i agree. what i'm saying is Louie's experiment, and others like it are getting some hard data pertaining to what return you are likely to get on a completely open product.
research in this area will allow for robust business models and sensible budgeting for any kind of digital product. the great folly of digital commerce has been distributors getting their lawyer cannons out before they did the hard maths involved in making a business model that doesn't suck arse and can actually work.
I wasn't making an analogy. just merely pointing out that some people wont want to pay any price, and not because they can't afford any price, but simply because getting it free gets them off somehow.
i'm well aware of the cp function and what it means for economies of scarcity applied to the digital realm.
i felt this/. 101 stuff didn't bear mention, and could be taken as universally understood.
doesn't matter. you can't lie to an averaging meter, or even a VU meter.
in analog land, you're looking at an average of 0 VU and a peak of +10 at the most. when it all went digital, they parked 0 VU at -20dBFS on the digital scale, +10 at -10, and 10dB of headroom for overshoot to prevent clipping. when you plug a digital deck's analog output into a VU meter, a proper program will float around the 0 VU mark, exactly where it would on an analog setup. more compression just means the needle moves less from that spot. if the needle sits consistently higher, the master is rejected as out of broadcast spec.
with EBU R-128, there's an actual loudness measure that relates to human hearing, but even then, a reference pink noise tone will sit at 0 VU on a VU meter, just like anything else.
there's tape-rooms everywhere that mix analog and digital gear, so they all need to keep the same reference levels or things go to shit.
yes, but those thousand ad production companies have always moderated their volume.
in the analog days, there were physical limits that had to be applied, and when it all went digital, backward compatibility was still a concern (and continues to be still). hence, if you're making an ad, and don't want it rejected (and have to face extra costs and angry phone calls, and the prospect of losing the client), you'd keep a lid on the volume.
then the ad master is submitted to the networks, and they plop it in their "play ads on this" tape deck with the volume turned 6dB up from unity compared to their "play shows on this" tape deck or live input which is at unity.
the driverless car is an idea, so it's not patentable.
the implementation of that idea is what is patented.
my guess is google have made it as broad as legally possible to maximize protection of the patent.
i can't be bothered to read it though.
personally, i don't think this is too bad, as driverless cars are an egg that mankind has been trying to crack for quite a while. patenting that doesn't seem too evil.
they already have people that have been doing this for analog networks, because loudness caused problems with overmodulation and interfering with other radio bands.
this just means a few of those folks will get to keep their jobs, so long as they re-train a little bit.
ie not as wasteful as you might think, and actually of benefit to the general public.
the easiest for TV stations would be to punch the volume button back in to unity on their B-roll playback deck. it's the equivalent of a rough mouse-click. with the volume dial pulled out, you have manual control, with the dial pushed in, it's unity no matter where you set it. actually an example of good design from Sony - the old Digibeta decks.
WITH a little bit of LUCK they'll be using EBU R-128 to define loudness.
RMS can be SPOOFED TOO FUCKING EASILY and PeaK is MeaningLess.
all things said and done, they'll probably just eye off the analog VU meters and say "good enough" like they've always done.
here's the trick - ads, at least in the production and mastering have always had a volume that's standardized, even if it's based in VU meters and not very accurate. the problem is networks essentially having one tape deck set at unity gain for playing the programs, and one tape deck with the output volume cranked for playing the ads on, then they switch between them. it's so easy for them to do. it's all servers and files now, but that doesn't stop them abusing metadata and such.
there's standards for loudness in most countries, but they're completely ignored by the broadcasters. they take an ad that's the correct standard volume and go ahead and turn it up anyway.
this is my point exactly - pricks will not buy at any price. not because "bawww i'm so poor"... they're on the internet. their basic needs are clearly met (food, shelter, safety), so they can't bleat about being poor. it's a matter of get it or go without. if they go without, they should spend the time they would have spent watching doing something productive.
the good thing about offering it for a very small price is precisely calling the bluff - knowing that people will steal no matter what, but doing the maths on whether you can break even or make a modest profit in spite of that.
Louie's overheads are low - he paid for shooting it, and web hosting, and all the rest he does himself. there's no distributor, he didn't use a post house, all mastering was done in files rather than tapes. you save tens of thousands by doing it yourself.
a feature film might be able to do this, but it'd need enough marketing to get the film out there, and it'd need a low budget. something like Avatar couldn't survive this way (even if it was a good movie instead of a smurf handjob fest).
it's a bit of a problem though... Louis' experiment was a matter of tentatively finding the threholds involved.
basically, though a lot of people are willing to pay for something out of goodwill, there'll always be arseholes that have no good will and will take anything they can because they can.
people steal from charity shops you know... even though the prices are insanely low and the store itself is not for profit, and in many cases the store is affiliated with a charity that will give the same items to poor people, some cunt will actually take stuff for free.
arseholes are why we can't have nice things.
Louis' experiment (and wikipedia's, and radiohead's, etc) is whether one can make a living in spite of the small percent of people that are just cunts for cunting's sake. it looks like there's enough decent people out there to make a living. but one can be forgiven for thinking "you know, if those people had shelled out a measly 5 bucks, i could have made so much more".
Slashdot Mirror
so long as the case is resolved at some point, the costs are usually paid by the loser.
if a case draws out forever, both parties pay.
taxpayers are relatively protected from all this.
they were n00bs at the time though. Russia had build some impressive nukes by the time Pripyat went foom.
that said, Windscale was a retarded design.
all part of our elaborate plan.
i agree. what i'm saying is Louie's experiment, and others like it are getting some hard data pertaining to what return you are likely to get on a completely open product.
research in this area will allow for robust business models and sensible budgeting for any kind of digital product. the great folly of digital commerce has been distributors getting their lawyer cannons out before they did the hard maths involved in making a business model that doesn't suck arse and can actually work.
