Yes they do. At 8 times per second that comes to 28800 ticks per hour. All mechanical watches "sweep" with some slower than 28800vph, and some faster.
If you have a Rolex you should be able to actually see the ticks and if you put it up to your ear, you can hear and actually count the 8 ticks per second.
Reading the 26 page court document you'll find that this guy negotiated the sale of evisa.com for $250k and apparently wanted more so Visa went to court. Also according to the court document, this guy also registered:
usadirect-online.com (USADirect is an AT&T trademark)
picturebookmaker.com (Picturebook is a SONY trademark)
Now usadirect.com is not an AT&T website and usadirect-online.com is no longer registered. The picturebookmaker.com was registered in 1995 so there's more to it but either this guy had a horrible attorney or the judge was asleep the day they explained those two domain names.
While this is a small business, it has a total of one employee... the owner. He also has two corporations. You incorporate in Delaware to keep corporation officers anonymous. You incorporate in Nevada to avoid paying income taxes. So what does this guy do? Incorporate two companies. He owns the Delaware one directly (anonymously) and the Delaware one owns the Nevada one. The Nevada one is the company that holds evisa.com and "operates" it.
We need a few lawyer geekcritters. Wouldn't it be nice if we covered all bases by not limiting us to purely digital formats?
Would you define a continuous mathematical equation that defines music as analog or digital?
It's not digital because at any specific time it can produce the exact waveform value with infinite precision. It is not analog because the waveform has to be computed and sent to a DAC.
Good point. I don't know how speech recognition programs deal with homophones because from my understanding they work essentially one word at a time... I presume they try to be intelligent but allow the user to correct any mistakes. Translators also cannot accurately translate word for word for many reasons if the translator is attempting to create grammatically correct sentences. Simple things like verb conjugation for example. Going from English to Spanish (or any Romance language) requires that "you talk and run" "they talk and run" translate the verbs "talk and run" to "hablas y corres" and "hablan y corren"... not easy without figuring out the subject of the sentence.
Interesting that you should mention timbre because that link talks exactly about how louder notes (struck harder) produce more overtones than softer notes. A softer note is not just a louder note with less amplitude. So things like this are one reason why digital keyboards using only basic sampling have a long way to go.
The beginnings and end of notes only matter if they cause significant energy to be converted into sound waves aove 20khz. That's something that can be tested very easily.
But again if there are harmonics 100db down from the maximum, and well above the audible frequency of humans, why would it matter if nobody but my dog could hear it? I will never disagree that a piano can produce harmonics above 20khz. Whether they have enough energy to be distinguished above the noise floor as shown in those graphs is highly doubtful.
"This still leaves the timings of exactly when the mechanisms in the ear respond which will be affected by inaudible frequencies. To create a 440 Hz square wave accurately, the frequencies required just keep going. To detect which of two wave forms happened first may well depend on "inaudible" frequencies."
What timings are you referring to? And how do inaudible frequencies make the ear respond? These all sounds like audiophile concepts to me. I'm not familiar with them so please explain them or give me a link to a page that does. You're right about square waves but I'll comment on that later. Which two waves forms are you talking about and if they're audible, won't it only matter which audible sound enters your ear first? Again what do inaudible sounds have to do with audible sounds? Remember that even if there were relevant sounds above 20khz, they are so faint that they would be indistinguishable.
About the 440Hz square wave, there is no such thing as a 440Hz square wave. It is a theoretical concept. Anything produced by a piano or organ hardly resembles a square wave.
Look at this link for a real picture of the frequencies coming from a piano: Harmonics
Do you have any comment to explain your analysis of the difference between an organ and a piano? It certainly isn't anything above 20khz. So why should we record anything above 20khz?
My solution is simple: education and double-blind tests. That way we can resolve the debate about CDs and vinyl.
For you is this a debate of what is accurate or what sounds lifelike? If you want lifelike, I'll give you an equalizer or a DSP and make it sound however you want.
Unless you and any audiophiles out there tell us what exactly is better about vinyl and can quantify it, we have no chance of ever making CDs improve. Right now we can't even determine if vinyl is in fact better than CDs.
Are you implying that the difference between a piano and an organ comes from frequencies above 20khz? Remember that 20khz is the aproximate limit of human hearing.
If any analog equipment could perfectly reproduce sound well above 20khz (or 25khz for the women and children) why would it matter if nobody but my dog could hear it?
That's very interesting. What does this have to do with phase or your original post?
Let me remind you of what you said: "The Nyquist Theorem says that the frequencies can be accurately measured by sampling at twice the highest frequency in the signal, but it doesn't say anything about the phase differences."
What exactly did you mean when you said Nyquist's Theorem doesn't say anything about the phase differences? Be very specific so I don't misunderstand. Nyquist is for band limited signals digitally sampled. Since you said that Nyquist "measures" frequencies does that mean you have no information about amplitude? You have amplitude, you have frequencies, and you have the time at which samples were taken. How does that imply you don't know about phase? Again you have F(t) which is the complete signal! First make sure you're clear on how Nyquist's Theorem works, in theory, and then after you understand that we'll try to work on your understanding of it in the real world.
