Vintage music on vintage vinyl on a vintage stereo...least i haven't bought anyone in the music industry a new limo in a while:)
Well, for my part, I probably spent $1000 on vinyl over the summer. Mostly relatively new albums. I like new music, but I tend to like alternative & indie-rock, and any new stuff coming from rock & roll greats. These genres are pretty well covered on vinyl.
We can talk quality all we like but my twentysomething buddy didn't even notice the music he liked was playing from an 8-track the other day.
The quality debate drives me nuts! I know that the capabilities of a CD exceeds LP on paper. I know that a CD can give you a pristine audio experience which is impossible on vinyl. And I have heard it. Problem is, every album is different. The CDs I like are overcompressed and flat, while the same album on LP often (but admittedly not always) sound warmer and punchier. I want my music to sound as good as possible. And that seals the deal!!
Perhaps they could start doing collectable covers, multiple versions for same album, then they can get people to buy multiples of same one on purpose:O
Beck (my personal favorite artist) did the multiple album cover thing with Sea Change (all pretty crappy, though). And his latest, The Information comes with a set of stickers to let people create their own album art.:-)
They keep calling themselves record companies, which pretty much explains the problem: just like records, they are trapped way back in a time before the age of the internet.
Vinyl has its merits, and thank God record companies still publish music on this medium. I'll keep buying music on vinyl for a long time, and so will millions of other music fans. You're not going to see us represented too well on Slashdot, though.
There are two ways you can listen to music: in the background, or in the foreground. The portability of digital music is great when you want it in the background, like in your car, at the gym or on the street. But when you want to bring music more into the foreground, at home, vinyl gives you that hands-on experience which a lot of consumers happen to like.
Well, it is mildly interesting to see how interested other people are in this type of crap. There has been pro-Nintendo, anti-Sony hype for the last year. And clearly, it's hype (and/or FUD). I mean, look at this story. Sony's profits within a three-month period were affected by a bunch of batteries. Big fucking deal!
Anyway, it'll be more interesting to see how their coverage changes once the next consoles are actually out.
Also, % changes in company profits are always pointless numbers to compare. Imagine if one year, Nintendo generated $500.1m revenue on $500.0m expenses. Then the next year, they generated $550.0m revenue on $500.0m expenses. That's a 50,000% increase in profits. Does it mean anything?
I find it highly ironic that even with all the things that do work on computers, something as seemingly simple as voting has some many damn errors in it.
It has so many errors because there are so many people who have an interest in introducing errors, simple as that. No amount of flawless programming is going to stop that. I agree with you about the paper trails, though.
Hey, maybe E-voting should work like this: Once you vote, your vote is publically displayed on a website using some kind of voter ID. You can go home, look at your vote on the website and confirm that it's registered correctly. The database of every vote would be publicly available on the web, and any person with a computer could download it and independently verify the results of the votes. Although, I suppose ballot-stuffing would still be possible in that case.
Yeah no kidding. The article says that students who claim to enjoy math and feel confident in math don't perform as well as the students who dislike math. Somehow the submitter tweaked that finding into, "Good with math means bad with people."
It's not the best-written article in the world so it's easy to see how it could get misinterpreted. "In essence, happiness is overrated," is a pretty easy quote to take out of context...
Anyway, the submitter's version of the story is much more interesting, so let's keep discussing that.:-)
This article is a bunch of high-concept fluff. I work in the games industry and to me, the only problem is a productivity problem. We waste a lot of time, not because we're lazy bastards, but simply because:
We wait for the compiler.
We wait for our machines to synchronize with the latest network data.
We wait for out machines to convert the latest game data to the target platform.
We wait for the editor and tools to launch.
We waste time manually loading and manipulating the game to get to the area we are testing/working on.
We rarely use crash dumps correctly. When a rare crash is reported, we go back to our computers and waste time trying to reproduce it in the debugger.
I'm sure small projects are better than large ones. But I'm always amazed when people totally overlook the time wasted on all of the above.
I'm glad that people are talking so much about computers' heat output. The last two PC notebooks I've owned have been little heat boxes. Even my desktop machines do a good job of turning the office into a steam zone. I suppose it's nothing new - the TI-99/4A used to heat up the surrounding area pretty noticeably. In fact if you touched the top of case with your fingers, it could practically burn you.
It's nice to see with latest stuff from Intel and AMD, power consumption and heat output are considered almost as important as raw performance. I hope that trend continues. I mean, the point of owning a computer so that you can use it, and it's hard to use one when it's frickin' baking your thighs and steaming up the room like a damn sauna.
