CDs can sound incredibly good if they're mastered right, but that's something record producers no longer have any interest in. Basically any rock or pop CD from about 2000 onward is going to sound crummy. Also, any recording from earlier than that if it has been remastered. When I see REMASTERED on a CD label, I mentally translate that as SPECIAL EBOLA EDITION.
It depends: there are some listening-environments in which the dynamic-range compression is actually desirable--basically anywhere with a high noise floor; if you in a machine shop, for example....
There are plenty of less extreme examples, though: any public space where people are going to be having conversations; or driving in a car on the highway....
If you're trying to listen to music with high dynamic range and you have to overcome the ambient noise of the environment, then you need to turn the music up in order to hear the quiet parts and the loud parts end up blasting you; these are the situations when you end up either constantly re-adjusting the volume (doing the range-compression manually) or using some sort of noise-cancelling or isolating headphones/earphones/canalphones (which can create their own issues: sometimes you *want* to be able to still hear your environment *as* you're enjoy your music).
Parents who want to listen to something without waking their napping kids but without having to wear headphones also go for dynamic-range compression (either built into the audio, or done manually via repeated tweaking of the volume-control, or through a playback-system that includes an automatic dynamic-range compressor or "volume limiter").
On the other side, if you were for example in a restaurant or something where they played `background' music with high dynamic range, you'd be more likely to get frustrated with alternately having to yell over the louder parts when the music jumped into the foreground (or having other people yell over it) and having the quiet parts that would be enjoyable be completely drowned out by the chatter of the crowd (many of whom probably increased their own volume to talk over the loud parts and then failed to turn themselves back down...).
Each of those 30 to 150 people are licensed radio operators, trained and vetted in how to behave politely. You can't say there's "no problem" if people require training to overcome what you propose is absent.
"People trained and vetted in how to behave politely" use to just be called "adults".... It still takes on the order of 15-20 years to be certified as one, which seems like ample time. Maybe the average quality of instructors has declined, though.
A monopoly (Microsoft) won the first browser war by bundling IE into their OS, and by pushing IE into the corporate setting. IE became the most widely used browser, and business intranets were forced to be IE compatible.
Somehow that seems to be the version of the story that everyone has heard. What those of us who were actually there at the time remember is that there were a lot of other anti-competitive things that Microsoft was doing to tilt everything in their favor, including...:
including terms in their distribution contracts with major hardware vendors requiring not only that they bundled Internet Explorer, but also that they specifically not bundle competing software
acquiring ownership of popular web-development tools and then making them produce websites that didn't work with competing browsers
The whole "IE became popular and then everyone had to be compatible with it" claim is both causally and temporally backward: websites (both on the Internet and on intranets) started working worse with everything that wasn't Internet Explorer (to the extent that websites would even generate bad HTML or CSS when they saw browsers reporting non-IE UserAgent strings), or even not working at all outside of Internet Explorer in the cases where websites were converted from HTML+JavaScript to ActiveX widgets.
I used to fly with a flare gun all the time in my checked luggage. Flare guns are allowed in every state (and even traveling to Canada), require no permits and allow you to follow the TSA "gun" policy. My lock, hard-sided case, fully real-time traceable, and if the airline looses it, they get fined $250,000 -- so they make sure they actually keep track of it. It takes an additional 5 minutes to check-in, and most of the time your luggage will be first off with somebody waiting with it (except for the smallest airports, where you have to go to the luggage office to sign for it). No additional cost to do it except for Spirit.
That is probably an excellent solution. Unfortunately if the practice becomes well known, authorities will counter with methods to defeat it. A simple regulation requiring only firearms and/or ammunition in the case would be all it would take.
I remember when laptops containing encryption software were munitions....
I'm not exactly sure what you think they're going to do to us in this or the next generation,
You seem to have mistaken me for one of the people in the article. I was merely explaining to article to someone who had misunderstood it (actually, a apparently a number of people who had misunderstood it--seeing as the mistaken comment was highly rated).
I have not done my own analysis of Chinese vs. US capabilities, and even if I had it wouldn't have been based on whatever these people supposedly saw at the conference (since I wasn't there). Maybe the observations expressed in the article were correct, maybe they were mistaken, or maybe they were even lies.
