these patents were sold at auction. the consortium was formed to beat google's bid (they flippantly bid a few physical constants - certainly not a considered bid of what they thought the patents were worth, but a bid-as-a-statement). that sounds like reluctant, pressured and not all that knowledgeable to me.
thus the free market ideal is absent, yet again. almost like it will never, and can never work in the real world.
i got the SQ version (well, i stole it from my Dad, but then he never uses his turntable anymore).
i break it out about as often as i'd break out a whisky of comparable age (38 years!). it wont wear out any time soon, and if it does, i have a 24 bit transfer i did some time ago.
the crackles are good though - they make every copy a little different. if i wanted perfection, i'd do my best to score some 24 bit masters
SACD can eat a bag of dicks. stupid, useless, cynical attempt from Sony to relive the good old days before cassette recorders. no amount of forged impulse response diagrams will convince me i can hear a positive difference from a 44/16 bounce of the same master).
contact cleaner will sort out the crackle for a couple of years...
i'm all about the vintage amps though. i can't afford 5 speakers and a sub, so i'm making do with my very nice 2 speakers (that i've had since high school, 12 years ago).
that said, the internal amps in my near-fields seem to sound pretty good.
my 1970s yammy CA-810 is nice, but not accurate. and it draws more power than all the lights in my house, plus the TV and computer. in contrast, my MSP5's draw about 100 watts each at full output, and most of that ends up in my ears or annoying the neighbours. much more efficient and more accurate sound, but the yammy just looks better and shakes the walls a tad more.
they were not trying to hide anything - most of the information the FOIs were seeking was not their own - they had to seek permission to get it released from the originators of it.
they also probably were not expecting to need to release it - they were rightly assuming that whoever seeks the same data should acquire it in the same way that they did - ask the appropriate people for it.
1. the fossil record does not show [citation needed] transitional forms that bridge the large gaps between different species.
2. physics can't explain where the big bang came from.
big fucking whoops. adding God doesn't add anything useful. we're still where we were as far as explaining things, but now we have this God thing as well.
Ideology aside, Occam's Razor should shut this guy up. he's proposing a needlessly complicated model that explains precisely nothing more than the current dogma does. so why introduce something that draws the same conclusions but lacks rigour and elegance? why attempt to fix a theory that isn't broken by adding a God that appears to do nothing to supplement the theory except that "oh, God did it. i wont give a mechanism for it, or cite any evidence. but God did it. just look at the evidence!"
for all your ponitifcating about your idea of what the scientific method is, surely "People who are more interested in looking smart than they are in the truth" doesn't fit your definition of what a good scientist should be.
the sad thing is, you're probably not even being paid for your opinion here. way to waste time.
(you could say the same for me, i'm well aware. but i'm off the clock right now and not in too much of a hurry to get back home, so i'm gonna argue a few minutes more).
but it begs the question: why did they bother to make 50 FOI's in 2 days? why not just make 1 big one?
what it looks like to me is they were trying to make the paperwork as painful as possible in an attempt to distract and slow down people who really just want to do their science, and certainly don't want to be dealing with PR and news agencies and other things not related to their jobs.
these people are all competing for limited funding. meaning that they all want to prove how rigorous and innovative they are.
rest assured, scientists argue amongst themselves a lot more than you might imagine.
and, once again, in caps for emphasis and cool:
SCIENCE IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO GET RICH.
this argument that peer review is useless because they're all riding the funding gravy train is just stupid. utterly, utterly stupid. if a scientist wanted to make lots of money, they'd become a plumber, or do modelling for a large bank. climate scientists predominantly want to save the world. i'm sure they'd love to see conclusive proof that everything's going to be fine, but it's just not there.
when i worked in post production, nothing gave me a more perverse pleasure than telling snooty film-snob clients about how awesome Total Recall was. and they had to sit and listen to me because i was the one making their own film look good.
look at the Australian film industry. the wank was turned up so high that we wont even watch our own films anymore. cinemas simply will not screen Australian films in Australia. because they can't justify the expense of it versus the 2 or 3 people that they'll get per screening.
being snooty, with an over-inflated sense of entitlement will not get people to enjoy your stuff. people who work in entertainment must remember that they do it for the audience, not for themselves.
it's all those wizards in the mid to late '90s. they created a culture of clicking through endless meaningless splashes and marketing spiels to get your software. if you ever read those things, you'd still be installing CorelDraw! 5 at this point.