I still want to know what you think "phase differences" means? Be very specific so I don't misunderstand. Did you mean time base jitter? If so remember that turntables use motors that cause the exact same problem as digital time base jitter. Even if it were audible on normal turntables or cd players (and it is not...) higher quality turntables or cd players will correct this to levels far below audible relevance. So again, what was phase referring to?
"The most important result of this is that the discretization of samples appears as a phase shift."
This is the most curious part of your posts. Is this a result of Nyquist's theorem or of the sampling function? What happens with delta function samples? Are you talking about quantization error? Be very specific so I don't misunderstand. Again, first make sure you're clear on how Nyquist's Theorem works, in theory, and then after you understand that we'll try to work on your understanding of it in the real world.
About your square wave, if can be reproduced with an infinite sampling rate. Obviously not realizable but make sure you are accurate about things like this. Also do you understand that every single components in your audio system is a low-pass filter. From your needle on the record to the amplifier, to the crossovers to the speakers. Getting anything resembling a square wave out of your tweeters or even head phones is laughable.
At least if you're going to knock CDs do some research first. Lookup quantization errors. Also lookup dust and scratches because vinyl doesn't have much of a chance at accurately and consistently reproducing a signal like a CD can.
If you read and understood that paper (which you obviously didn't) you'd realize why 96khz sampling doesn't make a difference and probably uses more bits per sample thereby decreasing the quantization error and making the sampling window problem even worse.
Nyquist's theorem reproduces a complete signal. You know, F(t)? Where did you get that it only "measures" frequencies? Phase is implicit if the function F(t) is known.
There are many factors involved and I'm not so sure people are willing to investigate them before coming to a conclusion. Think of the many things going on: 1. More riders at amusement parks 2. Constant rate of injuries 3. Increasing G-force rides 4. Increasing awareness and record keeping
Possible Conclusions: 1. Increased g-force rides causing more reported injuries? (trend?) 2. Increasing ridership causing more reported injuries? (incomplete data?) 3. Increasing awareness causing more reported injuries? (self fulfilling prophecy?)
As for usage v.s. injuries I was talking about possible conclusion #2 regarding increasing ridership.
After I pointed out Tylenol and Aspirin you started to understand the concept of acceptable risk, significantly more than 58 deaths is apparently something that many people are willing to accept for drugs that may be beneficial. Strangely enough it is often thought that if the FDA were to go through an clinicial trial of aspirin today they would not allow aspirin to be an OTC drug. By the way aspirin bottles don't list side effects.
As for why I said we should focus on the biggest factors of death? Simple. It's because we have limited budgets. Maybe you might not mind being taxed even more but I know that I'm taxed far too much as it is. So if we are dealing with limited resources, and we are in the business of saving lives, I want to save the most lives for the available resources.
By the way, you don't have to waste your time finding the most dangerous things, that's already been done for you: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpubd /morta bs/gmwki10.htm (/. inserts an extra space in the url)
You can even find that in 1992, there were two people over the age of 100 that died as a result of injuries while on ice skates, skis, roller skates or skate boards. Total number of deaths were: 57.
23 people were killed by lawn mowers. 137 people literally starved to death. 530 people died in their swimming pools.
Even if you still want to regulate g-forces on roller coasters, you're looking in the wrong place to reduce the number of amusement park deaths. Most deaths are attributed to poor maintanence and human errors, not g-force brain injuries: http://members.aol.com/rides911/accidents.htm Remember that we have virtually no data on the actual number of lives that will be saved by the g-force limitations.
As I said before, with limited resources, we don't have the luxury of inefficiency if we are trying to save lives.
Read the links on Representative Edward Markey's home page. Those numbers are supposed to be from the National Safety Council. They do disagree with the NTSB/NHTSA numbers and even the numbers on the NSC home page so I have no idea where Rep. Markey actually came up with them. It still demonstrates the huge difference between the amount of fatalities.
BTW a world almanac is not exactly a good source. The almanac should say that those numbers are from NTSB or NHTSBA
Trend? I see incomplete data. Also a self-fulfilling prophecy. Where are statistics about ridership versus injuries?
"If a drug caused 58 cases of brain damage, it would be pulled!" Do some research. Do you know how many thousands of deaths each year are attributed to very popular FDA approved OVER THE COUNTER drugs? Do Tylenol and Asprin ring a bell?
Why don't you work on banning alcohol which causes orders of magnitude more deaths and permanent injuries than something as insignificant as roller coaster.
Don't you understand that we have much greater problems to worry about in this country and regulating roller coasters is not the best place to spend our tax dollars right now?
Today in terms of safety expenditures, we spend $0.0021 per mile for airlines, $0.00015 per mile for automobiles. If we spend $0.00015 per mile on roller coasters we would only be spending $75,000 per year. In 1997 there were 21920 auto fatalities, 3 roller coaster fatalities.
Oh Jamie. Why do you make this so easy. While you're worrying about ad hominem attacks, I'm just laughing because you are apparently the ONLY person to not get my reductio ad absurdum argument. My post moderated to 5 is not exactly hard to miss if people want to disagree with me.
My advice to you is: Stay in school. I think if you keep taking the rhetoric class you're currently in, the very next thing they teach after "ad hominem is bad" is probably what reductio ad absurdum means. Tell me when you finally "get it" and I'll be the first to congratulate you.
