When the news came around for EC2's DDoS around Christmas, I remembered reading how Amazon began offering their services to third parties in the first place. Turns out Amazon has a sudden peak of traffic around shopping holidays and particularly Christmas.
To prepare for that, they have added enough hardware to handle the peak, but that hardware went unused the rest of the year. So they started leasing it to third parties in the form of their web services.
This immediately makes you think, ok, what happens to their ability to handle the third party apps around Christmas, when they need a lot more hardware to handle Amazon.com's traffic itself? And then this DDoS happened, which importantly overloaded not the actual app servers, but the DNS servers pointing to the app servers. So as a result the app servers experiences lower traffic for third party sites than they would have otherwise.
It's making me think, and this is of course just speculation, this may have possibly not be a genuine attack as much as a stunt to lessen the overload of their cloud services they knew they'd experience around Christmas, while having a plausible explanation for the downtime that blames it on a malicious third party.
Reading they do indeed have had (and still have) performance issues supports that speculation.
It's been a very ugly scene, indeed. From Spore, to Dead Space, to Mirror's Edge, to Need for Speed: Undercover, it's been one expensive commercial disappointment for EA Games after another.
Most startups fail, but this doesn't mean we don't need startups.
An advice I read somewhere said to treat every project in your company like a mini-startup. Of course, many of those projects won't become an instant cash-cow. the secret is in being flexible, quickly recognizing failure, minimizing damage and adapting.
But if the company stops trying to innovate and create fresh products, then all you're left with slow death by milking the existing franchises. And of course, man of the best franchises started small as yet-another-risky-project for the company.
From what I have seen, and I have lived in several states, the less educated and clever folks are, the more kids they tend to produce.
Education is not a genetic trait. Don't confuse cultural issues with biological ones. Take any child of these "less clever" folks, and put it in proper environment, and it'll grow to be a clever person.
The very large IPv6 address space supports a total of 2^128 (about 3.4×10^38) addresses--or approximately 5×10^28 (roughly 2^95) addresses for each of the roughly 6.5 billion (6.5×10^9) people alive in 2006. In a different perspective, this is 2^52 (about 4.5×10^15) addresses for every observable star in the known universe.
It will take way more than poor management to use up all those numbers in any timescale with meaning to a human life.
That quote from Wikipedia you pulled, is immediately followed by this:
"While these numbers are impressive, it was not the intent of the designers of the IPv6 address space to assure geographical saturation with usable addresses. Rather, the longer addresses allow a better, systematic, hierarchical allocation of addresses and efficient route aggregation."
If we could arbitrarily ignore the network structure and special ranges assigned in IPv4, we have 4.2 billion possible IP numbers (2^32). Do we have 4 billion computers on the Internet? No. Do we have IPv4 shortage? Yes. In fact we had IPv4 shortage even back in the early 90-s when Internet was far from being mainstream yet (which prompted the jump from classful network to CIDR).
As they only say that 'the bulk' is running PHP, let's assume this to be 25,000 of the 30,000. If C++ would have been used instead of PHP, then 22,500 servers could be powered down (assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code)
In order to keep math simple, let's assume a horse is a perfect sphere...
I expect that the other companies will not say anything in public that would jeopardise their ability to make a behind-closed-doors accommodation with the litigating party, or with each other to cooperatively fight. Saying "we're not guilty and we'll see you in court" out loud is as good as saying "the other party is full of sh*t" and could possibly taint settlement possibilities (?).
I suppose you're correct. It made an impression to me that GoDaddy as a small company simply had less well thought-out response than the other defendants.
What I fear is Eolas might succeed in their strategy, despite how ridiculous it is. The collection of companies they have selected appears random at first, but it was possibly specifically selected to include smaller companies which would defend themselves poorly, or big corporations which are not involved with web technology, which rather pay up and settle quickly (CityGroup, JPMorgan etc). This would give them the precedents and experience to go after the tougher opponents, like Adobe, which would fight a battle to the end, as web plugins is in fact their very business (Flash).
If you don't have a counter patent to play whack-a-mole with then it will go to court and be decided by third parties, so what you say is less important.
Unfortunately, counter patents are not applicable as Eolas is an empty shell "IP" company (i.e. a "patent troll"), which have no products on the market.
What I wonder is, we've had little information since. Reactions from the companies involved in the suit? I only heard that GoDaddy released a statement "We're not guilty and we'll defend ourselves vigorously". The other companies have withheld comment.
