If it's due to negligence then yes I completely agree. It's all well and good to blame the engineer if the design is flawed due to incompetence. However, if it's because of pressure from above to ignore security issues, or go with the cheapest option rather than the best option and push forward with bad design then those making that decision should be held accountable.
Exactly. The failure is in the ability to communicate value in spending. C level people rarely understand technology enough to properly communicate the risk and benefit of security. It just isn't typically in their wheel house. This is why people in security who really understand both need to be vocal in communicating both to those who interact with the shareholders.
I wonder how much of their ad revenue they give back to providers of that content. I'm not necessarily talking about up-loaders, but content creators. Because without them there would be no audience. I watch music videos mostly. I add stuff to my playlist so I can click and fall asleep to it. I'm constantly running across videos that have been taken down. If youtube was fairly treating these content providers rather than trying to see what they can get away with the service would be more valuable, the people who actually create the content would be happy and this might have a viable future.
I'll say this. I was pretty nervous about voting for Trump. I'm much less nervous now that I've seen what he's doing. I had known evidence that Hillary was crooked as the day is long. Her and her husband have amassed irrefutable proof of their corruption over the years. With Trump he said some things I didn't really agree with and had no political experience but stack that up against the other option and it was a clear and obvious choice in my mind.
The problem isn't that the source is digital. Studio quality digital has a high enough resolution that it captures the nuances lost in translation to mainstream distribution methods. Be it MP3, or CD there is loss, and that loss makes for a poorer recording. That's the attraction of vinyl is that you get back what's been lost in digital copies. Vinyl has problems. It wears with every play, surface noise, portability, etc. It's not the most desirable means of distribution. Now DVD-A, or BluRay audio is much better, but it's not as common. I believe the reason it's not common is because you'd have a near perfect copy that will last a lot longer than a record, and record companies want you to keep repeatedly buying the same recordings.
it only matters if you're talking about necessities. No one NEEDS cable TV. They're raising the price to compensate for people leaving, so what's going to wind up happening is even more people are going to leave, and they're going to make even less. I find it very amusing.
I think it depends on what era you're talking about. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s it was all tape in the studio. In the 80s we started to see digital recordings and the resolution has increased over time. Recording to recording the quality is very dependent on the engineer. I love Alan Parsons. And he lives in both worlds recognizing the benefits of both analogue and digital. Eye In The Sky is an amazing album which was recorded with a hybrid of analog and digital equipment. I have it on CD, BluRay Audio, and vinyl. They all sound good. I prefer the vinyl but the bluray sounds amazing too in 5.1. A Valid Path was all recorded digitally I have it on DVD-A and CD. The DVD-A sounds better because it's a higher resolution. He produced Dark Side of the Moon. Listen to the vinyl (a new copy, not one that's been played a bazillion times) vs the CD. There's no contest. The vinyl has details that are simply lost in the transfer to CD.
Much of today's pop is over compressed crap to start with. So you're right. If you take that and put it on vinyl there will be no improvement and it will still sound like the crap that it is. Additionally, if you take something that's CD quality and transfer it to vinyl all you've added is all the bad of vinyl with no sound improvement (Capital records I'm looking at you).
You make a few valid points regarding the room and speakers, but I have to disagree about ditching the vinyl. The resolution does matter on a good system. I can hear the difference. The algorithm used to convert analogue to digital has to make decisions about what constitutes a 1 vs a 0. In that transaction there is loss. The greater the resolution the less the loss but none of it is lossless. I had a Firepod FP10 that did 96/24 and used that to record my vinyl in wav files. Yes they're big (about 2G per album at 96/24) but they're on an 8T drive. Last year I got a MOTU 828 that does 192/24. I'm pretty happy with it. Happy enough to spend 8 months recording everything in again (over 1000 records). It seems to be better but honestly side by side it's very hard to tell the difference between 192/24 and 96/24 and in that regard you have another valid point about what's good enough. I'm not sure it was worth the money or the time, but I have it now and it sounds good. Now if I take those files and down convert them to make a CD it sounds as good as any other CD. But play the original CD side by side with the wav files? Oh man, the difference is incredible to me. I hear details in the vinyl that are simply lost or more buried in the mix on the CD. It's not as clear on the CD particularly on the mid low end of the audio spectrum. MP3s at 320k are even worse than CD. There are artifacts with vinyl like surface noise, slight hum from the turntable at extraordinary high volume, the occasional pop and click but I put up with that because the audio reproduction sounds so much better to me.
No Sony does not make good stuff anymore in my opinion. Not since the 80s. I had one that was about $600 retail and it was junk. Lots of distortion, poor noise floor, and the construction wasn't very good either. Had to have it serviced twice due to the speaker selector cutting out and the power button not working. I have an Onkyo now, and it's ok but it has it's issues too. It's a model TX NR5009 and I paid around 2k for it. HDMI board went out just outside the warranty. They covered it, but I had to fight about it. It runs really hot. Like you could cook on it. They've had issues with some of their models catching fire. It uses no power when idle as long as I turn off the zone outputs. If I turn off the UPS it kills everything in the rack. I'm almost ready to go with Marantz separates, but not quite prepared to drop 5k.
