Like most respondents I use each as the information is suited to it. I still haven't seen a nice and succinct description of the difference and I find it hard to articulate off the cuff.
Anyway, I changed my Firefox Location Bar keywords (Quicksearches) to make each easy:
The encouragement of technologies that are under the control of self-serving corporations has some negative impact on the world. Maybe we think it's a small impact...
``... In a village, 100 people are about to eat lunch. Each has
a bowl containing 100 beans. Suddenly, 100 hungry bandits swoop
down on the village. Each bandit takes the contents of the bowl
of one villager, eats it, and gallops off. Next week, the
bandits plan to do it again, but one of their number is
afflicted by doubts about whether it is right to steal from the
poor. These doubts are set to rest by another of their number
who proposes that each bandit, instead of eating the entire
contents of the bowl of one villager, should take one bean from
every villager's bowl. Since the loss of one bean cannot make a
perceptible difference to any villager, no bandit will have
harmed anyone. The bandits follow this plan, each taking a
solitary bean from 100 bowls. The villagers are just as hungry
as they were the previous week, but the bandits can all sleep
well on their full stomachs, knowing that none of them has
harmed anyone.''
On the other side, metaphorically, putting in a little effort to make use of a free format is like converting from a bandit to a villager who will harvest his own food. This gives us the other end of the spectrum using the same "lever:" Many hands make light work. Enough villagers working in concert produces much benefit for little effort.
Thus The Value Of Ogg
So the value of Ogg is not merely that it serves you better as a more sophisticated, capable, and high-quality format. It serves us all.
Good examples of working together: Linux, (Free|Net|Open|Dragonfly)BSD, the vast array of GNU software, Apache... there's a lot to choose from. Good examples of self-service: Unisys LZW, RSA afflicting HTTPS (do you recall?), video drivers, one click shopping, http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/, spam
Paranoia
Sadly, many of us don't realize that working for the common good helps us individually, seeing the excellence of achievement in combat, in fighting one another, as the proof that not only does good come from competition, but that other methods are flawed.
This thinking is facilitated by the expectation of others to be self-serving. It's a feedback loop that actually starts early on with inconstant parenting and being bullied at school. We learn not to trust others, and so become self-serving, thereby making real the expectation that others are not generous by embodying it ourselves. Even if we're behaved enough not to send spam we contribute in small ways through our self-service to the starvation of villagers. Even if we're behaved enough to follow the rules we can still do harm -- legality is not morality.
Choice
This is what I think about promoting MP3 because it "works for me."
Instead, I use as much open source and GPL'd and Creative Commons and patent unencumbered technology as I can. Some things take a little more effort, but not that much. I've got all I need, and things keep getting better. Because of all the like-minded users and developers.
And I'm still waiting for the AC to post evidence of his claim about how his *private*, SSL encrypted SMTP server was listed on this crummy list as an "open relay".
Makes me want to go making false claims to propagandize my unreasoned prejudices too. Yay.
Of course, instead I work hard to try to clean that kind of crap out of my communication.
Hm, appears the canonical test address is 127.0.0.2: % host -t txt 2.0.0.127.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org 2.0.0.127.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org descriptive text "http://www.spamhaus.org/SBL/sbl.lasso?query=SBL23 3" 2.0.0.127.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org descriptive text "http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=127.0.0.2"
Ignore the IP of the probably compromised Argentinian machine that I used earlier. Probably just some poor shmuck running Windows without a firewall.
Now, I already changed it to look up 4.3.2.1.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org.uk...
Did you already change it? You might want to hold off until the new domain starts answering. Otherwise you've effectively unconfigured your list checking. Maybe you meant you added the new domain?
% host -t txt 139.4.49.190.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org 139.4.49.190.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org descriptive text "http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=190.49.4.139" % host -t txt 139.4.49.190.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org.uk Host not found, try again.