I wasn't making an analogy. just merely pointing out that some people wont want to pay any price, and not because they can't afford any price, but simply because getting it free gets them off somehow.
i'm well aware of the cp function and what it means for economies of scarcity applied to the digital realm.
i felt this /. 101 stuff didn't bear mention, and could be taken as universally understood.
doesn't matter. you can't lie to an averaging meter, or even a VU meter.
in analog land, you're looking at an average of 0 VU and a peak of +10 at the most. when it all went digital, they parked 0 VU at -20dBFS on the digital scale, +10 at -10, and 10dB of headroom for overshoot to prevent clipping. when you plug a digital deck's analog output into a VU meter, a proper program will float around the 0 VU mark, exactly where it would on an analog setup. more compression just means the needle moves less from that spot. if the needle sits consistently higher, the master is rejected as out of broadcast spec.
with EBU R-128, there's an actual loudness measure that relates to human hearing, but even then, a reference pink noise tone will sit at 0 VU on a VU meter, just like anything else.
there's tape-rooms everywhere that mix analog and digital gear, so they all need to keep the same reference levels or things go to shit.
yes, but those thousand ad production companies have always moderated their volume.
in the analog days, there were physical limits that had to be applied, and when it all went digital, backward compatibility was still a concern (and continues to be still). hence, if you're making an ad, and don't want it rejected (and have to face extra costs and angry phone calls, and the prospect of losing the client), you'd keep a lid on the volume.
then the ad master is submitted to the networks, and they plop it in their "play ads on this" tape deck with the volume turned 6dB up from unity compared to their "play shows on this" tape deck or live input which is at unity.
the driverless car is an idea, so it's not patentable.
the implementation of that idea is what is patented.
my guess is google have made it as broad as legally possible to maximize protection of the patent.
i can't be bothered to read it though.
personally, i don't think this is too bad, as driverless cars are an egg that mankind has been trying to crack for quite a while. patenting that doesn't seem too evil.
nobody submits an out-of-spec ad. it's the networks that turn them up, not the ad makers.
ha! go ahead and give me a slippery slope argument for this situation. i dare you!
they already have people that have been doing this for analog networks, because loudness caused problems with overmodulation and interfering with other radio bands.
this just means a few of those folks will get to keep their jobs, so long as they re-train a little bit.
ie not as wasteful as you might think, and actually of benefit to the general public.
the easiest for TV stations would be to punch the volume button back in to unity on their B-roll playback deck. it's the equivalent of a rough mouse-click. with the volume dial pulled out, you have manual control, with the dial pushed in, it's unity no matter where you set it. actually an example of good design from Sony - the old Digibeta decks.
WITH a little bit of LUCK they'll be using EBU R-128 to define loudness.
RMS can be SPOOFED TOO FUCKING EASILY and PeaK is MeaningLess.
all things said and done, they'll probably just eye off the analog VU meters and say "good enough" like they've always done.
here's the trick - ads, at least in the production and mastering have always had a volume that's standardized, even if it's based in VU meters and not very accurate. the problem is networks essentially having one tape deck set at unity gain for playing the programs, and one tape deck with the output volume cranked for playing the ads on, then they switch between them. it's so easy for them to do. it's all servers and files now, but that doesn't stop them abusing metadata and such.
there's standards for loudness in most countries, but they're completely ignored by the broadcasters. they take an ad that's the correct standard volume and go ahead and turn it up anyway.
this is my point exactly - pricks will not buy at any price. not because "bawww i'm so poor"... they're on the internet. their basic needs are clearly met (food, shelter, safety), so they can't bleat about being poor. it's a matter of get it or go without. if they go without, they should spend the time they would have spent watching doing something productive.
the good thing about offering it for a very small price is precisely calling the bluff - knowing that people will steal no matter what, but doing the maths on whether you can break even or make a modest profit in spite of that.
Louie's overheads are low - he paid for shooting it, and web hosting, and all the rest he does himself. there's no distributor, he didn't use a post house, all mastering was done in files rather than tapes. you save tens of thousands by doing it yourself.
a feature film might be able to do this, but it'd need enough marketing to get the film out there, and it'd need a low budget. something like Avatar couldn't survive this way (even if it was a good movie instead of a smurf handjob fest).
"You may download..."
"they force you to read/watch."
logic bomb! aaargh! my brain!
it's a bit of a problem though... Louis' experiment was a matter of tentatively finding the threholds involved.
basically, though a lot of people are willing to pay for something out of goodwill, there'll always be arseholes that have no good will and will take anything they can because they can.
people steal from charity shops you know... even though the prices are insanely low and the store itself is not for profit, and in many cases the store is affiliated with a charity that will give the same items to poor people, some cunt will actually take stuff for free.
arseholes are why we can't have nice things.
Louis' experiment (and wikipedia's, and radiohead's, etc) is whether one can make a living in spite of the small percent of people that are just cunts for cunting's sake. it looks like there's enough decent people out there to make a living. but one can be forgiven for thinking "you know, if those people had shelled out a measly 5 bucks, i could have made so much more".
i had no need to define a term i did not use.
your shadow smells like shit, feeb.
if you benefit too many people with anti-aging, you'll find us all running out of room on Earth.
when that happens, you'll be wishing we had some kind of backup plan.
interesting ideas! please present me with some proofs.
heaven help the inland USA if a 10 metre tsunami ever hits!
as was your sense of humour.
good luck with your next CT scan.
how about "longer lifespan kills you sooner!"
there is no such thing as FUD