CD compression? Let me explain a couple of things about audio on CD's. A CD gives you the most accurate representation of your sound, except for two things : it will only keep frequencies in the 0 - 22,050 Hz range, and it will introduce a -96.3 dB white noise. I don't think you can hear anything higher than 22,050 Hz, and I don't think you could hear a -96.3 dB white noise (when 0 dB is the maximum amplitude you can get from your CD).
You pointed us to an article comparing CD's to audio DVD's, so here is why you don't need an audio DVD : firstly, the audio DVD allows you to have frequencies up to 96 kHz, but, can you hear anything between 22 kHz and 96 kHz? Most people can't hear anything past 14-16 kHz. And then, instead of having a -96.3 dB white noise, you have a -144.5 dB white noise, but as the noise you'll hear anyways will be fairly higher than those -96.3 dB, not to mention that the vinyl, even new, will have a noise level much higher than that
And the link you pointed us to is utter bullcrap anyways, the writer of this article obviously ignores such things as the Nyquist law, and makes obvious confusions with what he had to read about the MP3 compression.
I also forgot to mention that if audio in a CD is stored digitally, the output signal is as analog as it can get, in spite of the "series of steps" look of the signal, which is the reason for the -96.3 dB white noise I talked about.
Well I don't know about Tabletop RPGs, but I do know about FPS, and especially Doom, anc I can tell that it's a better time to be a Doom player than it was 10 years ago, and if you don't believe me just get yourself a multiplayer port of Doom and have fun with the numerous people playing online. Now if you think that games become less interesting as time goes by I can't do anything for you..
Julian Murdoch thinks that this is the best time ever to be a gamer
Well of course it is, as time goes by, more and more games are created, more and more consoles are created, more and more emulators are developped, and nothing disappears.
Being a gamer in 2020 > being a gamer in 2010 > being a gamer in 2005 > being a gamer in 2000 > being a gamer in 1995 > being a gamer in 1985 > being a gamer in 1975 > being a gamer in 1930.
I was answering to "So, should a bank be forced to pay back a customer who has lost money to phishers?", and my answer was no, because of the possible fraud.
especially when a few of those technologies have are bundled with inherent dangers in addition to their great advantages (like the Internet)?
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but where on internet is the danger for a 14 year old boy? I can understand that we consider it's not safe for an 8-year old because the sight of porn could disturb him, but not a 14 year old I mean, when you're 14 usually the porn you see is what you want to see, so where's the danger? Chatting with "predators"? Again, I fail to grasp the realness of this "danger", and a few guidelines such as don't give away your name/address and don't try to meet anyone you know off the net unless you've seen them on webcam and that they're not adults should be sufficient to keep anyone perfectly safe behind your computer screen, so if someone could explain to me how Internet is such a dangerous place...
And then, the governement doesn't spy on you to protect you from such dangers as phishing, so why spy on your kids?
but also try to avoid the nastiness on the net (like the RIAA)
What.. the.. heck.. in what the RIAA is something "nasty" to your kid?
From everything I've been told about the kids in the foster system, they do best with a structured environment- something predictable and stable
You know, I think that in that structured environement, whether or not you ask him who he's chatting with is not such a crucial element, I mean it's not like your kid will lose his sense of boundaries and limits and get depressive if you do not maniacally spy on what he does on the computer.
I agree with the parent poster, and actually, that's why often teenage is often punctuated by conflicts between the teenagers and his parents, it's because parents are too slow to give the teenager the freedoms he will get sooner or later.
In my case, the only difference between when I was 14 and when I was 17 was that when I was 17 I could do anything I would have gotten in trouble for doing at 14 without getting yelled at or anything. Parents just need to adapt themselves faster or get ready to lose their influence/authority/legitimacy/respectability, I guess.
Twice in four years I've had to sit him down and say "x" is not OK and no - normal people don't do "a", "b" or "c" - especially with barnyard animals.
Agreed with the other AC poster, it's pretty 1984-esque, by doing this you're creating a mini-dictature of the right-thought. When I hear stuff like this I feel glad that my father couldn't even turn a computer on.
