Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:IT is amazing (Score 1) 99

Laziness and impatience drives obscene profit margins within the coffee industry. It's still fairly easy to still spend pennies on a cup of coffee, if you're willing to get off your ass, grind a few beans, and brew a cup......... Starbucks or shove a pod into a machine to whip up a coffee-like substance.

Couldn't agree more, if they bothered not only would they get it cheaper but also better. Starbucks and pods are both average coffee for way above average price, the beans are sometimes good at the start but have spoiled in treatment: cheap air dry process like a lot of African can collect a lot of crap (literally) and often not processed properly and can go off, wet process tends to be better but can also be done wrong. The off flavours are often due to this cheap processing bacterial/mould issue rather than the bean itself. A lot are over roasted too without fine control leading to burned flavour.

If you work out your routine it isn't as much messing as people think. I do it the most inconvenient way but even that is fine with some forward thinking. A lot of the compounds that don't lead to good flavour in large amounts are extracted much much easier with boiling vs cold water, you can get a better balance of them with slow cold extract. I use a french press for most my coffee, know roughly how much I drink a day and prepare all of it day before with warm water after grinding to right size to extract how I want. Cover to stop oxidising, leave out for a little while then put in fridge over night and next day is just a quick microwave and instant coffee that taste amazing, most coffee snobs comment on it being unbelievably good and and I tell them I'm using same beans as them or worse and they are surprised and often start doing it the same way. It takes minutes to grind beans (I have no roaster yet) and that is going slow/pulsing with frozen beans to stop the burning that none burr grinders can suffer from; do enough for a week and back in the freezer tightly sealed it goes and it means this most time consuming method takes about 5min extra a week vs pods for a fraction of the cost and better taste and is just as quick with less work (pour and heat = done) on the actual preparing a cup in the morn/day.

There are even quicker methods with less messing, just I get the best results from this and it is so little extra to do it is worth it to me. Plenty of expresso machines available that will do fast extract with a nice even lower pressure to get ristretto quality shots which you can make anything from long black/flat white/capuchinno etc with if that is your thing. Part the problem people have is they use a bad machine with too high a temp raw uncontrolled pressure machine that is too high at start and drops rapidly so drags out extract time and more of the harsh compounds you want less of (some is good for flavour) and scorches the favourable [wanted in high ratio] ones and they blame the bean or compare it to a pod machine that is using finer grounds with faster extract. As for time tamping a shot in a portafilter is just as quick as a pod and spent grounds come out like a hockey puck with 1 bang so again they compare to pods as low mess option. Like you say it is laziness for the most part.

Comment Re: False premise (Score 1) 492

My laptop has 64GB RAM, a 2TB SSD, a 7th generation i7 and dual GTX 1080 in SLI. It runs Gentoo / Windows 7 Ultimate dual boot. It's probably more capable than your desktop.

urmmm got news for you but laptop i7 are NOT equivalent of desktops except in marketing speak. The gtx 1080 is also the m version I'm guessing so my similar spec desktop on Win7ult and arch is actually better than your laptop despite lookign the same from marketing pov. Also I have several internal SSD's and mech drives on top of my externals.

Comment Re:Open Source isn't the only option. (Score 1) 221

Now as for what the article was asking for, seems rather specialized. No one is going to do some specialized work for free so the requester can make tones of money off of it, even if it is open source.

It seems specialised, but if you break down the task, what the OP's friend wants is: 1) a GPU pixel-shader filter for video editing and 2) a video editor UI that doesn't have any extraneous fluff, but just runs a single filter on a single file and generates an output file.

To me, that cuts to the core problem in OSS in my book -- there are large-scale projects that try to deliver a fully-featured package and there are ad hoc projects that produce a small-scale tool for a particular task, but aren't particularly user friendly, and aren't very flexible.

There are probably still plenty of packages out there that can be used in the old-school Unix pipes way, but they're getting harder and harder to find.

hmm seems like asking someone to reinvent the wheel to me, I could be wrong but why does it need to be so particular? He wants it as an output video file and there is a mass of software both free (as in beer), proprietarry and fos that will do whatever you want to video I'm guessing. Not saying he needs to use adobe but there are equivalents, I use it for photo and vid though thus mentiuon it. The industry standard software if likely to do what is needed just fine so why all the messing with this, sounds like someone who doesn't understand vid editing wanting a free lunch to me.