Here's a brief rundown of your arguments. I made mine to make a broad point. You actually want details so I'll go one by one and give a single detail that entirely refutes your arguments or proves that you haven't made an argument.
1. Bullet hitting steel. I didn't state grade of steel, composition of bullet, shape, size or velocity. The "weakest" steel is five times softer than the "strongest." An air rifle firing a lead pellet doesn't quite make the vaporization and sizable dent you think it does.
2. I stated rigidity is deformation to force. Also I stated bullet impacts cause force to be imparted on bullet and flesh equally. The actual deformation of each object then is based on the rigidity of each object. Do I imply anywhere that a bullet has inifinite rigidity? With the steel block example obviously not.
3. This is a longer point to emphasize that you should stay away from "real-world" examples when you have no idea what you're talking about especially when arguing with someone that knows a hell of a lot more than you. The Grand Canyon is made up of layers of rocks. When you go there as I have many times, you find rocks with sharp vertical faces and some with sloping faces. The sloping faces are due to faster erosion because of different mineral cohesion properties. Not because of less rigid material. Rocks in the Grand Canyon have NOTHING to do with standard definitions of rigidity and deformation. It simply has to do with the cohesion of the particles of minerals that make up the rocks. They are particulate. The water simply exerts a force on these particles that break them from the rock. Again this "deformation" as you call it has NOTHING to do with rigidity. By the way Jamie, most people call this phenomenon erosion.
4. Calling a physical fracture a chemical effect is stretching? SHOCKING! Calling Bruce Lee a chemical weapon is streching? SHOCKING! See paragraph 1 and 2 again. Calling Bruce Lee a chemical weapon is an interesting example and I wonder if you understand the implications of it. I don't think you do because you stated it so simply without hint of any other understanding. Do you or do you not believe humans and their thought processes are simply chemical processes? Ever hear of ATP? Hormones? Maybe you should've chosen a non-living example. I wouldn't have laughed at you quite so hard.
5. Calling the victims flesh a chemical weapon is funny because you have to define a weapon. Calling anything that transmits a force is not a weapon. Even if I said a bullet was a physical weapon, flesh transmits force so therefore you would also say that flesh is a physical weapon? (Note Jamie that this is reductio ad absurdum again. Don't want to let this point go over your head like the last one did).
6. Your whole quantum weapon, nuclear weapon is funny. Read paragraph 1 and 2 again. I'd be perfectly happy to argue that they are. I would also be correct despite the absurdity of the argument.
7. You're right that you can't guess why I am calling everything is a chemical weapon (this is metaphorical "everything" meaning I don't mean literally "everything". Just want to make sure you don't take this literally too. A mathematical proof for example is not a chemical weapon.). Maybe it was because I refuted the other posters statement that slime was a chemical weapon. See paragraph 1 and 2.
I dare you to respond and say that you understood my reductio ad absurdum argument. Moron.
Now why would I have stated something about ATOMIC chemistry? How the fuck do you think a bullet can go through material? What is the force of friction? Why is it that as I sit in this chair, it supports me. That's right Jamie, atomic fucking chemistry. Proof Jamie is a FUCKING MORON
And it is about rigidity Jamie. Rigidity is measured by the deformation in response to force. Force as you just learned is electromagnetic interaction between electrons of atoms. When a bullet hits flesh, a force is created between the two. Remember Newton? Equal and opposite and all that? The bullet and flesh have the same amount of force imparted on each but guess what Jamie. The bullet doesn't do shit. The flesh on the other hand is deformed. Less rigidity. Get it yet?
Now to emphasize the point that you are a fucking idiot as if your post didn't make that clear enough. I'll also explain why high velocity anything can go through anything. Whatever particle you're firing has momentum. When it hits the target the force created will be a function of the momentum of the objects (or kinetic energy, easy enough to switch between the two given m and v). The flesh target is at rest and the force causes deformation (and acceleration). The two results are obvious when 1) a person hit by a bullet has a bullet wound 2) a person hit by a bullet may be knocked down. Wanna know how rigidity affects this? Imagine a bullet through jello block. The jello block basically doesn't move and the bullet passes straight through. Imagine a bullet hitting a block of steel. That block won't have a dent but will pushed back. The bullet will be a lump of lead unrecognizable as a bullet.
FUCK! Why are there morons like Jamie around. Jamie here's some advice: Better to let someone think you are an Idiot than to open your mouth and prove it.
Any moderators out there, if you are going to moderate my post it had better be as +4 informative. This was a really fucking educational reply for Jamie.
Being slimed is inhumane but rubber bullets are not? And since you are so anti-chemical weapons, maybe you should've read your own link where it refers only to chemical weapon use in warfare. Being slimed refers to riot control which is approved given proper listing of chemicals used. In fact do you understand all implications of the treaty. Why isn't dihydrogen monoxide considered a chemical weapon? Discount the fact that you're wrong about slime, a blast of good old dihydrogen monoxide has temporarily incapacitated many a charging rioter. It has been used for crowd/riot control for ages. Under your (wrong) interpretation that would be illegal under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
From YOUR link:
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
2. "Toxic Chemical" means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)
From YOUR link:
5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
From YOUR link:
7. "Riot Control Agent" means:
Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.
From YOUR link:
9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
As for combat uses... if they can hit an adversary with foam or slime, why can't they equally easily hit them with a bullet or a bomb?