we all got in the habit, the OS was not terribly secure, the internet grew faster than anyone expected, and now suddenly everyone's clicking through installers that fuck their machines.
add to that the fact that most AV programs are so woeful for performance that people don't care whether they are a bot or not, so long as their machine doesn't slow down.
windows works quite well in spite of this so long as you have a diligent and well resourced IT department. at home i use ubuntu cause i'm a superstar.
and presumably your former employer broke even on the software they have no use for anymore? they'd have budgeted for that, right? if so, then any patents are a potential extra revenue stream, but certainly not the incentive to invent the software.
it would be similar to charging your local council for the privilege of collecting your garbage, because you have rights over that garbage.
make your next machine something other than dell...
i do fine with asus, lenovo, acer, in fact everything. even dell has worked with any linux i've cared to try on it (including a dell laptop that fell apart before it's time and wifi wasn't even working in windows).
dell aren't just cheap. they're shit. i wouldn't buy shit for any price - the space it takes up in my home would be worth more than the object occupying it.
4 hours? i had a bricked eeepc up and running from a live SD card in 20 mins, including the time it took to download the distro and image it onto the SD card.
4 hours is not a no brainer. it's too much time to be spending on some shitty assignment.
the question was about which distro, so presumably they would go with one that's easy to install (i haven't ever used VMware. that's an extra program to install and learn, isn't it, which makes it more difficult than just fresh installing or booting off a live USB or SD card).
any modern distro would have no problems with laptop features.
though i don't know why ubuntu netbook remix has multitouch scrolling disabled by default when it works so well once enabled.
Slashdot Mirror
"knowledgeable, willing and unpressured"
these patents were sold at auction. the consortium was formed to beat google's bid (they flippantly bid a few physical constants - certainly not a considered bid of what they thought the patents were worth, but a bid-as-a-statement). that sounds like reluctant, pressured and not all that knowledgeable to me.
thus the free market ideal is absent, yet again. almost like it will never, and can never work in the real world.
i got the SQ version (well, i stole it from my Dad, but then he never uses his turntable anymore).
i break it out about as often as i'd break out a whisky of comparable age (38 years!). it wont wear out any time soon, and if it does, i have a 24 bit transfer i did some time ago.
the crackles are good though - they make every copy a little different. if i wanted perfection, i'd do my best to score some 24 bit masters
SACD can eat a bag of dicks. stupid, useless, cynical attempt from Sony to relive the good old days before cassette recorders. no amount of forged impulse response diagrams will convince me i can hear a positive difference from a 44/16 bounce of the same master).
contact cleaner will sort out the crackle for a couple of years...
i'm all about the vintage amps though. i can't afford 5 speakers and a sub, so i'm making do with my very nice 2 speakers (that i've had since high school, 12 years ago).
that said, the internal amps in my near-fields seem to sound pretty good.
my 1970s yammy CA-810 is nice, but not accurate. and it draws more power than all the lights in my house, plus the TV and computer. in contrast, my MSP5's draw about 100 watts each at full output, and most of that ends up in my ears or annoying the neighbours. much more efficient and more accurate sound, but the yammy just looks better and shakes the walls a tad more.
read the rest of the thread, at least.
they were not trying to hide anything - most of the information the FOIs were seeking was not their own - they had to seek permission to get it released from the originators of it.
they also probably were not expecting to need to release it - they were rightly assuming that whoever seeks the same data should acquire it in the same way that they did - ask the appropriate people for it.
made me spit milo at the screen :)
it casts doubt on his credentials as any kind of scientist.
i've never seen so many non-sequitirs. the man is clearly incapable of reasoning in a way that can be followed by another.
it seems generous to think that while his views on evolution are quite flaky, his climate science should be spot on.
that article made me quite mad.
it boils down to two points, really.
1. the fossil record does not show [citation needed] transitional forms that bridge the large gaps between different species.
2. physics can't explain where the big bang came from.
big fucking whoops. adding God doesn't add anything useful. we're still where we were as far as explaining things, but now we have this God thing as well.
Ideology aside, Occam's Razor should shut this guy up. he's proposing a needlessly complicated model that explains precisely nothing more than the current dogma does. so why introduce something that draws the same conclusions but lacks rigour and elegance? why attempt to fix a theory that isn't broken by adding a God that appears to do nothing to supplement the theory except that "oh, God did it. i wont give a mechanism for it, or cite any evidence. but God did it. just look at the evidence!"
my god, did you even read his post?
for all your ponitifcating about your idea of what the scientific method is, surely "People who are more interested in looking smart than they are in the truth" doesn't fit your definition of what a good scientist should be.
the sad thing is, you're probably not even being paid for your opinion here. way to waste time.