Or maybe instead you should tell your name resolver explicitly that the authority for spamhaus.org is:
spamhaus.org. 1d23h58m12s IN NS udns1.ultradns.net.
spamhaus.org. 1d23h58m12s IN NS hq-ns.oarc.isc.org.
spamhaus.org. 1d23h58m12s IN NS ns8.spamhaus.org.
spamhaus.org. 1d23h58m12s IN NS udns2.ultradns.net.
(with appropriate IPs) and just leave your mail config using spamhaus.org. (If they leave the spamhaus.org domain configured regardless of root level authority-reference elision.)
The domain of my *private*, SSL encrypted SMTP server was listed on this crummy list as an "open relay" despite the fact that it's been running for nearly a decade and has *never* been an open relay.
I'm interested in learning more about Spamhaus for potential use, but am concerned about rumors of inappropriate listing. Can you help me get details on your specific case? Maybe the IP of that server?
Are you referring to Spamhaus's list when you say "this crummy list?"
I think it's not they that are being honored as much as the spirit and institution of the series.
I can see where your sympathy is coming from and I, too, have some for the original effects artists if they might be upset by this. I think it would be awesome if some of them were actually working on this newer version, though I think the chances are slim.
Pedantry! Now I know what my friends feel like when I mention useless technicalities. (I apologize.)
Since we're off the trail and in the bushes, all analog representations of analog sound have some loss.
There is no such thing as perfect lossless.
Instead, "lossless" has a specific meaning in audio circles that does not include "perfectly exact representation of the original signal." Referring to "lossless" as meaning that in the context of an audio technology discussion abuses the jargon.:P
Yes, this is why I said "notice that the graph you point to begins to converge towards our climate with the advent of creatures like us."
Did you even read my comment? So when you say "did you even look at the graph," after my referencing detail in said graph, does that indicate a disingenuous attempt to paint me as not being earnest and diligent, an ironic failure on your part to do the diligence of reading my post, a flippant and misleading way of saying "you must not have understood the graph," or something else I haven't guessed at? If you're being intentionally not nice, please be nice instead.
50 million is not too long ago in relative terms.
Relative terms? Relative to what? 50M years ago saw the advent of proto-primates. So in terms relative to creatures like us, it's greater, not even fractional. Grasses hadn't even evolved yet. I wouldn't say that's "not too long ago."
Note that the levels you mention (referring to the disputedly-viewed graph) are in relation to the Quaternary values, referring to values over the last 2 million years. So the graph is saying, as you read it, that relative to the last 2 million years the earth experienced 4x the levels 50M years ago. I'll agree with that reading.
Speaking also in relation to the Quaternary period, we're on our way to pushing 2x. For the past 2M years, we've had between 200-300ppmv. Now we have 380. And if you look at how the graph is shaped, you get the distinct impression it's not on its way down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_ 400kyr.png
If the last time the earth experienced our current levels there were saber-toothed tigers running around, you can be assured that things were pretty different. I admit that it's scary to me to see that we're out of our 2M year groove. Now extend the "Carbon Dioxide Variations" graph just another 70 years and we're about at that 4x level again, which we haven't hit in 50M years. In maybe your lifetime we'll be at the same CO2 levels as from before grass existed.
Everything counts in large amounts. Walk more, for starters.
Do you think that the earth 500 million years ago was very hospitable to things like us?
600 million years ago, the earth's oceans are said to have frozen over almost completely. You've gone out to geologic timescales now.
I think you're reaching.
Things were nutty back then, and over those scales. But notice that the graph you point to begins to converge towards our climate with the advent of creatures like us. I wouldn't be surprised to find the mass extinctions correllated to the spikes in the graph. (Whatever the causal direction.)
I don't care much if a 10x CO2 level is ideal for pre-Cambrian sponges.