I just thought you might want to reread this sentence on the definition of a toxic chemical: "Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause..." With slime, which chemical action on which life process causes temporary incapacitation?
If you say it's a physical effect causing the normal life process of walking to result in incapacitation, why are lead bullets not considered chemical weapons? I'd say a bullet piercing flesh is a very chemical action. Any good chemist could explain to you the atomic chemistry of why the lead bullet traveling at considerable speed can pierce a less rigid entity such as a human's skin and internal organs.
Isn't it ironic that my inflamatory post to another inflamatory post is the one that you replied to? Who's the bigger asshole? The one that states his superiority without provocation or the asshole who shuts another asshole down? Are you by any chance reading at >=0 and missing "Lead Programmer notbob"'s post?
In any case it is sad that your enthusiasm to make a point is only matched by your lack of reading comprehension and credibility. Hire and fire people? I think not. Know it all 23 year olds who just graduated from a regional college (Radford I presume) don't quite hold much in terms of any regard of power. I bet you have not even interviewed any job candidates at your company (graduating seniors from Radford don't count). And sadly I find no mention of a cnoon in the Upsilon Pi Epsilon CS Honor society. A mere coincidence? I think not. Minimum requirements are only a 3.0? Oh my... not the sharpest tack in the box I see.
I however happened to attend the #1 ranked school in the country for my field for both undergrad and graduate school. Graduated with full honors. I also am a member of the honor society in that field. Arrogant asshole you say? With people like you, hell yes! People like you and "Lead Programmer notbob" bring it upon yourselves. "Lead Programmer notbob" made the initial statement but if you would like to be the target, I see no reason why I can't shut you down as well.
By the way your little scenario has never and will never happen. I'm smart enough to know that's one of the easiest ways to get myself escorted out the door. If I ever make a threat I will be prepared to follow through ("Watch yer back.... or just lighten up."). Despite this, I have all my options open.
As for people not liking me, you're right, there are some people that don't like me and do you know why? Because I have very low regard for their work and for those two people out of about twenty that I currently work with I let them know it. Again it is not out of my own mean-spirit but simply because they bring it upon themselves by putting me into a situation in which I must get involved in their work and then attempting to defend themselves and their inferior work instead of listening to my advice.
>I too have no degree and am the best programmer according to my bosses our company has ever had, after 2 months I was moved to lead programmer.
Obviously that shows how stupid your company's programmers are and your bosses' track record for hiring degreed "talent." Now you want us to think you're something special for being hired there? Tell me "Lead Programmer," what could you do that your other dunce programmers could not? I assure you anything you respond will be laughed at because there are people here, including myself that are the best and have worked with the best. If you have nothing to compare with but that 2-bit company you're at or some.com then your statements show even more of their flaws. It sounds like your little 2-bit shop (tell me, what does your company do) must be pushing out pathetic unsophisticated software to "clients" that don't know any better. How could it manage so long without "Lead Programmer notbob" around?
Do you think you could work at a company that does real work? I'm talking about companies that truly advance the state of technology in a major way. My company is one like that and it has been hiring the best for 15 years.
Face it, you are too stupid to get into a good college... so which college did you attend? You're a slacker so took the easy way out. Oh... maybe you haven't heard but most good companies pay for their employee's degrees. Also those degrees are not simply to get the piece of paper but to develop their employees and make them more valuable. If you're so hot as you think you are, why do you hate your company so much? If I had any disagreement with my company I could make one phone call to one of many people I know in my industry and get another job in 5 minutes flat. Yes, even in this economy in which my industry is doing perfectly fine. The best don't have to answer to PHB or non-technical types. The best are recognized for their value and are kept satisfied.
By hardware I'm more thinking of an IC. But a PC board is a good enough example too. What is the cost of shipping a CD with a software patch compared with the cost of adding a jumper to every board in the field and to every board in the assembly line. What's the last motherboard you've seen that had a jumper obviously added after the board was designed? Better yet, when have you had a motherboard recalled so that they could add a jumper between two traces. Now when was the last time you flashed your BIOS?
1. Hardware is more expensive to produce and fix and as a result has better testing methods. The fact that you can bug fix software implies bugs can just patched if they show up after inadequate testing. What software package is tested as thoroughly as a typical hardware design is.
2. Related to time of testing. If you get one processor that is 99.99% tested or 10 processors that are 80% tested, which would you rather have? Either the bug is very, very hard to find and it gives you access to all doors or there are a number of implementations all of which are easy to crack.
And of course a 9V battery is also just 6 cells underneath the outer covering. Your car battery is 6 cells but it is a lead-acid battery which produces ~2V per cell whereas normal batteries (AAA, AA, C, D) use a dry cell which produces ~1.5V. NiCad cells are ~1.2V.
Decades ago when things like these were being proposed, there were enormous leaps in technology required thus the ideas being the domain of Science Fiction. As you very well know, science fiction can become well understood technology and when the technology is close enough to make future preductions believable for the population, that is when the popular media will catch on. This is despite the fact that the true state of technology may be far from achieving the goal, it is only the perception of the media thinking that it is getting very close.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes they do. At 8 times per second that comes to 28800 ticks per hour. All mechanical watches "sweep" with some slower than 28800vph, and some faster.