When you write...:
China is nearly half a century behind us in military tech. [...] by the time they actually catch up - even if we merely matched their budget - we'd be back to where we were 50 years ago with Russia - neither defensively able to counter the other's offensive capabilities, thus "mutually assured destruction" being the deterrent
Considered that perhaps the people behind the statements in the article may simple not agree with your premise that cold war is actually a desirable state of affairs. And that's probably in some part due to the fact that "mutually assured destruction" only works as a deterrent on people who aren't suicidal or otherwise find with their victories being pyrrhic; consider, for example, the conversation that Robert McNamara says he had with Fidel Castro in `The Fog of War'--something like:
I asked him 3 questions. One, "did you know there were nuclear warheads in Cuba?" Two, "would you have recommended to Khrushchev to use nuclear missiles in the event of an American invasion of Cuba?" And three, "what would have happened to Cuba?" He said, "One, I knew the missiles were there. Two, I would not *have* recommended it, I *did* recommend it! And three, we would have been totally obliterated"
Another consideration is that 50 years can actually be either an incredibly short or incredibly long period in terms of political relations, military technology, and military capabilities (where "capabilities" isn't actually quite the same thing as "technology"). And part of that consideration is that you may actually not get to choose whether 50 years is `short' or `long'.
And yet another is that, once you get to that `equilibrium' of mutually-assured destruction, even if you assume that everyone else with heavy arms is perfectly sane, it's still not a stable state. e.g.: what if the other if both you and the other guy have enough nuclear ICBMs to ensure mutual destruction given current launch- and early-warning technology, and current levels of strategy and tactics..., and you're not actually at the absolute pinnacle of all of those things yet? What if ICBMs aren't actually the quickest way of obliterating your enemy that will every be possible, and if there are new breakthroughs in strategy or tactics possibly just around the corner?
if your strength relies upon the weakness of others, then it isn't really strength. I know, "without light there is no dark" "without up there is no down" "without weakness there is no strength" - no. China is just 1 country, and has 6x the number of people. There are plenty of other countries that are in poor shape, if we (in the US) really feel we need to be "superior" to someone else. Until then, this kind of crap is a waste of tax dollars, under the thinly veiled cover of nationalism
Except it's not about some vague notion of the "strength" (whatever that means) of the US or the "weakness" of everyone else, or being "superior" in terms of some sort of abstract `virtue'. It's about security vs. vulnerability, which are in fact appropriate to define in terms of the capacity of others to do you harm.
The concerns here are things like:
* China being more capable than the US of running the sort of simulations involved in developing advanced weapons systems, such that China could become invulnerable to US weapons tech while simultaneously meaning that the US is would become increasingly vulnerable to Chinese weapons tech. * China being more capable than the US of running analytics such that they can circumvent US surveillance capabilities while simultaneously surveilling the US and its allies in ways that the US cannot circumvent.
We're not talking about being on the beach and being jealous of the guy with the big muscles because all of the girls are fawning over him, and figuring that if he'd just leave and let you be the only guy there then surely all of the girls would be fawning over you. It's more like thinking "that guy with the attitude problem has been working out and turning into a real bruiser; pretty soon I might not be able to keep him from kicking my dog anymore".
Altavista was the precursor to Google, a search engine for the Web. Yahoo! was unique in being a homepage for the web - a collector of news and oddities that you could start your day on, and by the way had a search function that was never as good as Altavista or Google.
ISTR that when Yahoo! added a search form, that form actually called out to Altavista. There were a few iterations using different search engines before they had their own, and I'm not entirely sure right now whether Altavista was the first or second one that Yahoo! used.
A lot of people thought Yahoo! had (or even was) a search engine, though--managing to ignore the whole `Hierarchically Organized Oracle' stuff that was all over the website. Maybe Yahoo! should really be famous for that--for being one of the first completely and utterly misunderstood web services.
CRT renderings of the games was not how the designers wanted them to look, just as musical artists and engineers don't want to sound like a vinyl record. They wanted them to look like modern 4k, photorealistic games but were held back by the technology. No, what will be gone is the experience of the fuzzy-edged, low resolution games people remember playing as children. What we're losing is nostalgia, not veracity or design intent.
Well, kinda. Yes, the original authors probably wanted higher quality graphics, but they designed for hardware that couldn't show those graphics, and they made use of the features of the technology available to them, some of which aren't replicated in the 'better' replacements.
