+1 to short and sweet incremental change lists. VLC / Firefox used to be this way until /someone/ deemed those not worthy. You can still get to the VLC changes which ware way more satisfying to read:
libfaac is a safe aac default, but aacplus works MUCH better at the the 8 - 16 kbps range, which seams to be a stated goal of this page. It turns on SBR+PS and has ffmpeg support.
If any Dropbox people are reading this, can you comment on what criteria you used to pick the audio codec?
You correctly guessed that we picked libfaac as a safe option for compatibility. I never tried out aacplus and sounds indeed interesting so we'll likely try it out soonish. Our target rate is a bit higher than those you mention though. For audio, we target 32kbps at low quality layers and 96kbps at higher qualities. Couple of questions for you:
- how does aacplus works at these rates?
- what compatibility issues can we expect if we were to try it out?
Are there ANY hardware manufactures that know how to write software? It seems like both firmware and hardware were an afterthought to almost any piece of computer hardware I have seen.
4096 is a good goal, but there is a much more obvious benefit at 1024 since it would fit within the IPv6 1280 MTU (i.e. a single packet). I recall hearing stories that the Google Homepage had to fit within 512 bytes for IPv4's 576 MTU.
One packet is great if you can do it. There's a big penalty after the sender in a new TCP connection reaches the initial transmit window. A lot of sites these days have configured this up from 2x or 3x MSS to 10x MSS (about 5,360 bytes) to increase what can be sent in the first transmission back from the server (HTTP response for example).
The interesting effect of bubbling is not so much that people appear naked, but that the original picture, containing clothed people (typically bikinis), appear naked.
There are lots of pictures of naked people online. Millions probably. A visual effect that makes it look like someone is naked isn't that impressive, because there are naked people all over the place. The nudity aspect isn't the most precise description of what makes the bubbles effect interesting, it is the undressing aspect that makes it a interesting psychological/visual effect.
because if you are at 'work' or such environment that warrants the NSFW (Not Safe For Work) tag distinction and you click on a bubbled picture, it would give the illusion of viewing softcore pornography rather than, say, a typical bikini picture from a social networking site (which would arguably not be okay to view at work to being with).
The meaning of this statement is that bubbling is basically covering up more of the body then the bikini. So, technically a bikini reveals more than a bubbled bikini.
Is this even news? Pick any Wikipedia article at random that has more than one author. It isn't hard to find run on sentences and verb tense mismatches.
When you buy premium, you get the unsampled data (and a person to call on the phone)