Obviously many people like to bash Ogg. Here are some ideas why this is the case:
previous appreciation of MP3 causes self-identification with MP3
investment in personal MP3 infrastructure demands that other answers be wrong
worry at being "wrong" increases bitter backlash against I-told-you-so's
If you find any one of these things to be true, maybe take a moment to analyze your stance? If you find your first reaction to positive comments on Ogg to be one of anger, maybe do that analysis?
If there's anyone out there who dislikes Ogg and who isn't attached to MP3, it would be good to get your perspective. Please speak out.
It doesn't help that advocates of Ogg often have strong opinions about the values of using Ogg. But don't let another person's attitude deflect you from really thinking through Ogg's value for yourself. Having a chip-on-your-shoulder reaction is the essence of fanboyism.
The quality is comparable. The hardware/processing footprint is comparable. There are no technical downsides. (Don't correct me to tell me how Ogg is much better -- I'm understating the point for a reason.) Ogg detractors often get these points wrong. Unapologetically unresearched inaccuracy is another sign of fanboyism.
Adding Ogg to your hardware is easy enough -- there are over 100 models of portable player listed on just this page. So if you want to use Ogg, either as a manufacturer or a consumer, there's no problem. (If you want to keep using your old MP3s -- go ahead. Just file your new Ogg files alongside them.)
Unlike MP3, however, Ogg is public domain.
So, all things even, Ogg beats out MP3. So, even if Ogg weren't quite as good as MP3, it should be supported for the (lack of) licensing. You won't get shenanigans like what this article's about. You can implement your own software. You can build your own hardware without incrementing its cost by the royalties + insurance against litigation. (Well, likely you'll still be paying those for the other formats your player supports.) You can improve the format. You can distribute, sell, or stream Ogg files without liability.
The manufacturers support it and there are many communities using it. There is no reason to encode another MP3.
Ogg: highly recommended.
(Disclaimer: I personally don't use Ogg Vorbis much. My music's all lossless.)
Slashdot Mirror
Like most respondents I use each as the information is suited to it. I still haven't seen a nice and succinct description of the difference and I find it hard to articulate off the cuff.
5 s
h =%25s
Anyway, I changed my Firefox Location Bar keywords (Quicksearches) to make each easy:
name: Google Quicksearch
location: http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&num=50&q=%2
keyword: g
description: Type "g " in the address bar to perform a Google search
name:Wikipedia
location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?searc
keyword: w
description: Type "w " in the address bar to perform a Wikipedia lookup
The encouragement of technologies that are under the control of self-serving corporations has some negative impact on the world. Maybe we think it's a small impact...
On the other side, metaphorically, putting in a little effort to make use of a free format is like converting from a bandit to a villager who will harvest his own food. This gives us the other end of the spectrum using the same "lever:" Many hands make light work. Enough villagers working in concert produces much benefit for little effort.
Thus The Value Of Ogg
So the value of Ogg is not merely that it serves you better as a more sophisticated, capable, and high-quality format. It serves us all.
Good examples of working together: Linux, (Free|Net|Open|Dragonfly)BSD, the vast array of GNU software, Apache... there's a lot to choose from.
Good examples of self-service: Unisys LZW, RSA afflicting HTTPS (do you recall?), video drivers, one click shopping, http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/, spam
Paranoia
Sadly, many of us don't realize that working for the common good helps us individually, seeing the excellence of achievement in combat, in fighting one another, as the proof that not only does good come from competition, but that other methods are flawed.
This thinking is facilitated by the expectation of others to be self-serving. It's a feedback loop that actually starts early on with inconstant parenting and being bullied at school. We learn not to trust others, and so become self-serving, thereby making real the expectation that others are not generous by embodying it ourselves. Even if we're behaved enough not to send spam we contribute in small ways through our self-service to the starvation of villagers. Even if we're behaved enough to follow the rules we can still do harm -- legality is not morality.
Choice
This is what I think about promoting MP3 because it "works for me."