Once I spent three weeks in America in a host family, and one night the father of the family who just came back from the computer right after I left it came up to me and asked me "Have you visited any pornographic site on MY computer?". I can tell that it's pretty annoying and irritating to have some old redneck fool going after you to look at what you did and tell you when he doesn't like it.
And anyways your son doesn't need to be told that a woman having sex with a dog isn't "normal", telling him such things is rather a reminder that he shouldn't step outside of the area of OK-ness you arbitrarily defined, but actually that must be more humiliating than anything else.
Using WireShark, and originally Ethereal, I can see who she's talking to without taking the extra step of seeing what's being said
Without seing what's being said? You must look away from what's being said then, because no matter whether she's using MSN or AIM, you'll see her messages in clear in WireShark.
Anyways, I can tell from my personnal experience, the worst part about having a computer in your bedroom when you're a teen is not to watch porn or to have paedophiles who might cyber-rape you (lol, seriously sometimes I wonder what you guys are scared off, looks like all you parents shit on yourselves when thinking about the great dangers that await your child in the wilderness of the cyber space, and yet you guys don't worry nearly as much about what could happen in other settings such as school, I mean you guys won't monitor your kids at school to make sure they're only talking to known school mates), but rather to go to bed at 2am.
I think I can trick myself into giving myself my own password
I'm afraid you have felt to see the point of my post. What I meant is that you can multiply your money by two by phishing yourself, giving yourself your own password might avoid you going through the hassle of setting up a phishing site, but that won't get you the money you fished to yourself (and thus that you keep) and the money that the bank gives you.
I didn't think my original post was THAT subtle...
It's not that simple, mainly because the human eye's resolution isn't uniform. Basically, because of the fovea, in the center of our vision we have an area about 2 large (4 times the appearant diameter of the moon) offering us in the area a resolution of about 28" (seconds of arc), the resolution outside of this area being lower. Since it was projected on a 7 x 4 meter screen, each pixel is about 0.9 mm x 0.9 mm.
Which means that if I got my maths right, you would have to be 6.94 meters (almost 23 feet) away from the screen to have your maximum eye resolution to match the screens resolution. Farther than that the resolution of the screen would be too fine for it to be even needed.
I know this isn't a yes or no answer to your question, so to answer it we can say that if you're less than 6.94 meters away from the screen your eye resolution is still finer than the screen in some parts. Oh and someone tell me if I got my maths wrong.
Re:Dial-up not quite "all but eliminated"
on
PS3 Problems Parried
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Other than that, there is a real need for broadband, I mean a lot of people really feel the need broadband. But do people feel the need for HDTV? I don't think so, my point being that most people find the resolution of their TV to be good and just enough, actually many people don't see their screen good enough from where they usually watch it with the sight they have to be able to see a greater resolution than they do already.
In other words, according to me, HDTV == luxury. Not that nobody will pick it up when it becomes trully affordable tho, I just mean that nobody really feels the need for it.
Haha yeah maybe, but my point is, it's still no big deal, plus, what was quoted in the article was deprived of any context. I mean it sounds more like some people are doing whatever they can to pull a scandal out their asses than anything else.
Totally. And that's exactly why I don't get why black people get all upset when I call them the N-word.
Sounds like a point but actually it doesn't really matter, because it doesn't make what he said really racist, nor does "saying the N-word" make you automagically racist.
"I mean, they (Cubans and Puerto Ricans) are all very hot...they have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them and together that makes it,"
Big deal! I actually heard hispanics saying just the same kind of thing about themselves.
I know of some wikipedia user who has a good reputation but vandalizes afrocentrism-related articles to push her personal agenda, so reputation is nothing actually. It's as if you believed in whatever scientists claim due to their reputation, as we know very well that even some reputed scientists make up some crap for non-scientifical publications from time to time for various reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
CD compression? Let me explain a couple of things about audio on CD's. A CD gives you the most accurate representation of your sound, except for two things : it will only keep frequencies in the 0 - 22,050 Hz range, and it will introduce a -96.3 dB white noise. I don't think you can hear anything higher than 22,050 Hz, and I don't think you could hear a -96.3 dB white noise (when 0 dB is the maximum amplitude you can get from your CD).