NLE, compositing and grading tools are likely to do what he wants for less money than paying devs for such a niche thing, even things like adobe speedgrade/aftereffects/premierpro can be made to do it without all the "fluff" if you if you have auto batch action like apply some lut or whatever then just queue it and send to the encoder stack, you can apply such workflows in single click from bridge once you've set it up so it could not be more simple. Likewise there are free and foss solutions that will do similar.

Comment Re:Inaccurate article details... (Score 1) 296

CDC testing subsequently revealed the germ was New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase -- a highly resistant form of CRE

It should at least read "revealed the germ CONTAINED New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase". NDM-1 is not a bacteria, it's an enzyme possessed by resistant bacteria that inactivates antibiotics.

What's really fun is that this gene can potentially be transferred to other types of bacteria laterally...

I was about to comment on that until read your comment. It is indeed plasmid mediated gene transfer so can be passed to unrelated diseases. Given the track record of hospitals with not following basic operating proceedures properly I wouldn't be surprised if this does come into contact with other pathogens and we'll have yet another treatment resistant batch of diseases. The rate we're going we'll have treatment proof never mind resistant pathogens soon. Wouldn't be surprised if there was more outbreaks that origniate from within the hospital rather than from the patient prehospitalisation period. People are so lackadaisical with anti contamination proceedures etc, I've see lab workers whos idea of perfect aseptic technique is barely a step above licking your fingers (twice) and wiping them on your labcoat and medical staff including doctors who are even more lazy.

Comment Re:Main application? (Score 1) 77

Me too. Onkyo receiver and Dali Zensors, nothing at all fancy FLAC played over DLNA. Definite improvement (yes this is subjective) over purchased mp3s but with your own encoded mp3 at 320kbps vbr, any perceived difference is psychological.

The real beauty of FLAC for me though is simply ripping your CDs to FLAC, dumping them ona network share and using the FLAC as input for transcoding to whatever lossless format you want.

For the unititiated, FLAC is essentially ZIP for audio

you're right but there is more to it, sometimes it is unfair comparissons of apples to oranges since different decoders etc can play back those files differently. What people are hearing a difference between is the particular audio chains efficiency at playing back different formats accurately. On correctly rigged gear with proper hardware and software where there is no difference I have found hardly any listeners can tell the difference. I have perfect pitch and range but only hear it on some very complex music through gear costing more than most peoples cars, and the difference is VERY slight. For archiving flac is superior, for devices that have better flac playback or where listeners can hear the minor difference in very complex tracks flac is superior but most the people making the night/day difference noise are wrong; whether they know it is another thing as it is often subconscious psychological thing or due to not understanding the audio chain on a complex level. I suspect I have higher density of brain wiring where it counts for noticing this kind of thing and it is only slight to me, I'm high functioning autistic with savant traits and in the miniscule percentile with IQ over 150 and can percieve a lot of these things due to higher density of wiring in those areas like I say so average people are less likely to notice the difference. The big picture is often neglected and not taking into account the whole audio chain. Like people commenting on telling opamps etc apart, you can of course but even the same ones sound different put into a different chain and people often compared this as it it is just that link and add psycholoical bias on top.

Comment Re:Main application? (Score 1) 77

Nothing fancy. I can hear a definite difference between FLAC and MP3 files on my old Marantz receiver with some JBL speakers.

in double blind tests I find those who say they can hear difference can't actually tell the difference with average music files with mp3 encoded PROPERLY. I do use flac but it depends on the content. I have perfect pitch and range too and the difference is there played with likes of JHA JH11's through a good DAC etc only on some files, for others it is transparent and I cannot tell in double blind tests on all files.

