Mod parent up. Thank you for clearing up that common misunderstanding.

If you're after dirt cheap, shitty shared hosting, yes you probably can find PHP hosting cheaper than Python. If you are a sane person who avoids craptastic hosts, the prices even out. If we compare apples to apples, PHP is not cheaper than Python. It's true that Python, like every other language like it, lacks such trivial web host setup as dumping files into public_html, htdocs, or whatever. But that doesn't mean PHP is "cheaper" than Python, it simply means that there's an option available to PHP that isn't available to most other languages (a bad one, at that). But comparing that option to Python is truly comparing apples to oranges; cheap shared hosting with no access to shell, etc. is awful and no one deploying any sort of remotely serious app looks to host that app on such services. If you are to choose a reasonable hosting company or host it yourself, as I do, there is no difference in Python vs PHP pricing (at least, not one in favor of PHP). And no, $100/month is not necessary. Try more like $10.

Yes, I am aware; I do believe I mentioned that. Loose typing is still retarded. :)

Also, "5"-2 yields 3, not zero. I think the fairly obvious reason for this nonsense is that string concatenation uses the same symbol in JS as adding (+). Combine with a loosely-typed variables, and it's a recipe for stupid things. The solution, of course, is to make sure you're adding numbers to numbers and not to strings, which is hardly unique to JavaScript; you wouldn't do that in C, C++, Python, or any sane language I can think of--except PHP.

JavaScript's hardly perfect (especially with numbers.. seriously, why the hell would anyone implement loose typing??), but you really can't compare its mess to that of PHP.

Except nothing you just said is true. PHP is not faster than Python or Perl. PHP is not cheaper to host than Python, Perl, Ruby, etc. And most importantly, no you cannot do anything in PHP that you can do in Python or Perl! At least, not without writing C extensions.

The point is not keeping the speaker in a single place at any one time. I thought I made it clear that square waves is an extreme example; I apologize if I did not. The problem is that the speaker's movement is reduced. It does not need to cease movement entirely to prevent voice coil cooling. Sending distorted signals to speakers is a very common way to melt the voice coil.

That poster was actually me (both the person who you disagree with and agree with). By turning the volume knob to 11, what I was trying to emphasize was that sending square waves/distortion to speakers is not necessarily enough in and of itself. It must be at a sufficient power level to generate enough heat to melt the voice coil shielding. And yes, you're right, it's very difficult to cause speaker failure from excursion. Tweeters are notoriously known for being sensitive to square waves, which are essentially what laptop speakers are: performing the sort of limiting that others in this thread have talked about will only perpetuate the square wave problem. It's nice to see someone who understands that. :)

I agree with everything you've said; I think I simply miscommunicated earlier (I'm pretty sure you agree with me too, if my communication were more precise). And yes, back to Dell, I think there's a good chance that they underpowered the speakers (for some reason, this seems standard practice?). But there's also the possibility that the user sent square(ish) waves from VLC player, causing the distortion that we're talking about, which led to the cooling problems that we've discussed, ultimately resulting in the demise of the voice coil. We don't have enough information to know for sure. However, considering that it truly is in Dell's best interest to keep the peace and maintain customer satisfaction, I find it more likely that the end user is to blame, not Dell. But then, maybe Dell is a company that likes to dodge out of warranty claims? It's all guess work at this point.

Meanwhile, in the real world, we have to deal with compromise. What you call bad design, others call a bargain. Not every component is designed for every workload; even bridges are designed with load assumptions. It is not economically viable to make everything to the greatest durability possible. If it is important to you that every single thing be as min/max'ed as possible, you are welcome to find a manufacturer that obliges such tastes and fork over a premium for it.

Also:

That is asinine. It is the speaker that draws power; it is not up to some "rating" to determine how much power is given to the speaker. If you plug a 200W speaker into a 100W amplifier and open the amplifier up to full, that 200W speaker will try to draw 200 watts of power, likely overwhelming and destroying the amplifier.

