the ogg file format has supported multiple streams pretty much since inception. Couple this with a bit of positional tagging information and you're done.

Yeah, but this thing isn't just positional tagging, it's 3D soundscape stuff. So you have to have a way of communicating to the receiver the kind of space the audio stream is in -- the size of it, the general shape, how reflective the surfaces are, diffusion, the position of the space relative to the source, etc. and then you have to rigorously define the reverb algorithms that will be applied to the source taking these into account. You also have to define equalization (and perhaps other LTI) functions for distance, and diffraction around obstacles.

Then, if better reverb and EQ spatialization algos are developed, how do you push these out? How do you handle legacy content that used the old algos? Do they get auto-upgraded or do they play in the old ones?

And then there's the HRTF business: you have to define the HRTFs that will be used, and under what conditions.

And the positioning itself has subtleties you have to address. Will sound sources be positioned relative to a central listener in spherical coordinates, or will it be positioned relative to a reference space with rectangular ones? How will in-phase content be handled when mixed to one speaker?

3d audio = surround sound (5.1/7.1/8.1/etc)

"5.1/7.1/8.1" doesn't have an elevation component. Certain IMAX formats did, as did some experimental 70mm formats in the 70s, but it hasn't really been widely available before Dolby ATMOS and Barco Auro.

The big difference with the traditional X.Y formats is these regard individual screen channels as discrete, and when films are mixed, sound sources are hard-assigned to certain speaker channels, and the speaker placement has to be matched in every venue . "3D" systems use procedural methods to assign sound sources a vector or coordinate with metadata, and a decoder at the receiving end does the job of assigning speakers, which may have different placement and number from venue to venue.

Something mixed in 5.1 or 7.1 can be "downmixed" to stereo by summing channels together and applying pan and gain to position the multichannel sources in a stereo field. But a stereo signal can't really be "upmixed" to a 7.1, the position of individual sound sources is lost and can't really be extracted from the mix -- there are fancy ways of "spatializing" stereo mixes to 5.1 or 7.1 with fourier analysis and panning certain phase correlations or frequencies to different speakers, but there's really no way for a spatializer to split the celli from the violas and pan them separately, or the machine guns and the explosions.

3D audio formats keep violas and cellis on separate streams in the file, and then use position metadata to do the speaker mix in the receiver, so something mixed on stereo or 5.1 speakers could be unmixed to a 7.1, or 11.1, or 64 channel setup and you would actually get more fidelity.

This could be quite promising if incorporated into movies and video games.

There are already several platforms for object-based 3D audio in games, they already offer solutions for binaural and HRTF listening.

The AES has promulgated many standards with regard to file interchange and computer audio, they're always several years behind and chasing proprietary vendor technology that's already established (See AES31, a timeline interchange format supported by no one, even open source projects avoid it like the plague). In the end vendors have nothing to gain by adopting the AES standard.

On the videogame side there's OpenAL, X3d and a bunch of other platforms that build on these. Speaking as a film sound designer, 3D audio systems just don't offer the level of control I'd want: I don't want the user's cellphone applying my fucking reverbs and distance rolloffs for me, and nether do my clients. This is why there's Dolby ATMOS and the competing Barco-DTS standard which will probably be FRAND and offer down mixing modes which should preserve the experience on headphones, and don't leave things like equalization, or panning, or reverb to the interpretation of the platform or the host.

I see, so it IS okay for Apple to strong arm banks into doing things Apple's way, provided Apple's way meets your standard. Funny that.

I mean obviously this is a foul up and both the banks and Apple should work to fix it, they're BOTH responsible. The idea that banks are just helpless ninnies at the mercy of Apple, forced to conduct their business exactly as Apple demands, is dumbass.

Geez, if Apple told you to jump off a cliff, you have to, right? I mean they have "such a large war chest."

At a certain point surely the responsibility of bankers to keep their customers' accounts secure entails-- it's the very basis of their profession.

and anyway, what exactly are they afraid of? Did they even ask to implement the necessary security features? Did they ask, and did Apple refuse? Has Apple threatened any sort of sanctions against banks that don't comply? It's all very amorphous, and again, seems to rely on the idea that bankers have minimal accountability or responsibility, and may respond to undefined, mysterious, and unsubstantiated "fears" without basis.

Give it ten years.

Molecular printers, flying cars and fuel-cell smartphones...

They're on it

we'll see if she can't talk her way out of this first.

I'm not sure the fourth amendment should apply to email.

Yet another reason why people just shouldn't use email for anything substantive.

I'm a liberal who wants the next president to be a sharp operator who knows how to keep her hands clean and has no compunction about crushing her enemies. So yes, it helps me quite a bit.

So, the Bush White House had its staffers use government email for government stuff, who'da thunk it?

Nah, you see the problem was that they didn't really pay attention to what business was running on either blackberry, or they intentionally used the non-government emails for business that was clearly government-related ("we should fire these US Attorneys") but they didn't want captured by the Records Act.

You see, when you give people two email systems it doesn't address the ethical problem, since you're now allowing someone to choose wether their correspondence is recorded or not. The only alternative now is to force people to turn over their private emails as long as they're government employees.

Note, by the by, that the argument that all her official correspondence with State Dept. staff is a matter of public record because the worker bees were using government accounts is specious.

I don't think ANY emails of ANY kind should be public record. I thought I made that clear.

There is a concerted effort throughout government to communicate in manners that cannot be audited.

Like phone calls, or meeting another official at a bar.

I just don't think emails should be regarded this way, they're far too casual and they don't really reflect the official acts of people in the way that a true "record" does (in the sense that someone in the 1960s would understand the term "government record.") Emails should be afforded the same leniency as phone calls -- maybe we keep them for a little while, but people, even people in government, should have the right to delete them.

Sometimes I wonder if transparency advocates won't be happy until they've stapled a Google Glass onto the head of every government employee recording a 24 hour stream of their every sight and utterance. The problem with this approach is that the only people who actually use government transparency are other politicians, mainly to dig up dirt, and lobbyists -- it makes their job so much easier when they can confirm that a politician remains bought. Beyond a certain point transparency only benefits the loud and wealthy, it makes discretion impossible and it subjugates elected officials to the whim of anyone that runs a PR operation.

She said that anything that is classified isn't handled via email at all, but via secure diplomatic channels and cables, which are all done via the State department and on record.

On record at Wikileaks, that is.

This sort of thing isn't unprecedented, the Bush White House had a policy of issuing important staffers two Blackberries, one that had a whitehouse.gov email and one that had a gop.org email, and using both systems indifferently for communication.

I sorta don't care in either place, at least from an ethics perspective, since all emails ever seem to do is trigger dopey years-long investigations and pseudo-controversies about the parsing of language and people going off half-cocked. Case in point: Benghazi.

On the other hand, I'd rather not people like this be president of the United States. I think Lindsey Graham has the right idea, if you're an official person, NEVER USE EMAIL. Write official documents carefully, or just call someone.