Most people compare apples to oranges such as What you might be hearing a difference between is the decoder since depending on the firmware/hardware (most don't do it in hardware these days especially), the rest of the chain such as dac used etc etc different formats can be played back worse/better than others. Even when apples to apples it is complicated by psychological imagined differenc. It isn't wishful thinking or an insult but subconscious actualyl percieved difference so I'm not saying people are lying just that trained listeners can be tricked even due to actually hearing a none existent difference, the brain is tricky like that; it actually works that way with other senses not just audio and is common in smell and taste.

Comment Re:LOL (Score 1) 564

why it's not solely about retro hipsterism

LOL! That's all it EVER is with audio. Same with vinyl.

You don't see movie lovers going back to VHS/BETA/Laserdisc/8mm/etc. unless there's a specific release limited to those formats (Star Wars on LD, for example). And then it's a Herculean effort to transfer it faithfully to a modern format.

that isn't true. Maybe that is all it EVER is with audio if you're basing it on discussion of none experts in non audio mastering forums. Peoples ignorance is understandable since they have no experience of it and they don't need to know but there is reasons why vinyl is valid to some. Sadly you wont hear those reasons from audiphiles and hipster twats who make hte most noise to the general public and make most the sales up. The real reasons are linked to things like the dynamic range compression and improper limiters like brickwalling things to death. Not everyone notices either since they are ignorant of what to look for, they don't have perfect range and pitch, they don't have the gear to reproduce formats close to what they're capable of and so on so myths on both sides get repeated. Sadly marketing and cliched myths are commonly heard among "normal" people including audiophiles and the facts get buried in the noise. Also when it comes to gear it isn't necessarily about money as you often don't get what you pay for.

Comment Re:First Vinyl... Then Cassette (Score 1) 564

First Vinyl... Then Cassette...

Next CDs will make a comeback. Even retro hipterism can't save the 8-track though.

As I said elsewhere there is a reason vinyl is popular, not because it is inherently superior but because of bad audio engineering practises and dicks like rick rubin. Containers capabilities are one thing but often the content is nowhere near (like 5bit in a 16bit container). Part the reaon it made a comeback is hipster twats I admit (most the reason I'd guess) BUT some makes sense in that vinyl tends to be mastered properly and isn't brickwalled to fuck so actually ends up higher spec than CDaudio despite the fact vinyl "container" is inferior to CD/digital container formats. Look up the dynamic range on something like loudnesswars database or somewhere and compare the same album on vinyl release to the cd and digital download editions and you'll see vinyl is often mastered properly. I'm no audiophile (snakeoil and too much money for the most part) but I do use very good gear and hear the difference. Even on the go I use multiBA iem's and good cans and system to drive them at home because I have perfect range and perfect pitch and I notice stuff like that; some CD rips are unlistenable to me compared to the vinyl rip.

Now comparing properly done 16bit/44.1KHz digital file to vinyl yeah digital will always be superior, sadly the mastering a significant amount of releases totally negates that benefit. Sadly many don't realise how bad these things have gotten especially if they don't have perfect hearing and don't have systems to reproduce the difference and the theory doesn't always fit real world. Same happens when people say 24bit audio is pointless when it is far from it, in LISTENING you cannot tell the difference but in editing I notice the difference because there is MUCH more overhead with 24bit vs 16bit and with a complex workflow it really can help, the problem is people without full knowledge of audio work judge based on idiots who claim they can hear differences rather than people who need the extra headroom (simple workflows with little/no complex dsp it isn't needed tbh).

Comment Re:It IS hipsterism (if that's a word) (Score 1) 564

It didn't stop vinyl from coming back when it is objectively a worse format than a CD.

ish.... you're mistaking the containers capabilities with the content. Part the reaon it made a comeback is hipster twats I admit (most the reason I'd guess) BUT some makes sense in that vinyl tends to be mastered properly and isn't brickwalled to fuck so actually ends up higher spec than CDaudio despite the fact vinyl "container" is inferior to CD/digital container formats. Look up the dynamic range on something like loudnesswars database or somewhere and compare the same album on vinyl release to the cd and digital download editions and you'll see vinyl is often mastered properly. I'm no audiophile (snakeoil and too much money for the most part) but I do use very good gear and hear the difference. Even on the go I use multiBA iem's and good cans and system to drive them at home because I have perfect range and perfect pitch and I notice stuff like that; some CD rips are unlistenable to me compared to the vinyl rip.