Wait, who said they would? At this point I'm firmly convinced that EU will continue to pursue their aggressive agenda against Microsoft, until their have a monetary incentive to do so (and a big monetary incentive at that). The sad truth is, the current outcome with the browser ballot is not what EU commission expected or hoped for, and they will seek for a formality that would allow them to fine Microsoft anyway.
And after that, come the other lawsuits. You better get ready for lots of new ballots, and Windows versions, because they're coming.
This entire idiotic situation is arising because Opera is upset that most people don't like their browser.
It would be rather ironic if this additional exposure to unsuspecting users backfires as people start sharing "avoid the Opera option in the ballot, it's bad", and that creates an overall bad image causing Opera's market share to plunge additionally.
I am an occasional Opera user (and well of all browsers, as a web dev), and appreciate its strengths, but its UI and features have a number of specifics compared to other browsers, not the least of which is a single-click file sharing server. For this type of functiona we know is a security nightmare in the hands of the average user (or unsuspectingly, their children).
The top five browsers — IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Apple's Safari — will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed
If you have any idea what a "browser" is, and which browser you need, which most people simply don't, then you wouldn't need random order to "help you" in your choice. We know what this is really about: the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users. I'll call it the casino browser installer. Make your lucky pick!
I wonder how long it would be before a bunch of lawyers make a company with a quick Firefox clone and sue EU/Microsoft for not being included in that ballot deal.
After six months of use, it seems a safe bet the chrome OS computer will run at the same speed as the first day. After a year, the windows user will need to find someone that reinstalls his system or at least cleans it up a bit. The chrome OS user will not have noticed any problem whatsoever.
This is a possible advantage, but the purchase decisions will be based on a clean install, as the users who are 6 months into their use of an OS have purchased the machine 6 months ago. So I'm not sure if this benefit can drive sales alone.
ChromeOS is about having a bare minimum of hardware required to have a smooth internet experience. It's about the proliferation of internet access, always having something nearby that will connect you to whatever you're looking for.
And that would make sense, if Chrome didn't require more resources for smooth experience than the majority of productivity software people use on their "full computers". Therein lies the problem: Google will have to pull a miracle to make ChromeOS run well on a device that would not run well, say, XP complete with Office, image editing software and even some casual games, or if we're talking ARM, then a light Linux distribution with more than a mere fullscreen browser window available.
In that light, ChromeOS is not unique or slim enough to compete in its own niche, and it's questionable why computer manufacturers would prefer to sell a ChromeOS ARM netbook instead of, say, Ubuntu's netbook distribution with Chrome or Firefox pre-installed. More value to the customers for the same money.
If Google are smart, we have not yet seen the main reason that turns ChromeOS into a desirable product. Otherwise, I guess they were simply throwing some stuff on the wall to see what sticks, as many of their other deviations.
Of the hype/panic induced by RoR marketing campaign few years ago. "The framework that obsoletes programmers, and lets anyone code web apps!". Yea well, we know how that went.
As for this particular effort, Revolution 4.0, I'm afraid guys you picked the wrong target to market to (computer geeks). We're not fooled by the verbose English syntax. It's still a pretty pedestrian scripting language from what can be seen in the examples.
The only "morals" are to maximize shareholder profits.
If that means caving in to public outcry or government pressure, they will do that.
That is correct, but the issue is, are they caving to short-term benefits (keeping people quiet about that image) versus long-term harm (setting precedents of Google filtering results when people are not happy).
There is no reason to be angry with Google's results any more than there is a reason to be angry at Kellogg's if the alphabet cereal in your bowl spelled "idiot". But if if you repeatedly demonstrate will to handcraft the results, the technical argument will no longer matter.
Is part of a "popular people morphed into monkeys" series, which has been around for a long time, and includes wide assortment of people of all races. There is no evidence of racial subtext or any other message beside, well "popular people morphed into monkeys".
What this shows is that people in US aren't a lot better when it comes to being disproportionately offended by some innocent image in the media. Good thing Google has reacted quickly in the face of, to quote CNN, "the firestorm of criticism", before people started turning cars upside down and burning Google logo flags, huh;)
My bet is he is in some remote place using SNEAKER-NET with many relays each not knowing anything about the hops before or after their own relay to get info in and out.
If smoking is as dangerous as they claim it is, people 50+ would be dying from lung problems and other smoking related problems in droves - but they're not.