My impression is that computing resources at universities have always sucked. When I was in a computer graphics course at a school that was very reputable for Comp Sci, back in 1997, the SGI machines available to us in the lab were nearly unusable. I don't completely remember the deal, but they were slow-ass X terminals, and there weren't many of them available. My friends and I were more productive programming at home, on our Windows machines using Voodoo graphics cards, and porting our work back to the school machines using GLUT. We weren't leaving campus to learn, but we were definitely leaving campus a lot to complete our coursework.
I'm sure it's like that at nearly every school, at least for Comp Sci programs. You pay huge bucks for tuition, and use your own home resources anyway. I'm sure the off-campus students at the submitter's school have cable/DSL, and their on-campus friends just come over to use it when they need to. It's cheap, no big deal.
Anyway, you're at University to prove you can achieve your goals. You jump through whatever hoops you need to, in order to get that piece of paper. Cynical, I know.:-)
Right. According to the developer's web site (click the "Home Theater" tab), the TV is capable of 500 nits. Modern flat panel displays already exceed 300 nits. So they're not much brighter, that way.
One thing being overlooked, though, is the fact that there is no video content available which takes advantage of the expanded color gamut. Only HDMI 1.3 has gamut capabilities approaching that of these laser displays, and it's not even out yet. I wonder how the displays will handle limited video signals? Just stretch the color information to fit the available gamut?
Apparently, this guy already saw the TV in action and was pretty impressed:
The laser TV made the plasma look like an old console colour
TV. It was so good, the only way i could describe it was that it
looked like a wet photo in a developer tray - if you haven't done
photography, that may not mean alot. But the colour depth and
contrast, especially the space shuttle shots where space was
REALLY black, and you could see the gold foil crinkles in the
cargo bay, was amazing.
His post is a comment on another news story about the technology. Of course, take it with a grain of salt since nothing stops a company's marketing guy from posting as Joe Internet.
Damn. Good point! Makes you think: Not only is DNA a blueprint, but it's an inseparable part of the thing it blueprints. That strikes me as pretty damn efficient, too. I guess all I'm saying is I got a lot of respect for nature... It seems to know what it's doing.
All right, I don't really believe that CDs killed dynamic range. I believe that the people using CD technology to master any type of music, aside from jazz or classical, have gradually stopped taking advantage of the dynamic range available to them. I'm basing the belief on articles like this and personal experience, comparing my own favorite artists' recent work on CD versus vinyl.
Show some respect, humanity and learn how to properly express it.
Most of the people who post jokes are showing heaps of humanity and respect for each other, their peers who read Slashdot, by demonstrating that even though there are murderers in the world, the majority of us are still not insane. That's comforting.
You probably don't care and think that its not that big a deal to not give a rats ass about someone else's life.
Do you actually think there is a single person on Slashdot who has never grieved over the loss of a loved one?
Almost any game, except tennis, basketball, hackey sack, charades, Pictionary, Balderdash, Jenga, 20 Questions, paintball, the Tour de France, dueling banjos, battle rap, programming competitions, golf, frisbee, who can pick up the hottest woman, or who can get the most +5 posts on Slashdot.
Freebird has a special place in Guitar Hero lore, since in the first game, one of the loading screens said: "They don't really want you to play 'Freebird'. They're just heckling you."
I think it's the final song of Guitar Hero 2 because it's meant to be a 10-minute endurance marathon. If they don't increase the difficulty of the solos, I'm guessing they'll at least spruce them up with some really challenging key combos. When people talk about GH2, it'll be like, "I know a guy who actually finished Freebird on Expert!"
everything else improves. why cant we improve on food.
Not everything else improves. Music CD technology came out and eventually killed dynamic range. Digital cable came out and we lost the ability to flip quickly through channels. Wide screen TV's came out and now everyone watches their favorite shows with all the actors' faces all stretched.
In medicine, you can say we've made progress, but now we have doctors over-recommending surgery for basic conditions. And psychiatrists prescribing Paxil and SSRI's to anyone who feels a little stressed.
Why exactly is food contrary to everything else, natural is the least efficient.
This may be the worst thing I've ever read on Slashdot. Nature is the least efficient way of making food? Look at the way a seed turns into a plant which gives us fruit. Or look at how any animal comes into being. A damn egg turns into a live chicken. Nature does all of these things without following a single blueprint. And you call it inefficient?
I like games where you actually develop a motor skill by virtue of playing it. Those are the most satisfying. In each of those 5 games, I remember starting the game as an inept clod, then gradually having my fingers learn what to do, and finally becoming good at it.
I suppose that's what a lot of gamers mean when they say they play games for 'gameplay', as opposed to some of the other commonly cited reasons, like graphics or story.
