Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!



Oppo's New Phone Hits 538 PPI

djdanlib Re: approximately the resolution of an adult eye (217 comments)

Nobody (or nearly nobody) is doing or wants 384khz in studios. 192khz is next to non-existant as well and it gets pretty heated in the forums when people discuss whether there's any benefit to 192 over 96 and it usually comes down to "it's good if your equipment supports it because it will be more accurate at lower sample rates". Some tracking engineers will record at 88 or 96, but it's usually 48k. The tradeoff between disk space and sound quality for higher sample rates just isn't attractive. When you have 30, 40, or more tracks plus alternate takes plus renders plus bounced down tracks, all at several minutes long, that gets huge really fast and you can't just burn a CD with those files for backups anymore. Having a bunch of in-flight projects on the computer at the same time, you have to be mindful of disk space. The CPU use required to process that gets really big too, especially if you use a lot of plugins and a lot of tracks, and most plugins don't even support 192, never mind 384. Forget about tracking a lot of them at once, the latency can get pretty big. I have not seen software that advertised support for 384. Also in the mix is the fact that many of the ADC/DAC interfaces in common use don't even support a 192khz samplerate, and you'd possibly need more digital clocks. That gets expensive real fast. Now, I know some people would do it and I'd see massive threads in the engineering forums if it became an advertised feature! There would even be one or two people who would claim you can hear a difference, and a huge argument about that.

24-bit is fairly standard and 32-bit is in use by a lot of people who want that nearly infinite headroom while mixing.

It all gets downsampled to 44/16 (CD, MP3, AAC, YouTube) or 48/16-48/24 (Dolby Digital, DTS) for the end product anyway. We'll see what happens with the next gen stuff like Pono or whatever Apple is doing, if it goes the way of SACD and DVD-Audio.

about three weeks ago

HTML5 App For Panasonic TVs Rejected - JQuery Is a "Hack"

djdanlib Re:Bad timing, hope this helps. (573 comments)

Yeah, exactly.

Line 66 of that page...

script type="text/javascript" src="http://www-images.panasonic.com/includes/js/jquery-1.7.1.min.js"
script type="text/javascript" src="http://www-images.panasonic.com/includes/js/header/jquery.hoverIntent.minified.js"


about 2 months ago

EU Secretly Plans To Put a Back Door In Every Car By 2020

djdanlib Re:Great idea (364 comments)

Or learn how to access it...

Remember, if "They" can do it, for any value of They, so can someone else.

about 3 months ago

Microsoft Quietly Fixes Windows XP Resource Hog Problem

djdanlib Re:CORRECTION (246 comments)

Partial downtime / reduced capacity still represents money though. In some cases, large amounts of money. There are a lot of realtime call processing systems that run 2003 because the vendor doesn't support, or charges a lot of money to upgrade to software supporting, Server 2008 or newer. The systems need to come online in a specific order instead of all at once (might be 4-10 or more) and if you have a vendor onsite doing maintenance, charging by the hour, who can't leave until it's verified operational, that 15-60 minutes per server gets really expensive.

about 3 months ago

Americans To FCC Chair: No Cell Calls On Planes, Please

djdanlib Re: Allow it... (340 comments)

Yup, frequent and sane fliers do. The rest of us who might fly once or twice in our lifetimes would prefer not to hear conference calls on that 12 hour day of flying.

about 3 months ago

Swarms of Small Satellites Set To Deliver Close To Real-Time Imagery of Earth

djdanlib Re:HD (112 comments)

They sure have, but seeing what that was exposed on that film takes a while when you have to retrieve it from a satellite.

about 3 months ago

The Internet's Network Efficiencies Are Destroying the Middle Class

djdanlib Re:Instagram didn't replace Kodak (674 comments)

They have a lot of settlements like that with unions, groups, the DEC, etc etc. and there are still ongoing negotiations with some of those.

It does total a lot of money. They actually had the cash reserves to just pay that and continue business as usual. This was a company turning over multiple billions back then, with huge sustained growth.

If it did actually hurt that much, it would have made great business sense to be more in tune with the market, in order to profitably manage what they had left after that. Wouldn't you think?

about 3 months ago

The Internet's Network Efficiencies Are Destroying the Middle Class

djdanlib Re:Instagram didn't replace Kodak (674 comments)

And then realize that for Kodak to capitalize on the digital revolution they'd have needed(...)

All those other companies pulled it off. Kodak simply didn't WANT to do it because they were making big money maintaining their status quo.

It's a classic story of pride and hubris. They were the big dogs and making easy money today has a funny way of blinding people to the future. The execs in the early 2000s realized their error but it was too late. By then, the executives responsible were long gone. Most of them retired with their millions from the film era.