In 100 smokers, 17 will die from lung cancer. In 100 non-smokers, 1 will die from lung cancer, often a second-hand smoke victim. About 87% of lung cancer in USA are caused directly by smoking.
Out of population 300 million in USA, about 11 million will die from lung cancer caused directly by smoking. That's with historically low percentage of smokers in USA, which is now about 22% on average. That's for lung cancer only, where smoking also is a major contributor to other illnesses among which heart attacks and strokes, the numbers of which probably make lung cancer deaths pale in comparison.
Do the media exaggerate? Compared to what? Swine flu has caused about 4000 deaths in USA and still we see panic-inducing coverage every day. That is exaggerating. Millions of people quietly dying from smoking caused problems is a hard number. The reason you believe people don't die "in droves" from smoking seems to be more a case of wilful ignorance on the subject.
One of the biggest reasons this country is falling apart? On his best night less than 1% of the country is watching his show. You give him way too much credit.
That 1% may be misleading. It's 3 million people, and we know the population of USE of 30 million people includes everyone (children, workforce, seniors). A fraction of those 300 million are capable of watching TV, a fraction of that fraction want to watch TV and and a percentage of that watches any TV at the time of Glenn Beck's show. Also as you know there's a high difference between viewership numbers on north and south for this particular type of show. So this is why when people say 3 million people for a daily talk show, that's strong ratings, and it's not to be ignored.
My problem with Chrome and other webkit browsers in Windows is that their non-javascript rendering is much slower than Opera, FF, and IE. Scrolling a long page in a forum drives me crazy with Chrome/Safari.
I've a side-by-side Mac and PC with comparable hardware. I see problems with Chrome/Windows, but never with Safari/Mac. There are a number of specifics about webkit running on either OS. OSX has had a consistent hardware acceleration for its 2D API for some time now, while with Windows it's been a mixed bag due to the number of changes made in the OS recently. GDI was hardware accelerated before Vista, in Vista it was completely CPU bound. In 7 it's again accelerated, but also deprecated.
Microsoft's new browser will use Windows Presentation Foundation (introduced in Vista, improved in Windows 7), which is built specifically to run best on the GPU (analogous to Quartz in OSX) and might bring comparable browsing performance on Windows as Safari does on Mac.
Once it needs to be indistinguishable, near-perfect is the only option, and suddenly storing the difference between channels is just as large as storing both channels.
FLAC uses mid-side encoding to reduce file-size. It helps. Not only with mono content. FLAC is a lossless codec.
Yes, but music is not a square wave. While there is some variation in "compressibility" (Kolmogorov complexity) the differences between various types and genres are not terribly significant. 88kbps/channel is the value established by Johnston while at AT&T, and it has held-up to all scrutiny quite well.
Oh, so 176kbps for 44k stereo came from 88kbps per channel. Jeez, too bad 99% of stereo content out there features two completely separate channels, with the audio in them not related in any way whatsoever, so, say, encoding only the difference at a lower bitrate wouldn't work.;)
The answer to the question is quite simple, and has been known since the 1980's. The rule of Perceptual Entropy is that you need a minimum bitrate of 176kbps for 44.1kHz stereo. If you're encoding below that, it can't possibly be indistinguishable from the original. ITU-R BS.1116-1 testing has proven that simple fact out over and over again.
You sound pretty sure about what you say, you must be correct. Of course you missed some little things, like the resolution of the samples (16-bit, 32-bit), who is the listener (a child, an adult? we are not all *exactly* equal, so what's the frame of reference?), what the audio contains (for ex. speech codecs will reproduce speech without perceptible loss at bitrate X, but fail at music).
Also you fail to state which masking effects does this take into account. The matter of the fact is, this is indeed a science, and it's not nearly done. New and better ways of masking content are discovered all the time, and new and better mathematical ways of describing the resulting models also are introduced all the time. Citing a single arbitrary number for bitrate, like you did, means absolutely nothing without context.
Slashdot Mirror
When the news came around for EC2's DDoS around Christmas, I remembered reading how Amazon began offering their services to third parties in the first place. Turns out Amazon has a sudden peak of traffic around shopping holidays and particularly Christmas.
To prepare for that, they have added enough hardware to handle the peak, but that hardware went unused the rest of the year. So they started leasing it to third parties in the form of their web services.