You never gave an explanation of the chain of events of how this amalmagation occurs.
I didn't feel like it. If you aren't convinced that the guy who wants to get a reaction out of the group is essentially subservient to that group, it's not a big problem for me.
We're only talking about web discussions. The most you can accomplish from knowing the group ideology in a web discussion is to make the group either like you (by posturing) or dislike you (by flaming). You're not taking anything away from them.
If I happen to know that group x thinks idea y is either good or bad I can exploit group x's perceptions by putting idea y in a good or bad light and thus either antagonize the group or in the case of/. be modded up for basking the idea in the light of the groups preconceptions.
Sure, but if you do that, then whatever you do or say is strictly a product of whatever the group happens to think. And if that's the case, it sounds more like the group is controlling you; not the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
First time I laughed throughout this whole thread.
Well, for my part, I probably spent $1000 on vinyl over the summer. Mostly relatively new albums. I like new music, but I tend to like alternative & indie-rock, and any new stuff coming from rock & roll greats. These genres are pretty well covered on vinyl.
The quality debate drives me nuts! I know that the capabilities of a CD exceeds LP on paper. I know that a CD can give you a pristine audio experience which is impossible on vinyl. And I have heard it. Problem is, every album is different. The CDs I like are overcompressed and flat, while the same album on LP often (but admittedly not always) sound warmer and punchier. I want my music to sound as good as possible. And that seals the deal!!
Beck (my personal favorite artist) did the multiple album cover thing with Sea Change (all pretty crappy, though). And his latest, The Information comes with a set of stickers to let people create their own album art. :-)
Vinyl has its merits, and thank God record companies still publish music on this medium. I'll keep buying music on vinyl for a long time, and so will millions of other music fans. You're not going to see us represented too well on Slashdot, though.
There are two ways you can listen to music: in the background, or in the foreground. The portability of digital music is great when you want it in the background, like in your car, at the gym or on the street. But when you want to bring music more into the foreground, at home, vinyl gives you that hands-on experience which a lot of consumers happen to like.
Well, it is mildly interesting to see how interested other people are in this type of crap. There has been pro-Nintendo, anti-Sony hype for the last year. And clearly, it's hype (and/or FUD). I mean, look at this story. Sony's profits within a three-month period were affected by a bunch of batteries. Big fucking deal!
Anyway, it'll be more interesting to see how their coverage changes once the next consoles are actually out.
Also, % changes in company profits are always pointless numbers to compare. Imagine if one year, Nintendo generated $500.1m revenue on $500.0m expenses. Then the next year, they generated $550.0m revenue on $500.0m expenses. That's a 50,000% increase in profits. Does it mean anything?
It has so many errors because there are so many people who have an interest in introducing errors, simple as that. No amount of flawless programming is going to stop that. I agree with you about the paper trails, though.
Hey, maybe E-voting should work like this: Once you vote, your vote is publically displayed on a website using some kind of voter ID. You can go home, look at your vote on the website and confirm that it's registered correctly. The database of every vote would be publicly available on the web, and any person with a computer could download it and independently verify the results of the votes. Although, I suppose ballot-stuffing would still be possible in that case.
Yeah no kidding. The article says that students who claim to enjoy math and feel confident in math don't perform as well as the students who dislike math. Somehow the submitter tweaked that finding into, "Good with math means bad with people."
It's not the best-written article in the world so it's easy to see how it could get misinterpreted. "In essence, happiness is overrated," is a pretty easy quote to take out of context...
Anyway, the submitter's version of the story is much more interesting, so let's keep discussing that. :-)
This article is a bunch of high-concept fluff. I work in the games industry and to me, the only problem is a productivity problem. We waste a lot of time, not because we're lazy bastards, but simply because:
I'm sure small projects are better than large ones. But I'm always amazed when people totally overlook the time wasted on all of the above.
I'm glad that people are talking so much about computers' heat output. The last two PC notebooks I've owned have been little heat boxes. Even my desktop machines do a good job of turning the office into a steam zone. I suppose it's nothing new - the TI-99/4A used to heat up the surrounding area pretty noticeably. In fact if you touched the top of case with your fingers, it could practically burn you.
It's nice to see with latest stuff from Intel and AMD, power consumption and heat output are considered almost as important as raw performance. I hope that trend continues. I mean, the point of owning a computer so that you can use it, and it's hard to use one when it's frickin' baking your thighs and steaming up the room like a damn sauna.