To put it another way, had better technology been available, they wouldn't have made the same design decisions, because design decisions intended to make something like awesome on a CRT can make things look worse on a better screen. Color bleed and interlacing would be two examples of things you make use of, that would make a game seem better on a CRT than not using them, but would make a game look awful if the technology is used on an LCD.
There are other techniques now available for making guns that work with LCDs and other display tech that don't work like LCDs do, but it seems like it'd probably be a bigger pain to adapt things so that a newer peripheral will actually work with the older arcade hardware, and I've having trouble even imagining how one would interface that with the old game software that can't be patched.
While there is some subset of old light-guns (that are basically dumb enough to trigger off of lightbulbs) that actually may work with newer display tech, for the others there just seems like such a massive `impedance mismatch' in trying to fit a display without any of the original design characteristics into an old light-gun game that the job is, if not impossible, pretty darned close to impossible.
What am I missing? I guess in the case where all of the original computing hardware has been removed and the whole thing is now running through an emulator, it should actually be possible to fake up a world of virtual CRT scan-timings and convert input from a more modern peripheral that actually gives fuller position/attitude info (extending the emulation to include simulating the both the CRT scanlines and photosensor in the gun); but as far as `restoration of classic arcade machines' goes, that still sees like it at least pretty drastically changes the scope of restoration'.
It's as if they had to do some big R&D project to figure out how to sync separate digital audio receivers. We've been doing things like this in the open-source world for years now--I hacked together a synchronized multi-sink audio system as a weekend project in 2011, for example.
That was UDP/IP/ethernet, but the same principles of latency-matching apply pretty much regardless of the underlying transport.
I suspect that this actually has nothing to do with "[having difficulty figuring out how to] ensure that both earpieces receive audio at the same time to avoid distortion"--because, frankly, I don't think the people at Apple are so stupid as to think they need to invent latency-matching themselves and then also have difficulty with it.
They're probably just having difficulty sourcing parts from one of their vendors or something, but claims like `oh it turned out to be very hard to synchronize playback wirelessly because we're breaking so much new ground with multiple independent receivers' reads as much more profound to the general public who don't actually even know where to begin thinking through something like that.
Having the universe conspire against you with things like physics and math, vs. having let some plebeian manufacturing house upset your schedule due to retooling-problems or materials shortage or some local holiday you didn't know about... or whatever. Which would you rather have as part of your narrative?
Of course Bernie will support Hillary Clinton because he thinks preventing Trump (or any Republican) from becoming President is the most important thing.
While that sort of thing never surprises me at all, I still get frustrated by it: the reason I voted for Bernie in the Democratic primary was because preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming president was the most important thing. The reason I voted in the Democratic primary at all was to try to keep her off the ballot in the general election.
The stupidity of some IT people is staggering. We had one case where they put AV on a highly isolated system and then had to compromise its isolation to allow over-the-net updates. When we told them that the system was not isolated anymore and that at the very least the AV vendor could now attack them over the network, they did not even understand what we were talking about. They mumbled something about "all machines must have AV".
You also can't point/shoot/eject/watch-it-develop like you could the original Polaroid. The Impossible film remains sensitive to light for at least 10-15 seconds if not longer, requiring hacks and tricks to eject it into either a box or under shade to make it develop properly at all.
Those issues have actually--finally--been resolved in the latest generations of Impossible's film; it only started shipping a few months ago.
I haven't tried the new color film, but I have used the "Generation 2.0" B&W film--which does appear to be as much of an improvement as they say.
all for vintage pictures that look like they're 40 years old the minute they fully develop.
I guess it's highly subjective, but that seems to be part of the appeal of Impossible's stuff. When I first saw the way my pictures on the colour film ended up, what really struck me was that it "didn't look real, it looked like a memory". And the experience of "watching a memory develop" was kind of profound.
I wondered whether the uncannily-matched fuzzy hypercolor in the way I experience memories and dreams was perhaps due to my having grown up with polaroids and basically been calibrated to that "being what memories look like". But then I actually found some old Polaroid pictures, and you're right: they weren't like that. So, I don't know where it comes from. But I like it.
please dont do that apple, I really like Tesla. I dont want apple to be able to remote kill my car if i dont accept their EULA
This sort of thing already made its way into the car industry years ago with OnStar; VW just introduced something similar called "Car-Net"; I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla's cars already include something similar, too.