This immediately makes you think, ok, what happens to their ability to handle the third party apps around Christmas, when they need a lot more hardware to handle Amazon.com's traffic itself? And then this DDoS happened, which importantly overloaded not the actual app servers, but the DNS servers pointing to the app servers. So as a result the app servers experiences lower traffic for third party sites than they would have otherwise.
It's making me think, and this is of course just speculation, this may have possibly not be a genuine attack as much as a stunt to lessen the overload of their cloud services they knew they'd experience around Christmas, while having a plausible explanation for the downtime that blames it on a malicious third party.
Reading they do indeed have had (and still have) performance issues supports that speculation.
It's been a very ugly scene, indeed. From Spore, to Dead Space, to Mirror's Edge, to Need for Speed: Undercover, it's been one expensive commercial disappointment for EA Games after another.
Most startups fail, but this doesn't mean we don't need startups.
An advice I read somewhere said to treat every project in your company like a mini-startup. Of course, many of those projects won't become an instant cash-cow. the secret is in being flexible, quickly recognizing failure, minimizing damage and adapting.
But if the company stops trying to innovate and create fresh products, then all you're left with slow death by milking the existing franchises. And of course, man of the best franchises started small as yet-another-risky-project for the company.
48,000,000 for i hate t-mobile
1,660,000 for i hate verizon
1,330,000 for i hate at&t
361,000 for i hate vodafone
403,000,000 for i love t-mobile ...
15,900,000 for i love verizon
15,300,000 for i love at&t
I guess you clearly see what I'm trying to say here :)
From what I have seen, and I have lived in several states, the less educated and clever folks are, the more kids they tend to produce.
Education is not a genetic trait. Don't confuse cultural issues with biological ones. Take any child of these "less clever" folks, and put it in proper environment, and it'll grow to be a clever person.
In most of our lifetimes? Per Wikipedia:
The very large IPv6 address space supports a total of 2^128 (about 3.4×10^38) addresses--or approximately 5×10^28 (roughly 2^95) addresses for each of the roughly 6.5 billion (6.5×10^9) people alive in 2006. In a different perspective, this is 2^52 (about 4.5×10^15) addresses for every observable star in the known universe.
It will take way more than poor management to use up all those numbers in any timescale with meaning to a human life.
That quote from Wikipedia you pulled, is immediately followed by this:
"While these numbers are impressive, it was not the intent of the designers of the IPv6 address space to assure geographical saturation with usable addresses. Rather, the longer addresses allow a better, systematic, hierarchical allocation of addresses and efficient route aggregation."
If we could arbitrarily ignore the network structure and special ranges assigned in IPv4, we have 4.2 billion possible IP numbers (2^32). Do we have 4 billion computers on the Internet? No. Do we have IPv4 shortage? Yes. In fact we had IPv4 shortage even back in the early 90-s when Internet was far from being mainstream yet (which prompted the jump from classful network to CIDR).
As they only say that 'the bulk' is running PHP, let's assume this to be 25,000 of the 30,000. If C++ would have been used instead of PHP, then 22,500 servers could be powered down ( assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code)
In order to keep math simple, let's assume a horse is a perfect sphere...
I expect that the other companies will not say anything in public that would jeopardise their ability to make a behind-closed-doors accommodation with the litigating party, or with each other to cooperatively fight. Saying "we're not guilty and we'll see you in court" out loud is as good as saying "the other party is full of sh*t" and could possibly taint settlement possibilities (?).
I suppose you're correct. It made an impression to me that GoDaddy as a small company simply had less well thought-out response than the other defendants.
What I fear is Eolas might succeed in their strategy, despite how ridiculous it is. The collection of companies they have selected appears random at first, but it was possibly specifically selected to include smaller companies which would defend themselves poorly, or big corporations which are not involved with web technology, which rather pay up and settle quickly (CityGroup, JPMorgan etc). This would give them the precedents and experience to go after the tougher opponents, like Adobe, which would fight a battle to the end, as web plugins is in fact their very business (Flash).
If you don't have a counter patent to play whack-a-mole with then it will go to court and be decided by third parties, so what you say is less important.
Unfortunately, counter patents are not applicable as Eolas is an empty shell "IP" company (i.e. a "patent troll"), which have no products on the market.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/06/2055214/Eolas-To-Sue-Apple-Google-and-21-Others?from=rss
What I wonder is, we've had little information since. Reactions from the companies involved in the suit? I only heard that GoDaddy released a statement "We're not guilty and we'll defend ourselves vigorously". The other companies have withheld comment.