Now comparing properly done 16bit/44.1KHz digital file to vinyl yeah digital will always be superior, sadly the mastering a significant amount of releases totally negates that benefit. Sadly many don't realise how bad these things have gotten especially if they don't have perfect hearing and don't have systems to reproduce the difference and the theory doesn't always fit real world. Same happens when people say 24bit audio is pointless when it is far from it, in LISTENING you cannot tell the difference but in editing I notice the difference because there is MUCH more overhead with 24bit vs 16bit and with a complex workflow it really can help, the problem is people without full knowledge of audio work judge based on idiots who claim they can hear differences rather than people who need the extra headroom (simple workflows with little/no complex dsp it isn't needed tbh).

Comment Re:Let's look at how much they are using/making (Score 1) 197

You use baking soda + oil (or human fat, in case of Fight Club) to make soap.

as mentioned saponification depends on strong base like NaOH or KOH used in soap making. Secondly "fight club" is waaaay off in many regards and is to be taken at entertainment value alone so don't try and draw any real life knowledge from it(I found the book not much more accurate). I used to make soaps years ago (as hobby my formal background is biochem). For instance animal fats are often way too soft alone and do not make the best soaps unlike claimed in fight club. Sodium rendered soaps tend to be harder and potassium salts softer but lathering and bubble stability, solubiulity and so on can be affected differently so many use a blend of fats and KOH and NaOH (soapcalc will give you amounts needed if interested BUT you need to superfat really for most soap so don't want complete saponification) . You'll find a lot of sodium tallowate soaps (ie. just NaOH and animal fat) need other ingredients added to make them soft enough for most folks.

sorry meant hard enough for most folks on the tallowate it is really soft soap generally (usually sodium palmate firms it up for commercial soap)

Comment Re:Let's look at how much they are using/making (Score 1) 197

You use baking soda + oil (or human fat, in case of Fight Club) to make soap.

as mentioned saponification depends on strong base like NaOH or KOH used in soap making. Secondly "fight club" is waaaay off in many regards and is to be taken at entertainment value alone so don't try and draw any real life knowledge from it(I found the book not much more accurate). I used to make soaps years ago (as hobby my formal background is biochem). For instance animal fats are often way too soft alone and do not make the best soaps unlike claimed in fight club. Sodium rendered soaps tend to be harder and potassium salts softer but lathering and bubble stability, solubiulity and so on can be affected differently so many use a blend of fats and KOH and NaOH (soapcalc will give you amounts needed if interested BUT you need to superfat really for most soap so don't want complete saponification) . You'll find a lot of sodium tallowate soaps (ie. just NaOH and animal fat) need other ingredients added to make them soft enough for most folks.

Comment Re:the smell of E-6 in the morning (Score 1) 213

I think this just reminds you that Kodak missed the boat a long time ago, and is left to ride a fad of a few hipsters / nostalgic fans who will provide some short-lived interest for an old product (an admittedly good one, in its day). Perhaps it will gain a small cult following, or sustained dedicated small fan base. But any professional or even many amateurs know that given a good linear sensor and quality lens, you can recreate any color warmth or feeling of film you want, after taking the shot, and you don't have to wait 3 days of dunking film in a developing tank to find out how it turned out. Heck, I (and every other smartphone user) can re-create every film response I want with Instagram or Photoshop. That was Instagram's whole point originally. Is it really worth it to pay $10 extra and several days wait for 36 shots, just to that broadcast to others that I still use film? Followed by scanning in the photo to post it on Facebook? Real analog there, huh?

exactly, only reason to shoot film still is for large or medium format becasue you can't afford digital equivalent. Even then Pentax 645Z now fills that niche on the budget end for the MF folks and would trash film equivalent. Those with a NEED for MF couldn't get the results they need with film TBH compared to hassy and phaseone backs/MF bodies.I got rid of my film slr gear years ago and never looked back. I am not pro as I don't do it for living but digital can do everything film could and better. I'm mainly indoor multi monoblock studio shooter (not for money but passionate hobby for the most part) but do some night astro and cityscape stuff too. The astro work of caoturing DSO with stacks wasn't possible in film days but the latter was only now no reciprosity failure isn't a thing. My dad worked for Kodak and taught me a lot since a young age and I just kept it up and it became a serious passion so it isn't like I never had film experience since that was what I knew first.