You pointed us to an article comparing CD's to audio DVD's, so here is why you don't need an audio DVD : firstly, the audio DVD allows you to have frequencies up to 96 kHz, but, can you hear anything between 22 kHz and 96 kHz? Most people can't hear anything past 14-16 kHz. And then, instead of having a -96.3 dB white noise, you have a -144.5 dB white noise, but as the noise you'll hear anyways will be fairly higher than those -96.3 dB, not to mention that the vinyl, even new, will have a noise level much higher than that
And the link you pointed us to is utter bullcrap anyways, the writer of this article obviously ignores such things as the Nyquist law, and makes obvious confusions with what he had to read about the MP3 compression.
I also forgot to mention that if audio in a CD is stored digitally, the output signal is as analog as it can get, in spite of the "series of steps" look of the signal, which is the reason for the -96.3 dB white noise I talked about.
Well I don't know about Tabletop RPGs, but I do know about FPS, and especially Doom, anc I can tell that it's a better time to be a Doom player than it was 10 years ago, and if you don't believe me just get yourself a multiplayer port of Doom and have fun with the numerous people playing online. Now if you think that games become less interesting as time goes by I can't do anything for you..
Julian Murdoch thinks that this is the best time ever to be a gamer
Well of course it is, as time goes by, more and more games are created, more and more consoles are created, more and more emulators are developped, and nothing disappears.
Being a gamer in 2020 > being a gamer in 2010 > being a gamer in 2005 > being a gamer in 2000 > being a gamer in 1995 > being a gamer in 1985 > being a gamer in 1975 > being a gamer in 1930.
lol, wtf, is it a way to embarass me somehow that I don't quite understand?
Don't mean to troll but since I've read that article a few monthes ago, seeing that on the front page of Slashdot gives it a Digg-esque feel.
How ironic to think that 1984 took place in London, the city of the surveillance cameras.
I was answering to "So, should a bank be forced to pay back a customer who has lost money to phishers?", and my answer was no, because of the possible fraud.
especially when a few of those technologies have are bundled with inherent dangers in addition to their great advantages (like the Internet)?
I don't mean to sound like a troll, but where on internet is the danger for a 14 year old boy? I can understand that we consider it's not safe for an 8-year old because the sight of porn could disturb him, but not a 14 year old I mean, when you're 14 usually the porn you see is what you want to see, so where's the danger? Chatting with "predators"? Again, I fail to grasp the realness of this "danger", and a few guidelines such as don't give away your name/address and don't try to meet anyone you know off the net unless you've seen them on webcam and that they're not adults should be sufficient to keep anyone perfectly safe behind your computer screen, so if someone could explain to me how Internet is such a dangerous place...
And then, the governement doesn't spy on you to protect you from such dangers as phishing, so why spy on your kids?
but also try to avoid the nastiness on the net (like the RIAA)
What.. the.. heck.. in what the RIAA is something "nasty" to your kid?
From everything I've been told about the kids in the foster system, they do best with a structured environment- something predictable and stable
You know, I think that in that structured environement, whether or not you ask him who he's chatting with is not such a crucial element, I mean it's not like your kid will lose his sense of boundaries and limits and get depressive if you do not maniacally spy on what he does on the computer.
I agree with the parent poster, and actually, that's why often teenage is often punctuated by conflicts between the teenagers and his parents, it's because parents are too slow to give the teenager the freedoms he will get sooner or later.
In my case, the only difference between when I was 14 and when I was 17 was that when I was 17 I could do anything I would have gotten in trouble for doing at 14 without getting yelled at or anything. Parents just need to adapt themselves faster or get ready to lose their influence/authority/legitimacy/respectability, I guess.
Twice in four years I've had to sit him down and say "x" is not OK and no - normal people don't do "a", "b" or "c" - especially with barnyard animals.
Agreed with the other AC poster, it's pretty 1984-esque, by doing this you're creating a mini-dictature of the right-thought. When I hear stuff like this I feel glad that my father couldn't even turn a computer on.
Once I spent three weeks in America in a host family, and one night the father of the family who just came back from the computer right after I left it came up to me and asked me "Have you visited any pornographic site on MY computer?". I can tell that it's pretty annoying and irritating to have some old redneck fool going after you to look at what you did and tell you when he doesn't like it.