Instead, I use as much open source and GPL'd and Creative Commons and patent unencumbered technology as I can. Some things take a little more effort, but not that much. I've got all I need, and things keep getting better. Because of all the like-minded users and developers.
Still waiting for substantiation, kthx.
Let me know if you get around to having some evidence.
Very provocative idea.
And I'm still waiting for the AC to post evidence of his claim about how his *private*, SSL encrypted SMTP server was listed on this crummy list as an "open relay".
Makes me want to go making false claims to propagandize my unreasoned prejudices too. Yay.
Of course, instead I work hard to try to clean that kind of crap out of my communication.
I'll be right here. Just let me know when you're ready to answer.
You just let me know when you've got the information ready. I'm still here.
I totally agree with the need for evidence.
Maybe you can help me by telling me which RBL listed you and the IP of your server so I can see why you got listed?
Hm, appears the canonical test address is 127.0.0.2:
3 3"
% host -t txt 2.0.0.127.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
2.0.0.127.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org descriptive text "http://www.spamhaus.org/SBL/sbl.lasso?query=SBL2
2.0.0.127.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org descriptive text "http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=127.0.0.2"
Ignore the IP of the probably compromised Argentinian machine that I used earlier. Probably just some poor shmuck running Windows without a firewall.
Did you already change it? You might want to hold off until the new domain starts answering. Otherwise you've effectively unconfigured your list checking. Maybe you meant you added the new domain?
% host -t txt 139.4.49.190.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org
139.4.49.190.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org descriptive text "http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=190.49.4.139
% host -t txt 139.4.49.190.sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org.uk
Host not found, try again.
Or maybe instead you should tell your name resolver explicitly that the authority for spamhaus.org is:
spamhaus.org. 1d23h58m12s IN NS udns1.ultradns.net.
spamhaus.org. 1d23h58m12s IN NS hq-ns.oarc.isc.org.
spamhaus.org. 1d23h58m12s IN NS ns8.spamhaus.org.
spamhaus.org. 1d23h58m12s IN NS udns2.ultradns.net.
(with appropriate IPs) and just leave your mail config using spamhaus.org. (If they leave the spamhaus.org domain configured regardless of root level authority-reference elision.)
I'm interested in learning more about Spamhaus for potential use, but am concerned about rumors of inappropriate listing. Can you help me get details on your specific case? Maybe the IP of that server?
Are you referring to Spamhaus's list when you say "this crummy list?"
Substantiate, please.
Are you familiar with the Spamhaus lists and their listing and delisting criteria?
My skepticism perks up when folk zealously attack, like you have.
I've RMA'd about three drives over the past six years and the replacements have been fine.
By the way, there's a video you can view from that URL I posted.
e /25055.html
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/articl
Look for "Remastering Star Trek video preview."
I think it's not they that are being honored as much as the spirit and institution of the series.
I can see where your sympathy is coming from and I, too, have some for the original effects artists if they might be upset by this. I think it would be awesome if some of them were actually working on this newer version, though I think the chances are slim.
I hear that it is indeed a labor of love.
e /25055.html
The person I spoke with says they won't touch the plot or dialog. It's just to clean things up in a way of honoring it.
Also, the syndication episodes, he said, run about 43 minutes, while the whole episodes were originally 51-52 minutes.
http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/articl
Oh, sorry. I guess I also forget to use a smiley. ;)
You are a complete ass.
Pedantry! Now I know what my friends feel like when I mention useless technicalities. (I apologize.)
:P
Since we're off the trail and in the bushes, all analog representations of analog sound have some loss.
There is no such thing as perfect lossless.
Instead, "lossless" has a specific meaning in audio circles that does not include "perfectly exact representation of the original signal." Referring to "lossless" as meaning that in the context of an audio technology discussion abuses the jargon.
Did you even look at the graph?
_ 400kyr.png
Yes, this is why I said "notice that the graph you point to begins to converge towards our climate with the advent of creatures like us."