Modern sensors are something film cannot match since colour curves in ACR/Photoshop or Capture1 (I use both) can simulate any film response. Coupled with the better modern glass plus improvements in micromirrors and sensors means detail is off the charts compared to film, same with DR, noise/grain and chroma accuracy and gamuts, plus conveniences like no need to use filters in b&w due to bayer array, no need to use different whitebalanced film (or even bother with whibal card since can do it in post if shoot raw, yeah some say you still need to as histogram is affected by whitebalance as made from jpeg preview of the raw data BUT if you meter lights with sekonic 358 or similar that doesn't apply). Massive memory cards with instant previews and histograms, wider dynamic range in raw formats than film why would anyone go back? The latter point sometimes people say benefit is you don't clip highlights in film as easy (which is exposed for shadows due to curved response) but expose for highlights and you can drag shadows up in post since 12 to 14stops of DR in average DSLR file when making files your 8bit files for print/viewing (yeah I know some print is 16bit workflow but that isn't for luma but colour gamut reasons going additive to subtractive system especially since paper is 6 to 7 stops maximum even when highest dmax due to full of OBA's). Those are just the benefits off the top of my head too there are much more and I've not found any drawbacks save for the cost of the change but chemicals for developing are getting more and more expensive so there perhaps isn't even that now.

Comment Re:Can someone please explain? (Score 1) 67

Freesync 2 is all about adding HDR support for the existing Freesync standard. There is more information in the arstechnica article:

HDR on PC is a more complex beast than just panel brightness, though. First, a game performs colour tone mapping after an engine renders a scene. Then, when the frame is passed to a monitor, it's tone-mapped yet again to fit the display's supported colour range. That may or may not be the same colour space required by HDR10 or Dolby Vision. This two-stage process takes time and introduces latency. With FreeSync 2, AMD is removing the second step, connecting the game engine directly to the HDR display. When you plug in a FreeSync 2 display, the display announces its HDR capabilities, and the AMD graphics driver will shuttle that information over to the game engine. This ensures that gamers get the best possible image quality, because the game tone-maps to the screen's native colour space, while also reducing input lag. Unfortunately, it also means that in order for FreeSync 2 and HDR to work, AMD needs the specific colour and brightness capabilities of every FreeSync 2 monitor, while games and video players must be enabled via AMD's API. AMD is going to have to win over a lot of hardware partners to make FreeSync 2 a reality.

So they are getting more colours by mandating HDR and increasing performance by removing a stage from the rendering process by allowing the game to use to exact colour space of the monitor.

hmmm I am not convinced until I see some real analysis of this, TFA sounds like marketing BS with no real numbers or facts to backup. The HDR has less to do with the gamut and they don't even mention what they are comparing to, shittiest TN panel is my guess (there are some decent ones now). Gamut is more factor of the screens native bitrate and is oft extended with FRC (frame rate control). The HDR if genuine giving a lower black point with real shadow detail and higher white point WITHOUT just applying a harsh S curve would be welcome but sadly most screens even high end ones don't do wide luma well and are 7bit-ish raneg at best. What good screen DO do is not crush the f*** out of the blacks, calibrate very well even when brightness is turned way down (often the case on such a screen) and don't have washed out grey blacks when the white point is set just right.

