It would be awesome if cell phone salespeople would be aware of that and help their customers who are switching platforms.

That first screenshot... I thought I was looking at a slightly less polished MacOS/X for a minute there. The resemblance is strong.

Exactly. Those squids are people too. We have way too many insensitive clods in here these days.

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.

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"

Duh.

Can I recommend some of these?

http://www.amazon.com/Etymotic...

Huge noise reduction and a lot lighter weight.

Or learn how to access it...

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

If Google can merge Samsung's camera stuff into stock Android... win for everyone!

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.

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.

A duck.

It reliably dumps a longer stack trace than my scrollback can handle, anyway.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.