After reading through the list it seems they want me to give my non-techie family a bunch of shit they'll never figure out or have no use for anyway. How cute
Maybe your non-techie family members are different than everyone else's, but in general those non-techie family members will never really figure out their Windows or Macintosh PC, or their iPhone, or Google servicesâ"they're going to lean heavily on their family's designated techie for tech support regardless of what they're using (for learning how to do new things, for remembering how to do things they've done before, and for cleaning up the messes they get themselves into). Might as well give them something that's easier for you to support.
the news comes in the midst of a global public backlash over the NSA's widespread surveillance programs
I can't find a reliable source for this now, but I seem to remember someone saying recently (on another, less significant matter): "I don't want to know who's getting fired, I want to know who's going to jail."
Of course, we're not even talking about someone getting fired--we're talking about someone retiring....
Your preference for 24/96 audio as a listener is entirely due to the placebo effect. There are good reasons to master audio in high res, but for listening 16 bit 44.1khz audio is as good as anything.
If you're going to take the place to be a reactionary "victim" then maybe you should ask yourself who victimized you first -- AT&T perhaps? If AT&T left your car unlocked, would you still blame the thief?
I don't know if I'd blame AT&T for the theft just for leaving my car unlocked, but I'd definitely blame them for it if they gave my keys to anyone who asked.
Every time I run man and get a pointer to texinfo, I want to beat my head on the keyboard. I do not have the time, once again, to look up those obscure keyboard commands so that I may navigate laboriously through the documentation.
Then just pipe it through your pager, and you'll have basically the exact same experience as if it was a man page. e.g.:
The F-Droid app store, to use its own description "is an easily-installable catalogue of FOSS applications for the Android platform". They even do most of the work, like building your app from source, for you. And F-Droid doesn't even include non-FOSS apps to compete with the FOSS ones. How is Microsoft's thing more FOSS-friendly than that?
A license that does not offer a rewarding development model is an invitation for corporations to come in and exploit the developers.
Out of curiosity, and since it helps to establish whether your arguments actually have any grounding in actual experience: what do you do for a living, what's your method of compensation, and what is your yearly income?
Slashdot Mirror
It depends: there are some listening-environments in which the dynamic-range compression is actually desirable--basically anywhere with a high noise floor; if you in a machine shop, for example....
There are plenty of less extreme examples, though: any public space where people are going to be having conversations; or driving in a car on the highway....
If you're trying to listen to music with high dynamic range and you have to overcome the ambient noise of the environment, then you need to turn the music up in order to hear the quiet parts and the loud parts end up blasting you; these are the situations when you end up either constantly re-adjusting the volume (doing the range-compression manually) or using some sort of noise-cancelling or isolating headphones/earphones/canalphones (which can create their own issues: sometimes you *want* to be able to still hear your environment *as* you're enjoy your music).
Parents who want to listen to something without waking their napping kids but without having to wear headphones also go for dynamic-range compression (either built into the audio, or done manually via repeated tweaking of the volume-control, or through a playback-system that includes an automatic dynamic-range compressor or "volume limiter").
On the other side, if you were for example in a restaurant or something where they played `background' music with high dynamic range, you'd be more likely to get frustrated with alternately having to yell over the louder parts when the music jumped into the foreground (or having other people yell over it) and having the quiet parts that would be enjoyable be completely drowned out by the chatter of the crowd (many of whom probably increased their own volume to talk over the loud parts and then failed to turn themselves back down...).
"People trained and vetted in how to behave politely" use to just be called "adults".... It still takes on the order of 15-20 years to be certified as one, which seems like ample time. Maybe the average quality of instructors has declined, though.
Somehow that seems to be the version of the story that everyone has heard. What those of us who were actually there at the time remember is that there were a lot of other anti-competitive things that Microsoft was doing to tilt everything in their favor, including...:
The whole "IE became popular and then everyone had to be compatible with it" claim is both causally and temporally backward: websites (both on the Internet and on intranets) started working worse with everything that wasn't Internet Explorer (to the extent that websites would even generate bad HTML or CSS when they saw browsers reporting non-IE UserAgent strings), or even not working at all outside of Internet Explorer in the cases where websites were converted from HTML+JavaScript to ActiveX widgets.