Why stop at browsers then?
Wait, who said they would? At this point I'm firmly convinced that EU will continue to pursue their aggressive agenda against Microsoft, until their have a monetary incentive to do so (and a big monetary incentive at that). The sad truth is, the current outcome with the browser ballot is not what EU commission expected or hoped for, and they will seek for a formality that would allow them to fine Microsoft anyway.
And after that, come the other lawsuits. You better get ready for lots of new ballots, and Windows versions, because they're coming.
This entire idiotic situation is arising because Opera is upset that most people don't like their browser.
It would be rather ironic if this additional exposure to unsuspecting users backfires as people start sharing "avoid the Opera option in the ballot, it's bad", and that creates an overall bad image causing Opera's market share to plunge additionally.
I am an occasional Opera user (and well of all browsers, as a web dev), and appreciate its strengths, but its UI and features have a number of specifics compared to other browsers, not the least of which is a single-click file sharing server. For this type of functiona we know is a security nightmare in the hands of the average user (or unsuspectingly, their children).
The top five browsers — IE, Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Apple's Safari — will appear in random order each time the ballot is displayed
If you have any idea what a "browser" is, and which browser you need, which most people simply don't, then you wouldn't need random order to "help you" in your choice. We know what this is really about: the other 4 browser makers hoping to gain some market share by confusing the Windows users. I'll call it the casino browser installer. Make your lucky pick!
I wonder how long it would be before a bunch of lawyers make a company with a quick Firefox clone and sue EU/Microsoft for not being included in that ballot deal.
After six months of use, it seems a safe bet the chrome OS computer will run at the same speed as the first day. After a year, the windows user will need to find someone that reinstalls his system or at least cleans it up a bit. The chrome OS user will not have noticed any problem whatsoever.
This is a possible advantage, but the purchase decisions will be based on a clean install, as the users who are 6 months into their use of an OS have purchased the machine 6 months ago. So I'm not sure if this benefit can drive sales alone.
ChromeOS is about having a bare minimum of hardware required to have a smooth internet experience. It's about the proliferation of internet access, always having something nearby that will connect you to whatever you're looking for.
And that would make sense, if Chrome didn't require more resources for smooth experience than the majority of productivity software people use on their "full computers". Therein lies the problem: Google will have to pull a miracle to make ChromeOS run well on a device that would not run well, say, XP complete with Office, image editing software and even some casual games, or if we're talking ARM, then a light Linux distribution with more than a mere fullscreen browser window available.
In that light, ChromeOS is not unique or slim enough to compete in its own niche, and it's questionable why computer manufacturers would prefer to sell a ChromeOS ARM netbook instead of, say, Ubuntu's netbook distribution with Chrome or Firefox pre-installed. More value to the customers for the same money.
If Google are smart, we have not yet seen the main reason that turns ChromeOS into a desirable product. Otherwise, I guess they were simply throwing some stuff on the wall to see what sticks, as many of their other deviations.
Of the hype/panic induced by RoR marketing campaign few years ago. "The framework that obsoletes programmers, and lets anyone code web apps!". Yea well, we know how that went.
As for this particular effort, Revolution 4.0, I'm afraid guys you picked the wrong target to market to (computer geeks). We're not fooled by the verbose English syntax. It's still a pretty pedestrian scripting language from what can be seen in the examples.
The only "morals" are to maximize shareholder profits.
If that means caving in to public outcry or government pressure, they will do that.
That is correct, but the issue is, are they caving to short-term benefits (keeping people quiet about that image) versus long-term harm (setting precedents of Google filtering results when people are not happy).
There is no reason to be angry with Google's results any more than there is a reason to be angry at Kellogg's if the alphabet cereal in your bowl spelled "idiot". But if if you repeatedly demonstrate will to handcraft the results, the technical argument will no longer matter.
Is part of a "popular people morphed into monkeys" series, which has been around for a long time, and includes wide assortment of people of all races. There is no evidence of racial subtext or any other message beside, well "popular people morphed into monkeys".
;)
What this shows is that people in US aren't a lot better when it comes to being disproportionately offended by some innocent image in the media. Good thing Google has reacted quickly in the face of, to quote CNN, "the firestorm of criticism", before people started turning cars upside down and burning Google logo flags, huh
My bet is he is in some remote place using SNEAKER-NET with many relays each not knowing anything about the hops before or after their own relay to get info in and out.