Great point about Monster cable. Incredibly over priced and there's really not much special about it. 14 gage wire is 14 gage wire.
Similar to what I do. I have an app called Whitelist Call Blocker. When it's running only people in my contacts will ring through. Everything else gets disconnected. Since I installed that app I hardly ever get spam calls now.
Hate speech has been severely redefined over the years. It's one thing to state your opinion, it's another thing to crossover into threatening others or inciting violence. The latter in my mind should be limited. Even if I disagree with someone I still think they have the right to their opinion. For example if I say I believe a particular lifestyle choice is sinful because of my religious beliefs who have I harmed? Yet in some circles that's classified as hate speech. Even though I have no intention of harming anyone and never suggested violence would be an appropriate solution. Even in instances of racism, which I'm vehemently opposed to, if someone is stating their opinion and not threatening anyone else I don't feel that should be censored.
Payable to the individual who experienced the loss. I'll never understand how the government fines companies on our behalf, but then none of that money goes toward mitigating the real damage. If your identity is stolen because of it they should be liable for all of the costs to clean it up. Including your time.
You are confusing free speech with censorship. Google claims to be a company that respects diverse opinions and is tolerant. However, as with most liberals their tolerance only extends to what they feel is correct.
On the one hand she was crossing illegally. However, if a human had been driving would they have seen her and been able to stop in time? It seems like these automated vehicles rely on certain assumptions and this is one example of what can happen when faced with the unpredictable circumstances that can happen on the road. Until automation has a way to make provisions for these sorts of things these automated vehicles shouldn't be on the road.
It's a common logical fallacy. It happened after we were there. Therefore, it must have been because of us. Never mind that the whole reason we went there in the first place was to stabilize the ongoing conflict.
All things are possible when you own a politician. Ajit Pai has been owned for a long time. Everyone knows it. Hopefully he gets busted down a bit along with all who participated.
Slashdot Mirror
Please tell me this means that I'll be able to get pre-made reels, or blank tapes at a reasonable price. What a time to be alive!
If it's due to negligence then yes I completely agree. It's all well and good to blame the engineer if the design is flawed due to incompetence. However, if it's because of pressure from above to ignore security issues, or go with the cheapest option rather than the best option and push forward with bad design then those making that decision should be held accountable.
Exactly. The failure is in the ability to communicate value in spending. C level people rarely understand technology enough to properly communicate the risk and benefit of security. It just isn't typically in their wheel house. This is why people in security who really understand both need to be vocal in communicating both to those who interact with the shareholders.
I wonder how much of their ad revenue they give back to providers of that content. I'm not necessarily talking about up-loaders, but content creators. Because without them there would be no audience. I watch music videos mostly. I add stuff to my playlist so I can click and fall asleep to it. I'm constantly running across videos that have been taken down. If youtube was fairly treating these content providers rather than trying to see what they can get away with the service would be more valuable, the people who actually create the content would be happy and this might have a viable future.
I'll say this. I was pretty nervous about voting for Trump. I'm much less nervous now that I've seen what he's doing. I had known evidence that Hillary was crooked as the day is long. Her and her husband have amassed irrefutable proof of their corruption over the years. With Trump he said some things I didn't really agree with and had no political experience but stack that up against the other option and it was a clear and obvious choice in my mind.
The problem isn't that the source is digital. Studio quality digital has a high enough resolution that it captures the nuances lost in translation to mainstream distribution methods. Be it MP3, or CD there is loss, and that loss makes for a poorer recording. That's the attraction of vinyl is that you get back what's been lost in digital copies. Vinyl has problems. It wears with every play, surface noise, portability, etc. It's not the most desirable means of distribution. Now DVD-A, or BluRay audio is much better, but it's not as common. I believe the reason it's not common is because you'd have a near perfect copy that will last a lot longer than a record, and record companies want you to keep repeatedly buying the same recordings.
it only matters if you're talking about necessities. No one NEEDS cable TV. They're raising the price to compensate for people leaving, so what's going to wind up happening is even more people are going to leave, and they're going to make even less. I find it very amusing.
Not all. Check out what Dave Grohl is doing with Studio 606.
I think it depends on what era you're talking about. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s it was all tape in the studio. In the 80s we started to see digital recordings and the resolution has increased over time. Recording to recording the quality is very dependent on the engineer. I love Alan Parsons. And he lives in both worlds recognizing the benefits of both analogue and digital. Eye In The Sky is an amazing album which was recorded with a hybrid of analog and digital equipment. I have it on CD, BluRay Audio, and vinyl. They all sound good. I prefer the vinyl but the bluray sounds amazing too in 5.1. A Valid Path was all recorded digitally I have it on DVD-A and CD. The DVD-A sounds better because it's a higher resolution. He produced Dark Side of the Moon. Listen to the vinyl (a new copy, not one that's been played a bazillion times) vs the CD. There's no contest. The vinyl has details that are simply lost in the transfer to CD.