Did you even read my comment? So when you say "did you even look at the graph," after my referencing detail in said graph, does that indicate a disingenuous attempt to paint me as not being earnest and diligent, an ironic failure on your part to do the diligence of reading my post, a flippant and misleading way of saying "you must not have understood the graph," or something else I haven't guessed at? If you're being intentionally not nice, please be nice instead.
50 million is not too long ago in relative terms.
Relative terms? Relative to what? 50M years ago saw the advent of proto-primates. So in terms relative to creatures like us, it's greater, not even fractional. Grasses hadn't even evolved yet. I wouldn't say that's "not too long ago."
Note that the levels you mention (referring to the disputedly-viewed graph) are in relation to the Quaternary values, referring to values over the last 2 million years. So the graph is saying, as you read it, that relative to the last 2 million years the earth experienced 4x the levels 50M years ago. I'll agree with that reading.
Speaking also in relation to the Quaternary period, we're on our way to pushing 2x. For the past 2M years, we've had between 200-300ppmv. Now we have 380. And if you look at how the graph is shaped, you get the distinct impression it's not on its way down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide
If the last time the earth experienced our current levels there were saber-toothed tigers running around, you can be assured that things were pretty different. I admit that it's scary to me to see that we're out of our 2M year groove. Now extend the "Carbon Dioxide Variations" graph just another 70 years and we're about at that 4x level again, which we haven't hit in 50M years. In maybe your lifetime we'll be at the same CO2 levels as from before grass existed.
Everything counts in large amounts. Walk more, for starters.
Do you think that the earth 500 million years ago was very hospitable to things like us?
600 million years ago, the earth's oceans are said to have frozen over almost completely. You've gone out to geologic timescales now.
I think you're reaching.
Things were nutty back then, and over those scales. But notice that the graph you point to begins to converge towards our climate with the advent of creatures like us. I wouldn't be surprised to find the mass extinctions correllated to the spikes in the graph. (Whatever the causal direction.)
I don't care much if a 10x CO2 level is ideal for pre-Cambrian sponges.
If you find any one of these things to be true, maybe take a moment to analyze your stance? If you find your first reaction to positive comments on Ogg to be one of anger, maybe do that analysis?
If there's anyone out there who dislikes Ogg and who isn't attached to MP3, it would be good to get your perspective. Please speak out.
It doesn't help that advocates of Ogg often have strong opinions about the values of using Ogg. But don't let another person's attitude deflect you from really thinking through Ogg's value for yourself. Having a chip-on-your-shoulder reaction is the essence of fanboyism.
The quality is comparable. The hardware/processing footprint is comparable. There are no technical downsides. (Don't correct me to tell me how Ogg is much better -- I'm understating the point for a reason.) Ogg detractors often get these points wrong. Unapologetically unresearched inaccuracy is another sign of fanboyism.
Adding Ogg to your hardware is easy enough -- there are over 100 models of portable player listed on just this page. So if you want to use Ogg, either as a manufacturer or a consumer, there's no problem. (If you want to keep using your old MP3s -- go ahead. Just file your new Ogg files alongside them.)
Unlike MP3, however, Ogg is public domain.
So, all things even, Ogg beats out MP3. So, even if Ogg weren't quite as good as MP3, it should be supported for the (lack of) licensing. You won't get shenanigans like what this article's about. You can implement your own software. You can build your own hardware without incrementing its cost by the royalties + insurance against litigation. (Well, likely you'll still be paying those for the other formats your player supports.) You can improve the format. You can distribute, sell, or stream Ogg files without liability.
The manufacturers support it and there are many communities using it. There is no reason to encode another MP3.
Ogg: highly recommended.
(Disclaimer: I personally don't use Ogg Vorbis much. My music's all lossless.)
You might just ftp it.
Regular folk would have a problem, though.
EXCEPT ALSO WHERE
effect == verb
To cause or bring about.