If you have a Rolex you should be able to actually see the ticks and if you put it up to your ear, you can hear and actually count the 8 ticks per second.
Reading the 26 page court document you'll find that this guy negotiated the sale of evisa.com for $250k and apparently wanted more so Visa went to court. Also according to the court document, this guy also registered:
usadirect-online.com (USADirect is an AT&T trademark)
picturebookmaker.com (Picturebook is a SONY trademark)
Now usadirect.com is not an AT&T website and usadirect-online.com is no longer registered. The picturebookmaker.com was registered in 1995 so there's more to it but either this guy had a horrible attorney or the judge was asleep the day they explained those two domain names.
While this is a small business, it has a total of one employee... the owner. He also has two corporations. You incorporate in Delaware to keep corporation officers anonymous. You incorporate in Nevada to avoid paying income taxes. So what does this guy do? Incorporate two companies. He owns the Delaware one directly (anonymously) and the Delaware one owns the Nevada one. The Nevada one is the company that holds evisa.com and "operates" it.
We need a few lawyer geekcritters. Wouldn't it be nice if we covered all bases by not limiting us to purely digital formats?
Would you define a continuous mathematical equation that defines music as analog or digital?
It's not digital because at any specific time it can produce the exact waveform value with infinite precision. It is not analog because the waveform has to be computed and sent to a DAC.
Good point. I don't know how speech recognition programs deal with homophones because from my understanding they work essentially one word at a time... I presume they try to be intelligent but allow the user to correct any mistakes. Translators also cannot accurately translate word for word for many reasons if the translator is attempting to create grammatically correct sentences. Simple things like verb conjugation for example. Going from English to Spanish (or any Romance language) requires that "you talk and run" "they talk and run" translate the verbs "talk and run" to "hablas y corres" and "hablan y corren"... not easy without figuring out the subject of the sentence.
Interesting that you should mention timbre because that link talks exactly about how louder notes (struck harder) produce more overtones than softer notes. A softer note is not just a louder note with less amplitude. So things like this are one reason why digital keyboards using only basic sampling have a long way to go.
The beginnings and end of notes only matter if they cause significant energy to be converted into sound waves aove 20khz. That's something that can be tested very easily.
But again if there are harmonics 100db down from the maximum, and well above the audible frequency of humans, why would it matter if nobody but my dog could hear it? I will never disagree that a piano can produce harmonics above 20khz. Whether they have enough energy to be distinguished above the noise floor as shown in those graphs is highly doubtful.
"This still leaves the timings of exactly when the mechanisms in the ear respond which will be affected by inaudible frequencies. To create a 440 Hz square wave accurately, the frequencies required just keep going. To detect which of two wave forms happened first may well depend on "inaudible" frequencies."
What timings are you referring to? And how do inaudible frequencies make the ear respond? These all sounds like audiophile concepts to me. I'm not familiar with them so please explain them or give me a link to a page that does. You're right about square waves but I'll comment on that later. Which two waves forms are you talking about and if they're audible, won't it only matter which audible sound enters your ear first? Again what do inaudible sounds have to do with audible sounds? Remember that even if there were relevant sounds above 20khz, they are so faint that they would be indistinguishable.
About the 440Hz square wave, there is no such thing as a 440Hz square wave. It is a theoretical concept. Anything produced by a piano or organ hardly resembles a square wave.
Look at this link for a real picture of the frequencies coming from a piano:
Harmonics
And here's the web page that talks about harmonics:
Harmonic Non-linearity
Do you have any comment to explain your analysis of the difference between an organ and a piano? It certainly isn't anything above 20khz. So why should we record anything above 20khz?
My solution is simple: education and double-blind tests. That way we can resolve the debate about CDs and vinyl.
For you is this a debate of what is accurate or what sounds lifelike? If you want lifelike, I'll give you an equalizer or a DSP and make it sound however you want.
Unless you and any audiophiles out there tell us what exactly is better about vinyl and can quantify it, we have no chance of ever making CDs improve. Right now we can't even determine if vinyl is in fact better than CDs.
Are you implying that the difference between a piano and an organ comes from frequencies above 20khz? Remember that 20khz is the aproximate limit of human hearing.
If any analog equipment could perfectly reproduce sound well above 20khz (or 25khz for the women and children) why would it matter if nobody but my dog could hear it?
That's very interesting. What does this have to do with phase or your original post?
Let me remind you of what you said:
"The Nyquist Theorem says that the frequencies can be accurately measured by sampling at twice the highest frequency in the signal, but it doesn't say anything about the phase differences."
What exactly did you mean when you said Nyquist's Theorem doesn't say anything about the phase differences? Be very specific so I don't misunderstand. Nyquist is for band limited signals digitally sampled. Since you said that Nyquist "measures" frequencies does that mean you have no information about amplitude? You have amplitude, you have frequencies, and you have the time at which samples were taken. How does that imply you don't know about phase? Again you have F(t) which is the complete signal! First make sure you're clear on how Nyquist's Theorem works, in theory, and then after you understand that we'll try to work on your understanding of it in the real world.