Much of today's pop is over compressed crap to start with. So you're right. If you take that and put it on vinyl there will be no improvement and it will still sound like the crap that it is. Additionally, if you take something that's CD quality and transfer it to vinyl all you've added is all the bad of vinyl with no sound improvement (Capital records I'm looking at you).
You make a few valid points regarding the room and speakers, but I have to disagree about ditching the vinyl. The resolution does matter on a good system. I can hear the difference. The algorithm used to convert analogue to digital has to make decisions about what constitutes a 1 vs a 0. In that transaction there is loss. The greater the resolution the less the loss but none of it is lossless. I had a Firepod FP10 that did 96/24 and used that to record my vinyl in wav files. Yes they're big (about 2G per album at 96/24) but they're on an 8T drive. Last year I got a MOTU 828 that does 192/24. I'm pretty happy with it. Happy enough to spend 8 months recording everything in again (over 1000 records). It seems to be better but honestly side by side it's very hard to tell the difference between 192/24 and 96/24 and in that regard you have another valid point about what's good enough. I'm not sure it was worth the money or the time, but I have it now and it sounds good. Now if I take those files and down convert them to make a CD it sounds as good as any other CD. But play the original CD side by side with the wav files? Oh man, the difference is incredible to me. I hear details in the vinyl that are simply lost or more buried in the mix on the CD. It's not as clear on the CD particularly on the mid low end of the audio spectrum. MP3s at 320k are even worse than CD. There are artifacts with vinyl like surface noise, slight hum from the turntable at extraordinary high volume, the occasional pop and click but I put up with that because the audio reproduction sounds so much better to me.
No Sony does not make good stuff anymore in my opinion. Not since the 80s. I had one that was about $600 retail and it was junk. Lots of distortion, poor noise floor, and the construction wasn't very good either. Had to have it serviced twice due to the speaker selector cutting out and the power button not working. I have an Onkyo now, and it's ok but it has it's issues too. It's a model TX NR5009 and I paid around 2k for it. HDMI board went out just outside the warranty. They covered it, but I had to fight about it. It runs really hot. Like you could cook on it. They've had issues with some of their models catching fire. It uses no power when idle as long as I turn off the zone outputs. If I turn off the UPS it kills everything in the rack. I'm almost ready to go with Marantz separates, but not quite prepared to drop 5k.
Great point about Monster cable. Incredibly over priced and there's really not much special about it. 14 gage wire is 14 gage wire.
Similar to what I do. I have an app called Whitelist Call Blocker. When it's running only people in my contacts will ring through. Everything else gets disconnected. Since I installed that app I hardly ever get spam calls now.
Hate speech has been severely redefined over the years. It's one thing to state your opinion, it's another thing to crossover into threatening others or inciting violence. The latter in my mind should be limited. Even if I disagree with someone I still think they have the right to their opinion. For example if I say I believe a particular lifestyle choice is sinful because of my religious beliefs who have I harmed? Yet in some circles that's classified as hate speech. Even though I have no intention of harming anyone and never suggested violence would be an appropriate solution. Even in instances of racism, which I'm vehemently opposed to, if someone is stating their opinion and not threatening anyone else I don't feel that should be censored.
Payable to the individual who experienced the loss. I'll never understand how the government fines companies on our behalf, but then none of that money goes toward mitigating the real damage. If your identity is stolen because of it they should be liable for all of the costs to clean it up. Including your time.
How could this possibly happen? I thought California had strict gun control.
Yes. Ban the tool because it could be used for illegal purposes. This reminds me of something else.
-1 = no sense of humor.
I liked it better when corporations were afraid of the Internet and didn't want anything to do with it.
You are confusing free speech with censorship. Google claims to be a company that respects diverse opinions and is tolerant. However, as with most liberals their tolerance only extends to what they feel is correct.
On the one hand she was crossing illegally. However, if a human had been driving would they have seen her and been able to stop in time? It seems like these automated vehicles rely on certain assumptions and this is one example of what can happen when faced with the unpredictable circumstances that can happen on the road. Until automation has a way to make provisions for these sorts of things these automated vehicles shouldn't be on the road.
It's a common logical fallacy. It happened after we were there. Therefore, it must have been because of us. Never mind that the whole reason we went there in the first place was to stabilize the ongoing conflict.
Since the information came from Alphabet, they probably assumed the government already knew.
This independent study brought to you by Big Pharma.
Is it legal to shoot innocent people? If laws were to stop this sort of thing from happening you'd think the existing laws would be adequate.
All things are possible when you own a politician. Ajit Pai has been owned for a long time. Everyone knows it. Hopefully he gets busted down a bit along with all who participated.
Of course not. They'll show you the innocuous data to put you at ease after it's already been sent.