I don't know where this meme of "Kodak had the world in the hands, but failed to embrace digital and lost it all" got started

Their EMPLOYEES at the time are the ones who started that. They were privy to the meetings where those decisions were made. Go ahead. Find one and ask them! I have worked and do currently work with a lot of ex-Kodak people. It's accurate. People were telling them "digital is the future" for DECADES, they even invented the technology. It's not like they failed at one crucial moment. They continually made the conscious choice not to do it for about 25 years, in spite of clear trends for the latter 15 years of that span.

in 1990 it *was* easier to share photo's on a CD

Absolutely, I agree with you. The point I make is that Photo CD was an expensive format that you couldn't make yourself. It cost the labs too much to make and you needed special software/equipment to view them. Regular CDs could contain whatever you wanted, including images at any resolution you wanted, and you could burn them yourself. So Kodak threw a pile of money away on that.

about 3 months ago

The Internet's Network Efficiencies Are Destroying the Middle Class

djdanlib Re:Instagram didn't replace Kodak (674 comments)

You should read up on it. Talk to some of the incredibly bitter ex-Kodak people. Here's a timeline.

1975, Kodak invents digital photography. Management does not see value in developing it to the point where it can be sold to consumers. (Why should they, film is doing multiple billions of business per year!) Patents are filed.

1980s: People decide to give digital a try. Kodak decides film is still better and pursues the medical diagnostic film market. Fujifilm eats away at their domestic consumer film sales. Kodak tries to enter the battery market and gets properly served by Duracell.

1990: Kodak introduces Photo CD because they just don't 'get it' that it's a huge waste of money when you can just exchange photographs in GIF or JPEG format. It's not very successful, and R&D costs are high.

1991, Kodak releases a 1.3 megapixel digital camera. It's not very good.

Mid 1990s: Various sub-par digital cameras are made while the bulk of their focus is still on film and paper. The film business is really, really good. New film products continue to be developed and introduced to the market.

Late 1990s: Kodak introduces APS, trying to divert consumer attention from the growing digital 'fad'.

2001: Kodak unveils the Easyshare system, which is years behind upon release. The gallery website you're supposed to use is terrible, the product is the epitome of crashy TWAIN junk. Image quality isn't comparable to film. Around this time, they have a series of market-dominating digital cameras, but that's not because they're good - that's because they're selling it so cheaply that they are taking a loss on every unit sold in the hopes that their consumables (Kodak photo paper and inks and Photo CDs and website products) will make up the difference. Maybe they're hoping enough people will have a bad experience that digital gets written off as a bad idea?

Mid 2000s: Nikon and Canon eat their lunch in digital cameras because they (and Sony, and Sigma, and Pentax, and Olympus, etc etc) saw fit to pour huge R&D into digital camera development, while Kodak was going strong after film, which made them a lot of money at the time. Epson, HP and Canon also destroy them in the inkjet printing space while Kodak attempts to enter the market with a small thermal printer, which fails because it can't compete on price and also can't be used to print the kids' homework. Profits fall because digital starts a major takeover once it reaches 3 megapixel resolution, which is about the minimum you need for a 4x6 or 5x7, and they aren't ready with good products in the consumer space. Proprietary interconnects and dodgy online galleries aren't helping. Stocks plummet. It gets so bad they are removed from Dow Jones. The death spiral begins. Shedding employees neuters digital R&D and puts them even further behind, which accelerates their decline.

Late 2000s: Cell phone companies, particularly Nokia and Apple, are now the biggest digital camera manufacturers in the world. They do it without Kodak's products. Kodak is a distant single-digit percentage of the market. They resort to lawsuits to try to sustain the business, which is barely surviving on medical imaging and cinema film at this point.

Early 2010s: After filing for bankruptcy, they have sold large portions of their patent portfolio. They have closed or sold many parts of the business. Film and paper are sold. Online galleries are sold to Shutterfly. Pension plans are outright cancelled, leaving many retirees without any options.

about 3 months ago

The Internet's Network Efficiencies Are Destroying the Middle Class

djdanlib Re:Instagram didn't replace Kodak (674 comments)

Ah, that might be. There were a few different brands with floppies around the same time. Maybe Kodak was the one with the SCSI port. Either way, the image quality of the first commercially-available Kodak digital cameras in the late '90s was pretty low.

about 3 months ago

The Internet's Network Efficiencies Are Destroying the Middle Class

djdanlib Re:Instagram didn't replace Kodak (674 comments)

I used a really early Kodak digital camera that had a floppy drive. It was pretty interesting but in no way threatened any of the competition, especially including their own film!

about 3 months ago

The Internet's Network Efficiencies Are Destroying the Middle Class

djdanlib Re:Instagram didn't replace Kodak (674 comments)

I partially disagree. The point may or may not be good, that is irrelevant to the parent poster's gripe. If an author wants the audience to respect his point, his supporting writing needs to be good. If he gives me comparisons that bad, I have a hard time believing the rest of the message was any better thought out.

