|
|
Be more careful with presentation
It appears that your methodology is sound, but you should be more careful about how you present these results. It's quite likely you're revealing bugs with one implementation of the FLAC algorithm, not fundamental problems in the design of FLAC. Unless you show your test files to the FLAC team and they say "yes, this is a design flaw and no, we aren't going to fix it" then claiming that "FLAC is not a lossless format" is inaccurate, misleading, and defamatory, and you're opening yourself up to a boatload of justified flameage.
Be more careful with presentation
Because saying "This codec loses something, therefore is not lossless" is entirely inflammatory and unfair.
Be more careful with presentation
Because saying "This codec loses something, therefore is not lossless" is entirely inflammatory and unfair.
No, because saying "FLAC is not a lossless codec" is different from saying "one particular implementation of FLAC has a bug that can cause loss." Claiming that the FLAC algorithm is not lossless is an accusation that its authors are intentionally misleading people by saying otherwise. I would say that without some serious evidence, yes, such a claim is inflammatory and unfair. It's FUD, plain and simple, because it leads people to the incorrect conclusion. Just like saying "The phone company isn't giving you a free cell phone" when part of your bill says "Free phone fee: $270". No, not really. It's more like claiming "The phone company is lying and isn't giving anybody a free cell phone" when they actually just accidentally billed you for it but were completely willing to correct their mistake. The difference is what you're saying about the intent of the other party.
Be more careful with presentation
And you're certainly not assigning malicious intent to his statements, no sir.
Be more careful with presentation
And you're certainly not assigning malicious intent to his statements, no sir.
Actually, if you read my post you might notice I said nothing about his intent, only the nature of his statements. I can understand the mistake -- it's a subtle distinction. |
SearchFrom our Sponsor...Latest Mountain Lion HintsWhat's New:HintsNo new hintsComments last 2 daysLinks last 2 weeksNo recent new linksWhat's New in the Forums?
Hints by TopicNews from Macworld
From Our Sponsors |
|
Copyright © 2014 IDG Consumer & SMB (Privacy Policy) Contact Us All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. |
Visit other IDG sites: |
|
|
|
Created this page in 0.15 seconds |
|