And anyways your son doesn't need to be told that a woman having sex with a dog isn't "normal", telling him such things is rather a reminder that he shouldn't step outside of the area of OK-ness you arbitrarily defined, but actually that must be more humiliating than anything else.
Using WireShark, and originally Ethereal, I can see who she's talking to without taking the extra step of seeing what's being said
Without seing what's being said? You must look away from what's being said then, because no matter whether she's using MSN or AIM, you'll see her messages in clear in WireShark.
Anyways, I can tell from my personnal experience, the worst part about having a computer in your bedroom when you're a teen is not to watch porn or to have paedophiles who might cyber-rape you (lol, seriously sometimes I wonder what you guys are scared off, looks like all you parents shit on yourselves when thinking about the great dangers that await your child in the wilderness of the cyber space, and yet you guys don't worry nearly as much about what could happen in other settings such as school, I mean you guys won't monitor your kids at school to make sure they're only talking to known school mates), but rather to go to bed at 2am.
haha well, go to some ghetto and see how poor people stay in and bump uglies ;-)
I think I can trick myself into giving myself my own password
I'm afraid you have felt to see the point of my post. What I meant is that you can multiply your money by two by phishing yourself, giving yourself your own password might avoid you going through the hassle of setting up a phishing site, but that won't get you the money you fished to yourself (and thus that you keep) and the money that the bank gives you.
I didn't think my original post was THAT subtle...
What you're refering to is not very clear to me, can you please elaborate?
Excuse me but I fail to see what your comment has to do with mine, are you sure you did reply to the comment you meant to reply to?
No
If they did so, then all you'd have to do would be to set up a phishing site, be a victim of your own phishing and then be payed back by your bank.
That, and also, blah blah people blah blah stupid blah blah genetic pool blah.
Since when do recurring trolls get modded up?
we have an area about 2 large
Snap! I meant 2 degrees of arc but the degree symbol didn't come out right...
It's not that simple, mainly because the human eye's resolution isn't uniform. Basically, because of the fovea, in the center of our vision we have an area about 2 large (4 times the appearant diameter of the moon) offering us in the area a resolution of about 28" (seconds of arc), the resolution outside of this area being lower. Since it was projected on a 7 x 4 meter screen, each pixel is about 0.9 mm x 0.9 mm.
Which means that if I got my maths right, you would have to be 6.94 meters (almost 23 feet) away from the screen to have your maximum eye resolution to match the screens resolution. Farther than that the resolution of the screen would be too fine for it to be even needed.
I know this isn't a yes or no answer to your question, so to answer it we can say that if you're less than 6.94 meters away from the screen your eye resolution is still finer than the screen in some parts. Oh and someone tell me if I got my maths wrong.
Same here, right after Rise of Nations tho.
Other than that, there is a real need for broadband, I mean a lot of people really feel the need broadband. But do people feel the need for HDTV? I don't think so, my point being that most people find the resolution of their TV to be good and just enough, actually many people don't see their screen good enough from where they usually watch it with the sight they have to be able to see a greater resolution than they do already.
In other words, according to me, HDTV == luxury. Not that nobody will pick it up when it becomes trully affordable tho, I just mean that nobody really feels the need for it.
But either one does make you a bit of a prick.
Haha yeah maybe, but my point is, it's still no big deal, plus, what was quoted in the article was deprived of any context. I mean it sounds more like some people are doing whatever they can to pull a scandal out their asses than anything else.
Totally. And that's exactly why I don't get why black people get all upset when I call them the N-word.
Sounds like a point but actually it doesn't really matter, because it doesn't make what he said really racist, nor does "saying the N-word" make you automagically racist.
"I mean, they (Cubans and Puerto Ricans) are all very hot...they have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them and together that makes it,"
Big deal! I actually heard hispanics saying just the same kind of thing about themselves.
Short answer : No
Long answer : No..
I know of some wikipedia user who has a good reputation but vandalizes afrocentrism-related articles to push her personal agenda, so reputation is nothing actually. It's as if you believed in whatever scientists claim due to their reputation, as we know very well that even some reputed scientists make up some crap for non-scientifical publications from time to time for various reasons.