Specifically, the issue is a comparison of a photography company that decided not to pursue digital for fear of cannibalizing paper and film, versus a company that made software which takes already-processed digital photographs and applies filters and shares the images. It's a very bad comparison of a source to a processor, like comparing a farmer to McDonald's, or a miner to an auto repair shop, or pizza & Mtn Dew to a programmer. There are a lot of large camera companies (mostly cell phone manufacturers) that I would call equivalent to a new Kodak, and that would have been a great comparison.

about 3 months ago

AT&T Introduces "Sponsored Data" Allowing Services to Bypass 4G Data Caps

djdanlib Re:Sprint (229 comments)

Unlimited LTE is only useful if you have network service in your area, and their tower deployments have been stalling and stalling and stalling... I have been to areas supposedly served by it, and got 3G speeds from it. NYC intermittently disconnected (although it worked great in one place) and I couldn't even use data in Atlanta! I dunno when they are going to build out a serious network, but as a customer I feel like I've been lied to about the quality of the network.

about 3 months ago

Apple Denies Helping NSA Subvert iPhone

djdanlib Re:They can't stop unlockers (284 comments)

Legality is all about clever interpretation of language. Depending on what your definition of "is", is, or whatever. Here are some alternate interpretations for your enjoyment.

We reviewed the code = we looked at some code. This does not mean code was changed. In fact, it probably wasn't changed.

Ensure our customers' security = too nebulous to be meaningful. Security according to whom? Security in which sense? Do they think that the overall security of everyone is improved if their users can be spied upon to prevent violent crimes happening to other users? What is the timeframe between an exploit and a patch? You can't fix everything, because fixing costs money - so how much exploitation / negative PR does it have to reach before it gets acted upon?

Industry-leading security = some freebies for your game of buzzword bingo. You can't measure security like that. Sure, you can compile some metrics from past data, and maybe have a metric that you can compare to another company's metric, but that doesn't give you a complete picture of security. What about what the users are encouraged to do by popular software and blogs? The end-user's security is out of your control. As it should be.

Take appropriate steps = some coders were tasked with presenting options to their managers, who slimmed those options down for their managers, who decided whether various things were appropriate, using decision-making tactics that the coders may not have been privy to. Maybe they said no to the steps due to the cost of fixing it, or the upcoming new version making the broken one obsolete. Maybe that's where it stopped, and they called that appropriate steps. If not? Positive steps may not have been taken, profitable steps were probably taken, incompetent steps were almost certainly taken. Pork barrel maneuvering may have happened in those meetings too. You know, "we can fix it if we can increase our budget by X" or "we'll need to get more people working on project Y since it includes that fix". And it would be pretty simple to create a fix and put in a new back door in the same patch... fix it, say you fixed it, and shuffle the new one under the rug.

Stay ahead of malicious hackers = We're really hoping that these nerds are right that this is going to be hard to break, because we spent a lot of money letting them research it instead of making some other part of the experience more stylish.

Defend our customers = When they are attacked, we will shake our fingers and give those nasties such a tut-tutting! Maybe we'll release a patch in three to six months or a year or two, if the managers interpreting their budgets and allocating it to those spreadsheet columns allows that. Otherwise, we'll just tell the engineers to make sure they fix that in the next version but the deadline can't slip so if it doesn't make it in under the wire we'll maybe patch it after the fact. Sometimes, too, you have to take a hit from one enemy while you're stopping a hit from another enemy. Maybe you'll let the spiders in your kitchen live, hoping they will help you out with those fruit flies, or you'll let the huntsman spiders live in the basement to keep the black widows out. Could it be that they see an ecosystem and have decided that certain less-problematic enemies are keeping more problematic enemies away? Did someone wine and dine the relevant managers and convince them that they should be allowed to live in there under some pretext of security?

I've worked in a large company for long enough that I know that you say you're doing an "internal investigation" after the problem is in your face, then you probably have six months to two years to complete the investigation before enough people start to jump ship for it to matter. At that point, the product is probably obsolete and your faithful sales reps have been touting each new version as better and more secure.

Call me cynical if you must, but I don't see any actual descriptions of what's being done behind closed doors at any of these companies or what's changing in the patches they roll out.

about 3 months ago

Protesters Block Apple and Google Buses In California

djdanlib Re:Makes for a good argument (653 comments)

Yes, you are correct.

Most people do want to work, they just don't want to do a job they hate. If not for a living, then for spending money to buy the luxuries that make them feel like they're the Joneses that everyone else keeps up with, or a sense of purpose, or the social aspect, or just for the sake of having something to do. Go ahead, ask around. Once you get past the "Man, it would be nice to sit around on a beach all day and not have to worry about money" then you can ask "Well what would you do after a few months of that? Wouldn't you eventually want to do something meaningful?" And usually the answer winds up being an existing job of some sort.

Not having to work is a bleak, depressing, unsatisfying life. I've been there (unemployed, all needs provided for by kind a friend) and it was only enjoyable for a few weeks before I got restless and needed to feel like I had something to contribute to society. I wanted spending money to buy toys and software so I could do new things. Fret not, however. It only lasted a couple months that felt like they would never end. I have been a middle class wage worker in the years since then, fully subject to the whims of the free market.

So I don't think that descending into communism is going to work out. It's not within our human nature to have a common wealth among the people, if I may make such a bold claim. Greed is always going to want one more dollar for "me" because "I need it" and "I can't be satisfied as long as someone else has more". So as long as there's some resource freely available to be gobbled up by whoever can game the system the best, it will be, and the few who know how to get it for free will take all of it for themselves.

about 4 months ago


djdanlib hasn't submitted any stories.


djdanlib has no journal entries.

Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account