I do a lot of 10bit end to end editing because of photo and design work where colour accuracy matters but most content will be fine in 8bit sRGB space (or the usual 6bit + frc) and consumers wouldn't see any difference between regular and true higher gamut content on those same screen (apples to apples) is my guess. True aRGB gamut monitors like Eizo and higher end NEC are nice for intended use but they don't jack of all trades because that is the price you pay for that as there is no free lunch despite what this article suggests, but they have the price tag drawback for most folks without a need for wide gamut such as making colour accurate work for subtractive reproduction (print) on additive device (screen). I care more for accuracy/how well it performs AFTER calibration than response times. Althoguh for general use I'd recommend people buy another screen than high gamut ones, I'm typing this on a cheaper LG ah-ips true 8bit panel which has alright response in film/game with overdrive working well enough. Slight smearing but hard to notice and it has decent enough photo viewing etc and nice contrast etc but I'd have to sacrifice that to get better response time by nature of tech and I doubt they have fixed the physical limitations as they'd be boasting about such a breakthrough if they had. I hope I'm wrong but doubt it.

Comment Re:macs are for gays (Score 1) 268

Moral of the story? Fuck, I don't know.

The moral of the story is that HP/Compaq is shit and has always been shit. Compaq was shit before being acquired by HP and the resulting combination is also shit. In case you're wondering, Sony is also shit. You want Asus, Lenovo, or Toshiba, in no particular order.

You cannot tell people to buy on a brand any more even at particular pricepoint. Only thing you can trust is researching specific models at your pricepoint and intended use. Only 2 of those mentioned are good IMO (anbd many others share that view), and lenovo lost its touch a little these days imho so I mainly buy asus when I used to drift toward lenovo. Toshiba are shit. Thing is they ALL make stuff that sucks at various pricepoints so a little research goes a long way.

Comment Re:Been that way since the 1980s (Score 1) 145

Might've been that way since the 1970s too, but I was in elementary school then.

  • The game review magazines (now sites) need advance copies of the games to review them in a timely manner.
  • No advance copies = review comes out a week or more after the game is released = nobody bothers reading it = bankrupt reviewer.
  • To get an advance copy requires the game developer send you a copy.
  • If you pan a game in your review, the developer is less likely to send you an advance copy of their next game.
  • So magazine and website game reviews tend to be biased in favor of the games.
  • I suspect indie games are panned more partly because they do tend to be worse (low budget and all), but also because a lot of reviewers use them as an opportunity to vent their frustrations about not being allowed to say what they really think about a game.

Since about 2000 I've relied mostly on the opinions of friends and people on forums, rather than reviews. So I don't buy games the day they're released (need a few weeks or months for online communities to build up a consensus), and I never pre-order anymore. I'll still read reviews for things like features in the game (though gameplay videos on YouTube have mostly replaced that). But I usually ignore the reviewer's opinion about a game, unless the opinion is negative.

I find even the negative pro reviewers are not trustworthy these days, they don't "do" proper critique or wrap up truths in nice comments to keep devs happy by saying something seemingly positive but intend you read between the lines and figure out what they are really saying (not necessarily thinnly veiled the way it sounds but something that gets the truth across without directly rubbing peoples nose in it and invoking ire of the devs). They just seem to ignore the real negatives and put the obligatory "buggy at launch but there will be patches" kind of things and ignore real issues. No integrity in game journalism these days, it was always lacking in some areas and partial in others but now journo ethics seems to have died completely. User reviews classed as negative and mixed on likes of metacritic that are longer rather than single sentence reviews are most useful now IMO. If you ignore the bitchfest and those who bought something that wasn't their thing although sometimes those do confirm something is what I'm after such as expecting DCS World planes to fly like an arcade style game, or expect Arma3 to be like Battlefield sells me on it despite reviewer intending it as a negative it is a plus to some like myself. Same with finding actual to completion playtimes like 1 hour max of content padded with pseudocontent like "collectibles" to make the official 10hour figure.

Another problem is several factors seem to have lowered the bar for higher scores. People struggle with niche or "its too different" type stuff so it is hard to review. Big effect is casuals being a big part of the market share and also affecting new generations of what is accetable so it drags content times down, learning curves get turned full retard and handholding is unavoidable and the likes happen as the norm. Plus things like precedent set of it being OK to release buggy stuff at launch and fix latter, acceptable to address missing content with content padding with DLC (Like EliteDangerous did, they finally made the content promised at launch but you need to buy it, design wise it is pretty much the same as E1 and E2 I used to play as a kid).

Slashdot Top Deals

Your mode of life will be changed to EBCDIC.

Working...