It's not just the shape of the wave, but the amount of power behind it, how much heat that generates on the voice coil, and how resilient the voice coil is. Such an exploit would only work under ideal circumstances: most likely, a high-powered sound system turned up very loud. I mean, it's not exactly rocket science to not surf the internet with your computer plugged into a high-powered system with the volume cranked to 11. :)

Honestly, I have not read the article and I am not at all familiar with the details of what happened in this particular case. My comment was directed solely at the comment to which I replied. That said, my guess is that, if Dell is being even remotely honest (and they have every reason to be), their conclusion that the customer abused the sound system is very likely true. I would be rather surprised if you can't blow any decent sound system by maxing out its volume knob and sending 200% (or whatever the maximum volume is) VLC music through it.

I never said it was like a low frequency square wave. And it's not really like a "hot mix"; it takes that to an extreme (but, let's face it, hot mixes are all ready pretty extreme). The point is, the closer you get to square wave range, 1) the more potential for damage exists, 2) the worse things sound. Perhaps the best example as to what I'm referring to is taking a CD produced 20 or 30 years ago, put it in a high powered sound system and crank it up towards the upper limits of the sound system[1]. Now, take a "hot mix" CD from yesterday and put it in the system. Do not be surprised if speakers blow. My point is, there's enough color to the signal that I don't think a simple filter will do the trick. That and, yes, what I'm referring to with VLC going "above 100%" is that it's essentially making an extreme "hot mix" and that is dangerous.

[1] Even CD's produced 20 or 30 years ago are still normalized, I'm quite sure. The peak power output between the old CD and the new should be roughly equivalent; any difference should be due entirely to how well the mix covers the frequency spectrum (definite edge to new CD). It's amazing what mass quantities of compression and limiting can do to speakers.

I'm not so sure about that, especially considering the way speakers cool themselves. If you crank the volume up to the point where you're essentially sending constant, large square waves to the speaker, you're literally telling the speaker, "OK, move all of the way in and stay there for a while. Now, move very quickly all of the way out and stay there for a while." The voice coil of a speaker is cooled by the speaker moving in and out and *not* staying in one place; it is a fundamental assumption that all speakers (that I know of) rely on. If you pump a ton of power into the voice coil and force the speaker to stay relatively stationary, expect a failure: the shielding around the voice coil will deteriorate and you will end up with a short circuit. So while VLC cannot send more than 100% power, it can cause the speaker to operate in such a fashion that is unintended and dangerous to the life of the speaker.

Your solution may be that, "the voice coil should be designed to withstand this sort of [ab]use." But that is purely ideological and will likely lead to increased costs for manufacturers; it may also yield less powerful or inferior sound reproduction systems. I'm not sure what the consequences of such a mandate would be, but I'm almost certain neither of us would care for them.

To be clear though, I am not saying that Dell should void the warranty over this, only that the belief that "it should be impossible for software to damage modern hardware" is likely flawed.

The term natural monopoly was coined back in the early 1900's, if memory serves. It was an excuse for government to intervene and regulate / formalize a monopoly that seemed to be "naturally occurring." Through government intervention, these "natural monopolies," while quite possibly natural in their conception, have been allowed to maintain monopoly status for exceedingly long periods of time, without the threat of competition. It's one of many mechanisms to keep out competition from big business. AT&T has historically been an excellent example of this. Also, it used to be that monopoly referred to one thing and one thing only: Corporations who received a grant from a king or other ruler for exclusive "rights" to a market, usually in exchange for some of the loot.

Also, I do believe your explanation of franchise monopoly is putting the carriage before the horse. It is not the city that goes to Big Cable Co, but Big Cable Co that goes to the city.

It is odd that they would cite consumer choice between competing ISP's, which doesn't exist because of the "natural monopoly" status granted to "utilities."

Sorry, had to chime in on your claim that price would come down if they became popular. That is contrary to the Law of Supply and Demand. Top end GPU's are expensive because there is demand for the latest and greatest, which then justifies the cost of making very expensive, cutting-edge cards.