I remember when laptops containing encryption software were munitions....
And here the message I always got from the default `egg' avatar was that they were calling their users eggheads.
You seem to have mistaken me for one of the people in the article. I was merely explaining to article to someone who had misunderstood it (actually, a apparently a number of people who had misunderstood it--seeing as the mistaken comment was highly rated).
I have not done my own analysis of Chinese vs. US capabilities, and even if I had it wouldn't have been based on whatever these people supposedly saw at the conference (since I wasn't there). Maybe the observations expressed in the article were correct, maybe they were mistaken, or maybe they were even lies.
When you write...:
Considered that perhaps the people behind the statements in the article may simple not agree with your premise that cold war is actually a desirable state of affairs. And that's probably in some part due to the fact that "mutually assured destruction" only works as a deterrent on people who aren't suicidal or otherwise find with their victories being pyrrhic; consider, for example, the conversation that Robert McNamara says he had with Fidel Castro in `The Fog of War'--something like:
Another consideration is that 50 years can actually be either an incredibly short or incredibly long period in terms of political relations, military technology, and military capabilities (where "capabilities" isn't actually quite the same thing as "technology"). And part of that consideration is that you may actually not get to choose whether 50 years is `short' or `long'.
And yet another is that, once you get to that `equilibrium' of mutually-assured destruction, even if you assume that everyone else with heavy arms is perfectly sane, it's still not a stable state. e.g.: what if the other if both you and the other guy have enough nuclear ICBMs to ensure mutual destruction given current launch- and early-warning technology, and current levels of strategy and tactics..., and you're not actually at the absolute pinnacle of all of those things yet? What if ICBMs aren't actually the quickest way of obliterating your enemy that will every be possible, and if there are new breakthroughs in strategy or tactics possibly just around the corner?
Except it's not about some vague notion of the "strength" (whatever that means) of the US or the "weakness" of everyone else, or being "superior" in terms of some sort of abstract `virtue'. It's about security vs. vulnerability, which are in fact appropriate to define in terms of the capacity of others to do you harm.
The concerns here are things like:
* China being more capable than the US of running the sort of simulations involved in developing advanced weapons systems, such that China could become invulnerable to US weapons tech while simultaneously meaning that the US is would become increasingly vulnerable to Chinese weapons tech.
* China being more capable than the US of running analytics such that they can circumvent US surveillance capabilities while simultaneously surveilling the US and its allies in ways that the US cannot circumvent.
We're not talking about being on the beach and being jealous of the guy with the big muscles because all of the girls are fawning over him, and figuring that if he'd just leave and let you be the only guy there then surely all of the girls would be fawning over you. It's more like thinking "that guy with the attitude problem has been working out and turning into a real bruiser; pretty soon I might not be able to keep him from kicking my dog anymore".
ISTR that when Yahoo! added a search form, that form actually called out to Altavista. There were a few iterations using different search engines before they had their own, and I'm not entirely sure right now whether Altavista was the first or second one that Yahoo! used.
A lot of people thought Yahoo! had (or even was) a search engine, though--managing to ignore the whole `Hierarchically Organized Oracle' stuff that was all over the website. Maybe Yahoo! should really be famous for that--for being one of the first completely and utterly misunderstood web services.
One fairly extreme (but also common!) type of this `design decisions based on existing technology' was games that used light-guns and relied on the specific timing- and redraw-characteristics of CRTs.
There are other techniques now available for making guns that work with LCDs and other display tech that don't work like LCDs do, but it seems like it'd probably be a bigger pain to adapt things so that a newer peripheral will actually work with the older arcade hardware, and I've having trouble even imagining how one would interface that with the old game software that can't be patched.
While there is some subset of old light-guns (that are basically dumb enough to trigger off of lightbulbs) that actually may work with newer display tech, for the others there just seems like such a massive `impedance mismatch' in trying to fit a display without any of the original design characteristics into an old light-gun game that the job is, if not impossible, pretty darned close to impossible.
What am I missing? I guess in the case where all of the original computing hardware has been removed and the whole thing is now running through an emulator, it should actually be possible to fake up a world of virtual CRT scan-timings and convert input from a more modern peripheral that actually gives fuller position/attitude info (extending the emulation to include simulating the both the CRT scanlines and photosensor in the gun); but as far as `restoration of classic arcade machines' goes, that still sees like it at least pretty drastically changes the scope of restoration'.