My impression is that computing resources at universities have always sucked. When I was in a computer graphics course at a school that was very reputable for Comp Sci, back in 1997, the SGI machines available to us in the lab were nearly unusable. I don't completely remember the deal, but they were slow-ass X terminals, and there weren't many of them available. My friends and I were more productive programming at home, on our Windows machines using Voodoo graphics cards, and porting our work back to the school machines using GLUT. We weren't leaving campus to learn, but we were definitely leaving campus a lot to complete our coursework.
:-)
I'm sure it's like that at nearly every school, at least for Comp Sci programs. You pay huge bucks for tuition, and use your own home resources anyway. I'm sure the off-campus students at the submitter's school have cable/DSL, and their on-campus friends just come over to use it when they need to. It's cheap, no big deal.
Anyway, you're at University to prove you can achieve your goals. You jump through whatever hoops you need to, in order to get that piece of paper. Cynical, I know.
Right. According to the developer's web site (click the "Home Theater" tab), the TV is capable of 500 nits. Modern flat panel displays already exceed 300 nits. So they're not much brighter, that way.
One thing being overlooked, though, is the fact that there is no video content available which takes advantage of the expanded color gamut. Only HDMI 1.3 has gamut capabilities approaching that of these laser displays, and it's not even out yet. I wonder how the displays will handle limited video signals? Just stretch the color information to fit the available gamut?
Apparently, this guy already saw the TV in action and was pretty impressed:
His post is a comment on another news story about the technology. Of course, take it with a grain of salt since nothing stops a company's marketing guy from posting as Joe Internet.
Damn. Good point! Makes you think: Not only is DNA a blueprint, but it's an inseparable part of the thing it blueprints. That strikes me as pretty damn efficient, too. I guess all I'm saying is I got a lot of respect for nature... It seems to know what it's doing.
All right, I don't really believe that CDs killed dynamic range. I believe that the people using CD technology to master any type of music, aside from jazz or classical, have gradually stopped taking advantage of the dynamic range available to them. I'm basing the belief on articles like this and personal experience, comparing my own favorite artists' recent work on CD versus vinyl.
As for "HD Radio", never heard of it.
Most of the people who post jokes are showing heaps of humanity and respect for each other, their peers who read Slashdot, by demonstrating that even though there are murderers in the world, the majority of us are still not insane. That's comforting.
Do you actually think there is a single person on Slashdot who has never grieved over the loss of a loved one?
Almost any game, except tennis, basketball, hackey sack, charades, Pictionary, Balderdash, Jenga, 20 Questions, paintball, the Tour de France, dueling banjos, battle rap, programming competitions, golf, frisbee, who can pick up the hottest woman, or who can get the most +5 posts on Slashdot.
Not only that, but we already have a solution to the urban transportation problem!
My mom might be reading.
Freebird has a special place in Guitar Hero lore, since in the first game, one of the loading screens said: "They don't really want you to play 'Freebird'. They're just heckling you."
I think it's the final song of Guitar Hero 2 because it's meant to be a 10-minute endurance marathon. If they don't increase the difficulty of the solos, I'm guessing they'll at least spruce them up with some really challenging key combos. When people talk about GH2, it'll be like, "I know a guy who actually finished Freebird on Expert!"
I wonder how (if?) they're going to censor the lyrics at the end of "Killing in the Name Of".
Not everything else improves. Music CD technology came out and eventually killed dynamic range. Digital cable came out and we lost the ability to flip quickly through channels. Wide screen TV's came out and now everyone watches their favorite shows with all the actors' faces all stretched.
In medicine, you can say we've made progress, but now we have doctors over-recommending surgery for basic conditions. And psychiatrists prescribing Paxil and SSRI's to anyone who feels a little stressed.
This may be the worst thing I've ever read on Slashdot. Nature is the least efficient way of making food? Look at the way a seed turns into a plant which gives us fruit. Or look at how any animal comes into being. A damn egg turns into a live chicken. Nature does all of these things without following a single blueprint. And you call it inefficient?
Mine are:
I like games where you actually develop a motor skill by virtue of playing it. Those are the most satisfying. In each of those 5 games, I remember starting the game as an inept clod, then gradually having my fingers learn what to do, and finally becoming good at it.
I suppose that's what a lot of gamers mean when they say they play games for 'gameplay', as opposed to some of the other commonly cited reasons, like graphics or story.
I didn't feel like it. If you aren't convinced that the guy who wants to get a reaction out of the group is essentially subservient to that group, it's not a big problem for me.
We're only talking about web discussions. The most you can accomplish from knowing the group ideology in a web discussion is to make the group either like you (by posturing) or dislike you (by flaming). You're not taking anything away from them.
Sure, but if you do that, then whatever you do or say is strictly a product of whatever the group happens to think. And if that's the case, it sounds more like the group is controlling you; not the other way around.