I still want to know what you think "phase differences" means? Be very specific so I don't misunderstand. Did you mean time base jitter? If so remember that turntables use motors that cause the exact same problem as digital time base jitter. Even if it were audible on normal turntables or cd players (and it is not...) higher quality turntables or cd players will correct this to levels far below audible relevance. So again, what was phase referring to?
"The most important result of this is that the discretization of samples appears as a phase shift."
This is the most curious part of your posts. Is this a result of Nyquist's theorem or of the sampling function? What happens with delta function samples? Are you talking about quantization error? Be very specific so I don't misunderstand. Again, first make sure you're clear on how Nyquist's Theorem works, in theory, and then after you understand that we'll try to work on your understanding of it in the real world.
About your square wave, if can be reproduced with an infinite sampling rate. Obviously not realizable but make sure you are accurate about things like this. Also do you understand that every single components in your audio system is a low-pass filter. From your needle on the record to the amplifier, to the crossovers to the speakers. Getting anything resembling a square wave out of your tweeters or even head phones is laughable.
At least if you're going to knock CDs do some research first. Lookup quantization errors. Also lookup dust and scratches because vinyl doesn't have much of a chance at accurately and consistently reproducing a signal like a CD can.
If you read and understood that paper (which you obviously didn't) you'd realize why 96khz sampling doesn't make a difference and probably uses more bits per sample thereby decreasing the quantization error and making the sampling window problem even worse.
Nyquist's theorem reproduces a complete signal. You know, F(t)? Where did you get that it only "measures" frequencies? Phase is implicit if the function F(t) is known.
There are many factors involved and I'm not so sure people are willing to investigate them before coming to a conclusion. Think of the many things going on:
d /morta bs/gmwki10.htm
1. More riders at amusement parks
2. Constant rate of injuries
3. Increasing G-force rides
4. Increasing awareness and record keeping
Possible Conclusions:
1. Increased g-force rides causing more reported injuries? (trend?)
2. Increasing ridership causing more reported injuries? (incomplete data?)
3. Increasing awareness causing more reported injuries? (self fulfilling prophecy?)
As for usage v.s. injuries I was talking about possible conclusion #2 regarding increasing ridership.
After I pointed out Tylenol and Aspirin you started to understand the concept of acceptable risk, significantly more than 58 deaths is apparently something that many people are willing to accept for drugs that may be beneficial. Strangely enough it is often thought that if the FDA were to go through an clinicial trial of aspirin today they would not allow aspirin to be an OTC drug. By the way aspirin bottles don't list side effects.
As for why I said we should focus on the biggest factors of death? Simple. It's because we have limited budgets. Maybe you might not mind being taxed even more but I know that I'm taxed far too much as it is. So if we are dealing with limited resources, and we are in the business of saving lives, I want to save the most lives for the available resources.
By the way, you don't have to waste your time finding the most dangerous things, that's already been done for you:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/datawh/statab/unpub
(/. inserts an extra space in the url)
You can even find that in 1992, there were two people over the age of 100 that died as a result of injuries while on ice skates, skis, roller skates or skate boards. Total number of deaths were: 57.
23 people were killed by lawn mowers.
137 people literally starved to death.
530 people died in their swimming pools.
Even if you still want to regulate g-forces on roller coasters, you're looking in the wrong place to reduce the number of amusement park deaths. Most deaths are attributed to poor maintanence and human errors, not g-force brain injuries: http://members.aol.com/rides911/accidents.htm Remember that we have virtually no data on the actual number of lives that will be saved by the g-force limitations.
As I said before, with limited resources, we don't have the luxury of inefficiency if we are trying to save lives.
Read the links on Representative Edward Markey's home page. Those numbers are supposed to be from the National Safety Council. They do disagree with the NTSB/NHTSA numbers and even the numbers on the NSC home page so I have no idea where Rep. Markey actually came up with them. It still demonstrates the huge difference between the amount of fatalities.
BTW a world almanac is not exactly a good source. The almanac should say that those numbers are from NTSB or NHTSBA
Trend? I see incomplete data. Also a self-fulfilling prophecy. Where are statistics about ridership versus injuries?
"If a drug caused 58 cases of brain damage, it would be pulled!" Do some research. Do you know how many thousands of deaths each year are attributed to very popular FDA approved OVER THE COUNTER drugs? Do Tylenol and Asprin ring a bell?
Why don't you work on banning alcohol which causes orders of magnitude more deaths and permanent injuries than something as insignificant as roller coaster.
Don't you understand that we have much greater problems to worry about in this country and regulating roller coasters is not the best place to spend our tax dollars right now?
Today in terms of safety expenditures, we spend $0.0021 per mile for airlines, $0.00015 per mile for automobiles. If we spend $0.00015 per mile on roller coasters we would only be spending $75,000 per year. In 1997 there were 21920 auto fatalities, 3 roller coaster fatalities.
You can pick your friends. And you can pick your nose. But you can't pick your friend's nose.
Applied to P2P this would be:
You can pick your peers. And you can pick your computations. But you can't pick your peer's computations.
That's nifty and all but I'm still trying to figure out the three sea shells.
Oh Jamie. Why do you make this so easy. While you're worrying about ad hominem attacks, I'm just laughing because you are apparently the ONLY person to not get my reductio ad absurdum argument. My post moderated to 5 is not exactly hard to miss if people want to disagree with me.