Actually, he's dead.
But I'd venture a guess it's far easier to hide such code in the noise of an innocent looking image.
If smoking is as dangerous as they claim it is, people 50+ would be dying from lung problems and other smoking related problems in droves - but they're not.
In 100 smokers, 17 will die from lung cancer. In 100 non-smokers, 1 will die from lung cancer, often a second-hand smoke victim. About 87% of lung cancer in USA are caused directly by smoking.
Out of population 300 million in USA, about 11 million will die from lung cancer caused directly by smoking. That's with historically low percentage of smokers in USA, which is now about 22% on average. That's for lung cancer only, where smoking also is a major contributor to other illnesses among which heart attacks and strokes, the numbers of which probably make lung cancer deaths pale in comparison.
Do the media exaggerate? Compared to what? Swine flu has caused about 4000 deaths in USA and still we see panic-inducing coverage every day. That is exaggerating. Millions of people quietly dying from smoking caused problems is a hard number. The reason you believe people don't die "in droves" from smoking seems to be more a case of wilful ignorance on the subject.
One of the biggest reasons this country is falling apart? On his best night less than 1% of the country is watching his show. You give him way too much credit.
That 1% may be misleading. It's 3 million people, and we know the population of USE of 30 million people includes everyone (children, workforce, seniors). A fraction of those 300 million are capable of watching TV, a fraction of that fraction want to watch TV and and a percentage of that watches any TV at the time of Glenn Beck's show. Also as you know there's a high difference between viewership numbers on north and south for this particular type of show. So this is why when people say 3 million people for a daily talk show, that's strong ratings, and it's not to be ignored.
My problem with Chrome and other webkit browsers in Windows is that their non-javascript rendering is much slower than Opera, FF, and IE. Scrolling a long page in a forum drives me crazy with Chrome/Safari.
I've a side-by-side Mac and PC with comparable hardware. I see problems with Chrome/Windows, but never with Safari/Mac. There are a number of specifics about webkit running on either OS. OSX has had a consistent hardware acceleration for its 2D API for some time now, while with Windows it's been a mixed bag due to the number of changes made in the OS recently. GDI was hardware accelerated before Vista, in Vista it was completely CPU bound. In 7 it's again accelerated, but also deprecated.
Microsoft's new browser will use Windows Presentation Foundation (introduced in Vista, improved in Windows 7), which is built specifically to run best on the GPU (analogous to Quartz in OSX) and might bring comparable browsing performance on Windows as Safari does on Mac.
Once it needs to be indistinguishable, near-perfect is the only option, and suddenly storing the difference between channels is just as large as storing both channels.
FLAC uses mid-side encoding to reduce file-size. It helps. Not only with mono content. FLAC is a lossless codec.
Yes, but music is not a square wave. While there is some variation in "compressibility" (Kolmogorov complexity) the differences between various types and genres are not terribly significant. 88kbps/channel is the value established by Johnston while at AT&T, and it has held-up to all scrutiny quite well.
Oh, so 176kbps for 44k stereo came from 88kbps per channel. Jeez, too bad 99% of stereo content out there features two completely separate channels, with the audio in them not related in any way whatsoever, so, say, encoding only the difference at a lower bitrate wouldn't work. ;)
The answer to the question is quite simple, and has been known since the 1980's. The rule of Perceptual Entropy is that you need a minimum bitrate of 176kbps for 44.1kHz stereo. If you're encoding below that, it can't possibly be indistinguishable from the original. ITU-R BS.1116-1 testing has proven that simple fact out over and over again.
You sound pretty sure about what you say, you must be correct. Of course you missed some little things, like the resolution of the samples (16-bit, 32-bit), who is the listener (a child, an adult? we are not all *exactly* equal, so what's the frame of reference?), what the audio contains (for ex. speech codecs will reproduce speech without perceptible loss at bitrate X, but fail at music).
Also you fail to state which masking effects does this take into account. The matter of the fact is, this is indeed a science, and it's not nearly done. New and better ways of masking content are discovered all the time, and new and better mathematical ways of describing the resulting models also are introduced all the time. Citing a single arbitrary number for bitrate, like you did, means absolutely nothing without context.
I'm still waiting for that 10GHz Pentium Intel promised for 2004.