It's as if they had to do some big R&D project to figure out how to sync separate digital audio receivers. We've been doing things like this in the open-source world for years now--I hacked together a synchronized multi-sink audio system as a weekend project in 2011, for example.
That was UDP/IP/ethernet, but the same principles of latency-matching apply pretty much regardless of the underlying transport.
I suspect that this actually has nothing to do with "[having difficulty figuring out how to] ensure that both earpieces receive audio at the same time to avoid distortion"--because, frankly, I don't think the people at Apple are so stupid as to think they need to invent latency-matching themselves and then also have difficulty with it.
They're probably just having difficulty sourcing parts from one of their vendors or something, but claims like `oh it turned out to be very hard to synchronize playback wirelessly because we're breaking so much new ground with multiple independent receivers' reads as much more profound to the general public who don't actually even know where to begin thinking through something like that.
Having the universe conspire against you with things like physics and math, vs. having let some plebeian manufacturing house upset your schedule due to retooling-problems or materials shortage or some local holiday you didn't know about... or whatever. Which would you rather have as part of your narrative?
Of course--in Facebook's own jargon, people communicate by posting things to "the wall".
While that sort of thing never surprises me at all, I still get frustrated by it: the reason I voted for Bernie in the Democratic primary was because preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming president was the most important thing. The reason I voted in the Democratic primary at all was to try to keep her off the ballot in the general election.
Have you asked them if they approach their kids' schooling with the same keen sense of security?
That's a big Twinkie....
Those issues have actually--finally--been resolved in the latest generations of Impossible's film; it only started shipping a few months ago.
https://magazine.the-impossibl...
I haven't tried the new color film, but I have used the "Generation 2.0" B&W film--which does appear to be as much of an improvement as they say.
I guess it's highly subjective, but that seems to be part of the appeal of Impossible's stuff. When I first saw the way my pictures on the colour film ended up, what really struck me was that it "didn't look real, it looked like a memory". And the experience of "watching a memory develop" was kind of profound.
I wondered whether the uncannily-matched fuzzy hypercolor in the way I experience memories and dreams was perhaps due to my having grown up with polaroids and basically been calibrated to that "being what memories look like". But then I actually found some old Polaroid pictures, and you're right: they weren't like that. So, I don't know where it comes from. But I like it.
This sort of thing already made its way into the car industry years ago with OnStar; VW just introduced something similar called "Car-Net"; I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla's cars already include something similar, too.
Maybe your non-techie family members are different than everyone else's, but in general those non-techie family members will never really figure out their Windows or Macintosh PC, or their iPhone, or Google servicesâ"they're going to lean heavily on their family's designated techie for tech support regardless of what they're using (for learning how to do new things, for remembering how to do things they've done before, and for cleaning up the messes they get themselves into). Might as well give them something that's easier for you to support.
I can't find a reliable source for this now, but I seem to remember someone saying recently (on another, less significant matter): "I don't want to know who's getting fired, I want to know who's going to jail."
Of course, we're not even talking about someone getting fired--we're talking about someone retiring....
"Can There Be Open Source Love Letters? or just endless forks of each other, never truly heartfelt, never truly satisfying?"
See Nina Paley's "The Cult of Originality": http://blog.ninapaley.com/2009/12/28/the-cult-of-originality/
In particular, the "I love you" cartoon near the end.
There's a pretty good explanation of this (and other factors) on xiph.org: "24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed"
I don't know if I'd blame AT&T for the theft just for leaving my car unlocked, but I'd definitely blame them for it if they gave my keys to anyone who asked.
Only if you really messed up.
Then just pipe it through your pager, and you'll have basically the exact same experience as if it was a man page. e.g.:
OK?
The F-Droid app store, to use its own description "is an easily-installable catalogue of FOSS applications for the Android platform". They even do most of the work, like building your app from source, for you. And F-Droid doesn't even include non-FOSS apps to compete with the FOSS ones. How is Microsoft's thing more FOSS-friendly than that?
Out of curiosity, and since it helps to establish whether your arguments actually have any grounding in actual experience: what do you do for a living, what's your method of compensation, and what is your yearly income?