My advice to you is: Stay in school. I think if you keep taking the rhetoric class you're currently in, the very next thing they teach after "ad hominem is bad" is probably what reductio ad absurdum means. Tell me when you finally "get it" and I'll be the first to congratulate you.
Here's a brief rundown of your arguments. I made mine to make a broad point. You actually want details so I'll go one by one and give a single detail that entirely refutes your arguments or proves that you haven't made an argument.
1. Bullet hitting steel.
I didn't state grade of steel, composition of bullet, shape, size or velocity. The "weakest" steel is five times softer than the "strongest." An air rifle firing a lead pellet doesn't quite make the vaporization and sizable dent you think it does.
2. I stated rigidity is deformation to force. Also I stated bullet impacts cause force to be imparted on bullet and flesh equally. The actual deformation of each object then is based on the rigidity of each object. Do I imply anywhere that a bullet has inifinite rigidity? With the steel block example obviously not.
3. This is a longer point to emphasize that you should stay away from "real-world" examples when you have no idea what you're talking about especially when arguing with someone that knows a hell of a lot more than you. The Grand Canyon is made up of layers of rocks. When you go there as I have many times, you find rocks with sharp vertical faces and some with sloping faces. The sloping faces are due to faster erosion because of different mineral cohesion properties. Not because of less rigid material. Rocks in the Grand Canyon have NOTHING to do with standard definitions of rigidity and deformation. It simply has to do with the cohesion of the particles of minerals that make up the rocks. They are particulate. The water simply exerts a force on these particles that break them from the rock. Again this "deformation" as you call it has NOTHING to do with rigidity. By the way Jamie, most people call this phenomenon erosion.
4. Calling a physical fracture a chemical effect is stretching? SHOCKING! Calling Bruce Lee a chemical weapon is streching? SHOCKING! See paragraph 1 and 2 again. Calling Bruce Lee a chemical weapon is an interesting example and I wonder if you understand the implications of it. I don't think you do because you stated it so simply without hint of any other understanding. Do you or do you not believe humans and their thought processes are simply chemical processes? Ever hear of ATP? Hormones? Maybe you should've chosen a non-living example. I wouldn't have laughed at you quite so hard.
5. Calling the victims flesh a chemical weapon is funny because you have to define a weapon. Calling anything that transmits a force is not a weapon. Even if I said a bullet was a physical weapon, flesh transmits force so therefore you would also say that flesh is a physical weapon? (Note Jamie that this is reductio ad absurdum again. Don't want to let this point go over your head like the last one did).
6. Your whole quantum weapon, nuclear weapon is funny. Read paragraph 1 and 2 again. I'd be perfectly happy to argue that they are. I would also be correct despite the absurdity of the argument.
7. You're right that you can't guess why I am calling everything is a chemical weapon (this is metaphorical "everything" meaning I don't mean literally "everything". Just want to make sure you don't take this literally too. A mathematical proof for example is not a chemical weapon.). Maybe it was because I refuted the other posters statement that slime was a chemical weapon. See paragraph 1 and 2.
I dare you to respond and say that you understood my reductio ad absurdum argument. Moron.
And it is about rigidity Jamie. Rigidity is measured by the deformation in response to force. Force as you just learned is electromagnetic interaction between electrons of atoms. When a bullet hits flesh, a force is created between the two. Remember Newton? Equal and opposite and all that? The bullet and flesh have the same amount of force imparted on each but guess what Jamie. The bullet doesn't do shit. The flesh on the other hand is deformed. Less rigidity. Get it yet?
Now to emphasize the point that you are a fucking idiot as if your post didn't make that clear enough. I'll also explain why high velocity anything can go through anything. Whatever particle you're firing has momentum. When it hits the target the force created will be a function of the momentum of the objects (or kinetic energy, easy enough to switch between the two given m and v). The flesh target is at rest and the force causes deformation (and acceleration). The two results are obvious when 1) a person hit by a bullet has a bullet wound 2) a person hit by a bullet may be knocked down. Wanna know how rigidity affects this? Imagine a bullet through jello block. The jello block basically doesn't move and the bullet passes straight through. Imagine a bullet hitting a block of steel. That block won't have a dent but will pushed back. The bullet will be a lump of lead unrecognizable as a bullet.
FUCK! Why are there morons like Jamie around. Jamie here's some advice: Better to let someone think you are an Idiot than to open your mouth and prove it.
Any moderators out there, if you are going to moderate my post it had better be as +4 informative. This was a really fucking educational reply for Jamie.
Being slimed is inhumane but rubber bullets are not? And since you are so anti-chemical weapons, maybe you should've read your own link where it refers only to chemical weapon use in warfare. Being slimed refers to riot control which is approved given proper listing of chemicals used. In fact do you understand all implications of the treaty. Why isn't dihydrogen monoxide considered a chemical weapon? Discount the fact that you're wrong about slime, a blast of good old dihydrogen monoxide has temporarily incapacitated many a charging rioter. It has been used for crowd/riot control for ages. Under your (wrong) interpretation that would be illegal under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
..." With slime, which chemical action on which life process causes temporary incapacitation?
From YOUR link:
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a
result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
2. "Toxic Chemical" means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless
of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on
Chemicals.)
From YOUR link:
5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
From YOUR link:
7. "Riot Control Agent" means:
Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.
