningless. smart is just locally better adapted than the average. in this sense, evolution tends toward "smarter designs".
if i was off my meds, i'd have cut your throat by now.
all these things are possible if it gives these creatures a reproductive advantage.
free speech? what are you smoking?
i'm sure police will arrest anyone who takes a marshall stack out on the street, maxes it out, and exercises "free speech" through a microphone...
the act simply says you have free speech, not free shout.
more a matter of "no regulation". just a medium with a defined peak and no consequences in hardware for driving the average too high.
vinyl had physical limits that would make the music sound like shit if they were exceeded, and in extreme cases would cause the disc to be unplayable. CDs don't have that problem. they can be 16khz, fullscale, 100% of the time and pass verification, but will pass the hardware problems down the line (to your tweeters in this case - they'll burn even if the speaker is running well below it's rated max power).
things were made worse considering people in the pop music target audience would often brag about blowing their speakers up...
interesting free market trollspin here...
interestingly enough, regulation like the CALM act (and OP48 here in Australia) were entirely a response to the public. given that the public is who the broadcasters rely on, i'd say it's a market response through a different avenue.
having an objective loudness measure is simply adding some accuracy to what was already widely practised in the industry - TVCs would be routinely rejected if they were too loud. this consisted of a peak test (no more than -10dBFS usually) and a VU test (a little analog device, set to read 0dB on a sine with amplitude -20dBFS, and averaging over about 200ms). if it sat consistently above 0 VU, it'd be rejected, and if it exceeded -10dBFS (unless it was analog, which needs a bit of headroom), it'd be rejected.
this has been practised since the beginning, but this happens on the production and distribution side. the TV networks were free to crank the volume when they cut to the ad break if they wanted (and i suspect some did, as ad's i'd checked myself would be different volumes on different channels).
the OP48 guideline actually made things a little worse, because ALL ads were required to follow it, and it was marked on the title slates (and rejected if not). when people called in saying the ads were too loud, the networks would simply say "no they aren't - look at this document!" and continue to abuse our eardrums.
i haven't read CALM (i'm not in the USA), but i sincerely hope it defines the level as measured on the end-user's playback device (or on the multiplex that is transmitted) rather than before the ad reaches the broadcaster, as it is here.
in response to TFA, this will not affect the loudness war on music, but that seems to be waning anyway. certainly engineers will have the tools to measure, but producers will continue to not give a fuck, and bands, producers and engineers will continue to numb their hearing with copious amounts of cocaine and crank the master gain instead of the monitor gain to compensate.
if Apple or one of the big hardware manufacturers could implement (and use by default) a loudness measure at playback time, this will hopefully indicate to the industry that it's time to make it sound good rather than just loud.
iTunes has "soundcheck", and many software players implement "replaygain", but i'd love to see these become the default on the actual hardware, so remove the user from the equation. not hating on the users, or wanting to pull wool over their eyes, but most users are casual listeners who don't want or need the hassle of learning new tools for the trivial pursuit of having all their music play at the same volume. in my experience people love the idea but would like it to happen without manual intervention.
commercial presses standardize their input at 300dpi... just saying.
what comes off the press is often a bit less than that, but it's hard to place it with offset printing (except for black-only text, which is often well above 300dpi)
that reads like you're using it while driving... i'm hoping that's not the case :)
sort of, but you'll be down 1 battery...
it makes sense when you're out and about and want to use the keyboard attachment - click the tablet into the keyboard, and suddenly you have an extra 8 hours of battery.
damn good point. my wife has an iPad, i have a netbook. she uses her iPad for her personal and business stuff 90% of the time, but 10% of the time she's swearing at the thing and grabbing the netbook from me.
the thing that kills iPads for me is the lack of a filesystem, the lack of proper multitasking (my 13 month old is the only one of us able to correctly swipe between apps consistently), afterthought implementations of essential functions like copypaste, and in-text editing is a pain in the arse - it's quicker to retype the sentence (including backspacing over it) then to select a bit of a word and type in 2 letters.
it's not bad for the 90%, but the 10% is not going away, no matter how much marketing is thrown at it. i'm sick to death of the Apple catch-cry of "why would anybody want to do that?" whenever confronted by a thing i do every day that their gear can't do.
plop ubuntu on it and you have a pretty decent netbook and a not-so-good tablet :)
"Wise man admits things weren't as bad as 70's era computers predicted! Says atmosphere is still heating up, but not as much as he thought 40 years ago!"
stop the motherfucking presses. this proves nothing about anything, just that science today is incrementally better than it was in the past.
at best, the anti-warmist (or whatever they want to call themselves) agenda does exactly what the mainstream scientific consensus asks: it's a gamble.
given that the odds of GW (and AGW if you like) being a real thing are pretty good, and that it will act over the long term, i think there can't be much harm in low-risk investment now into ways to mitigate what may be:
- land is cheaper in shitty areas than "good" ones. as the climate changes, formerly good land will become shitty, and formerly shitty land will become desirable. so buy it while it's cheap! it'll either sell for the same price or much, much more.
- renewable power will always be worth getting behind, especially that which can be generated locally (or at home). when the zombies come / bombs fall / NWO takes over, you'll have power when nobody else does.
if you don't like acting responsibly for your fellow man, there are still compelling selfish reasons to green up.
car is the code, road map is the headers.