(you could say the same for me, i'm well aware. but i'm off the clock right now and not in too much of a hurry to get back home, so i'm gonna argue a few minutes more).
what? you think governments have more money to spend on science than big fossil has to spend on PR?
nice one!
hey, i've got over 9000 soon to be ex-NASA employees you can go talk to about that!
but it begs the question: why did they bother to make 50 FOI's in 2 days? why not just make 1 big one?
what it looks like to me is they were trying to make the paperwork as painful as possible in an attempt to distract and slow down people who really just want to do their science, and certainly don't want to be dealing with PR and news agencies and other things not related to their jobs.
oh, for fuck's sake - they were trying to draw graphs with that "cleaned" data. they weren't using it to draw their conclusions.
do you sue your city's transport operator because their maps are not to scale? fuck off.
actually, it's not about showing your workings so much as being able to reproduce the experiment and arrive at the same conclusion.
of course, that does imply a certain sharing of data, but quite often the data is of limited use.
reproducibility is the key.
"peer" doesn't mean what you think it means.
these people are all competing for limited funding. meaning that they all want to prove how rigorous and innovative they are.
rest assured, scientists argue amongst themselves a lot more than you might imagine.
and, once again, in caps for emphasis and cool:
SCIENCE IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO GET RICH.
this argument that peer review is useless because they're all riding the funding gravy train is just stupid. utterly, utterly stupid. if a scientist wanted to make lots of money, they'd become a plumber, or do modelling for a large bank. climate scientists predominantly want to save the world. i'm sure they'd love to see conclusive proof that everything's going to be fine, but it's just not there.
Carmack is correct.
when i worked in post production, nothing gave me a more perverse pleasure than telling snooty film-snob clients about how awesome Total Recall was. and they had to sit and listen to me because i was the one making their own film look good.
look at the Australian film industry. the wank was turned up so high that we wont even watch our own films anymore. cinemas simply will not screen Australian films in Australia. because they can't justify the expense of it versus the 2 or 3 people that they'll get per screening.
being snooty, with an over-inflated sense of entitlement will not get people to enjoy your stuff. people who work in entertainment must remember that they do it for the audience, not for themselves.
THIS.
innovation is dead thanks to lawyers.
mad?
it's all those wizards in the mid to late '90s. they created a culture of clicking through endless meaningless splashes and marketing spiels to get your software. if you ever read those things, you'd still be installing CorelDraw! 5 at this point.
we all got in the habit, the OS was not terribly secure, the internet grew faster than anyone expected, and now suddenly everyone's clicking through installers that fuck their machines.
add to that the fact that most AV programs are so woeful for performance that people don't care whether they are a bot or not, so long as their machine doesn't slow down.
windows works quite well in spite of this so long as you have a diligent and well resourced IT department. at home i use ubuntu cause i'm a superstar.
patents != copyright.
and presumably your former employer broke even on the software they have no use for anymore? they'd have budgeted for that, right? if so, then any patents are a potential extra revenue stream, but certainly not the incentive to invent the software.
it would be similar to charging your local council for the privilege of collecting your garbage, because you have rights over that garbage.
i haven't had points since my first kid was born. if i had points, i'd mod you up.
i very nearly whooshed, then i lol'd.
make your next machine something other than dell...
i do fine with asus, lenovo, acer, in fact everything. even dell has worked with any linux i've cared to try on it (including a dell laptop that fell apart before it's time and wifi wasn't even working in windows).
dell aren't just cheap. they're shit. i wouldn't buy shit for any price - the space it takes up in my home would be worth more than the object occupying it.
4 hours? i had a bricked eeepc up and running from a live SD card in 20 mins, including the time it took to download the distro and image it onto the SD card.
4 hours is not a no brainer. it's too much time to be spending on some shitty assignment.
the question was about which distro, so presumably they would go with one that's easy to install (i haven't ever used VMware. that's an extra program to install and learn, isn't it, which makes it more difficult than just fresh installing or booting off a live USB or SD card).
any modern distro would have no problems with laptop features.
though i don't know why ubuntu netbook remix has multitouch scrolling disabled by default when it works so well once enabled.
the point was the large amount of land that most certainly does get flooded when one constructs a dam.
we could always paint our roofs white.
citation needed.
particularly photographic proof of the well-done blowjob...