From YOUR link:
9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
As for combat uses... if they can hit an adversary with foam or slime, why can't they equally easily hit them with a bullet or a bomb?
I just thought you might want to reread this sentence on the definition of a toxic chemical: "Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause
If you say it's a physical effect causing the normal life process of walking to result in incapacitation, why are lead bullets not considered chemical weapons? I'd say a bullet piercing flesh is a very chemical action. Any good chemist could explain to you the atomic chemistry of why the lead bullet traveling at considerable speed can pierce a less rigid entity such as a human's skin and internal organs.
You're right I'm an asshole. Watch this...
Isn't it ironic that my inflamatory post to another inflamatory post is the one that you replied to? Who's the bigger asshole? The one that states his superiority without provocation or the asshole who shuts another asshole down? Are you by any chance reading at >=0 and missing "Lead Programmer notbob"'s post?
In any case it is sad that your enthusiasm to make a point is only matched by your lack of reading comprehension and credibility. Hire and fire people? I think not. Know it all 23 year olds who just graduated from a regional college (Radford I presume) don't quite hold much in terms of any regard of power. I bet you have not even interviewed any job candidates at your company (graduating seniors from Radford don't count). And sadly I find no mention of a cnoon in the Upsilon Pi Epsilon CS Honor society. A mere coincidence? I think not. Minimum requirements are only a 3.0? Oh my... not the sharpest tack in the box I see.
I however happened to attend the #1 ranked school in the country for my field for both undergrad and graduate school. Graduated with full honors. I also am a member of the honor society in that field. Arrogant asshole you say? With people like you, hell yes! People like you and "Lead Programmer notbob" bring it upon yourselves. "Lead Programmer notbob" made the initial statement but if you would like to be the target, I see no reason why I can't shut you down as well.
By the way your little scenario has never and will never happen. I'm smart enough to know that's one of the easiest ways to get myself escorted out the door. If I ever make a threat I will be prepared to follow through ("Watch yer back.... or just lighten up."). Despite this, I have all my options open.
As for people not liking me, you're right, there are some people that don't like me and do you know why? Because I have very low regard for their work and for those two people out of about twenty that I currently work with I let them know it. Again it is not out of my own mean-spirit but simply because they bring it upon themselves by putting me into a situation in which I must get involved in their work and then attempting to defend themselves and their inferior work instead of listening to my advice.
>I too have no degree and am the best programmer according to my bosses our company has ever had, after 2 months I was moved to lead programmer.
.com then your statements show even more of their flaws. It sounds like your little 2-bit shop (tell me, what does your company do) must be pushing out pathetic unsophisticated software to "clients" that don't know any better. How could it manage so long without "Lead Programmer notbob" around?
Obviously that shows how stupid your company's programmers are and your bosses' track record for hiring degreed "talent." Now you want us to think you're something special for being hired there? Tell me "Lead Programmer," what could you do that your other dunce programmers could not? I assure you anything you respond will be laughed at because there are people here, including myself that are the best and have worked with the best. If you have nothing to compare with but that 2-bit company you're at or some
Do you think you could work at a company that does real work? I'm talking about companies that truly advance the state of technology in a major way. My company is one like that and it has been hiring the best for 15 years.
Face it, you are too stupid to get into a good college... so which college did you attend? You're a slacker so took the easy way out. Oh... maybe you haven't heard but most good companies pay for their employee's degrees. Also those degrees are not simply to get the piece of paper but to develop their employees and make them more valuable. If you're so hot as you think you are, why do you hate your company so much? If I had any disagreement with my company I could make one phone call to one of many people I know in my industry and get another job in 5 minutes flat. Yes, even in this economy in which my industry is doing perfectly fine. The best don't have to answer to PHB or non-technical types. The best are recognized for their value and are kept satisfied.
By hardware I'm more thinking of an IC. But a PC board is a good enough example too. What is the cost of shipping a CD with a software patch compared with the cost of adding a jumper to every board in the field and to every board in the assembly line. What's the last motherboard you've seen that had a jumper obviously added after the board was designed? Better yet, when have you had a motherboard recalled so that they could add a jumper between two traces. Now when was the last time you flashed your BIOS?
1. Hardware is more expensive to produce and fix and as a result has better testing methods. The fact that you can bug fix software implies bugs can just patched if they show up after inadequate testing. What software package is tested as thoroughly as a typical hardware design is.
2. Related to time of testing. If you get one processor that is 99.99% tested or 10 processors that are 80% tested, which would you rather have? Either the bug is very, very hard to find and it gives you access to all doors or there are a number of implementations all of which are easy to crack.
And of course a 9V battery is also just 6 cells underneath the outer covering. Your car battery is 6 cells but it is a lead-acid battery which produces ~2V per cell whereas normal batteries (AAA, AA, C, D) use a dry cell which produces ~1.5V. NiCad cells are ~1.2V.
Decades ago when things like these were being proposed, there were enormous leaps in technology required thus the ideas being the domain of Science Fiction. As you very well know, science fiction can become well understood technology and when the technology is close enough to make future preductions believable for the population, that is when the popular media will catch on. This is despite the fact that the true state of technology may be far from achieving the goal, it is only the perception of the media thinking that it is getting very close.