You will find that the "activists" and "sympathisers" in all walks of life are much more prolific in their use of spying than the authorities. That's because, if you disagree with them, you're Wrong. Police forces have much more pragmatic mundane concerns, such as will they will be able to show some results to the boss.
If you're my enemy's enemy, that doesn't mean you're my friend. These days you won't find an idealist anywhere.
Ganja is in the dominion of Jah, and is not within the jurisdiction of the governments of men. Anyone who takes a stand against cannabis is putting themselves at war with their own soul. All of you smokers know this is true, but can't be explained or admitted in public.
Gee-whiz Captain America I didn't know majority rule sucks. Where in the Constitution does it say that? Hehehe, so when you guys vote for something, it's not supposed to be taken seriously. OK, I learned something...
LOL. Exactly. You're already there with the 'imperialism'. Watch now as the idiots' faces fall when they realise this is how we saw them all along. Tyrannised. We ain't getting modded up for this either.. Maybe we should tell them they're 'free Romans' or something. LOL
You guys have got no sense at all. When we complain about American imperialism, you say well our culture dominates the world get used to it (you mean McDonald's haha), call us leftists and then complain when you find out you aren't even the American empire you're just serfs in the control of the few. When something nerdy gets posted to Slashdot and someone like me replies with analysis and information we don't get modded up unless it's a banal one-liner. So what the hell. Bollocks to you all. We'd like to help you on this issue but you gave us Nixon and now GW Bush. Have fun.
Thanks for proving that he who preaches the reality of the situation (and not just from the perspective of the Silicon Valley fat boys) never get modded up even one point here at Slashdot.
Sorry mate but that just seems like a bit of a brush-off. Can you address what I wrote, rather than just make assumptions about what I know about maths? Nyquist is indeed simple:
According to the Nyquist theorem, the sampling frequency must be at least twice the highest signal frequency recorded.
Now what I've said in my post is, even if the highest frequency recorded (or heard) is only 12khz, if I sample this music at 24khz (which should be all that's needed to accurately reproduce the sound according to Nyquist, because 24khz is double 12khz), there will an audible difference between this sample and the same music, sampled at 44khz.
I am a musician myself, and I sometimes use digital. My software allows me to choose 22khz, or 44khz, 48khz or 96khz sampling rates when multitracking. If Nyquist is not debunked, why do I need 48khz or 96khz sampling rates?? I can't hear above 15khz and there's nothing in my recorded audio above 15khz.
Do you understand this yourself? Be honest. I've explained it twice now.
They're probably not as tough as you think. I don't live in the States, but without giving too many details: here in the UK in my former life as a civil servant, I had the lot thrown at me. Threats of physical harm, planted evidence, blackmail, you name it. I stood up to them and I haven't been chucked in a secret prison yet, and I'm still in high spirits and determined to see justice done whatever it takes. Wickedness lasts for a time, but righteousness lasts forever.
That's super. I have a very old programming book (on Pascal LOL - don't worry I don't use Pascal) explaining the sorting algorithms in very simple terms, by way of explaining how they are implemented within the programming language itself. It doesn't use any mathematical notation to explain why one is more efficient than the other, but it's very clear.
There is more to this than the frequency of the sound. The frequency of the sound is only relevant if you think Nyquist has any validity. Vinyl does have a rolloff in the high frequencies, but it starts lower than 15khz, which is a very high pitched sound most people couldn't hear. If most people can hear frequencies up to 12khz, then Nyquist would dictate that the sampling rate for accurate reproduction would be 24khz. However, you would hear a clear difference between that, and your 44khz audio CD.
The big advantage of vinyl produced from an analog source, is that there is no digital sampling at all. Not only that, but Sony recently released a new super audio CD format with a much higher sampling rate than standard audio CD. If Nyquist is any more than a rule of thumb hypothesis at best, why would they release a 96khz format? After all, only whales and some other creatures can hear frequencies up to 48 khz. So, Nyquist is debunked and if higher sampling rate = higher quality (which I believe is true and so does Sony apparently), then vinyl is inherently superior to CD.
I couldn't explain why the harmonics would be lost (it's some complex maths) but some harmonics are definitely lost with sampling. If you ask the guys who write VST effects, they will be able to explain the in-depth maths behind this, and why they are unable to mimic tube-amplifier "warmth" (i.e. even-order distortion) or tape saturation with any realism at all, when they are forced to use 16- or 32-bit 44khz. They are all resigned to the fact that using that bitrate and resolution, they can't make a convincing tube or tape saturation in software.
The music I converted and which lost the pleasantness of the distortion in the vinyl record was a dub reggae record. The distortion was pushed to its limit in places, producing a bubbly sort of psychedelic sensation, giving the music a texture. This sound was reproduced in the CD, but didn't sound pleasant at all.
Thank you but I consider those sorting algorithms to be the basics of programming and I wouldn't dare call myself SpaghettiCODER if I didn't even know how they worked let alone implement them.
I know far too many programmers who haven't a clue what is going on under the hood, so to speak, and have zero comprehension of what operations take longer than others. For instance, consider a C programmer I know who thinks strcat is a good routine to use.
(For the ignorant, it takes two string pointers and copies the second one to the end of the first one; this requires zipping all the way from the start to the end of the first string to find where said end is. It then helpfully returns the pointer to the beginning of the first string, the very parameter you passed in. Never mind that the new end of the first string would be very handy for the next strcat to that same string.)
This programmer is generally good at what he does, but the idea that strcat is woefully inefficient is not obvious to him. Even after explaining it to him, yes he will avoid it, but he does not really understand why. He, and far too many other programmers, measure their program's "speed" in lines of code. Sure, they know that a subroutine call has to count those subroutine lines of codes as well, but they simply have no concept of the fact that some operations take longer than others, that there are better ways of doing simple things.
I think every beginning programmer should have to spend a semester on some funky old z80, for instance, all in assembler, debugging in machine language, before they can call themselves a good programmer. The idea is not to get them skilled in z80s, but to give them a basic idea of how computers work.
It's the equivalent of learning to drive a stick shift car without understand why there are gears at all. If you are ignorant of the very basics of internal combustion engines and can't understand the dangers of lugging or redlining an engine and the importance of using the right RPM, you will never be a good driver. It matters not whether you ever drive a stick in real life, it's just a matter of knowing how to handle your equipment. Do you believe programmers should know big-O notation?
You need to have assembly language, to write routines to directly access the CPU (perhaps to make a fast routine to do a simple operation in your program that gets called many times), address specific memory and input/output of various hardware such as your screen, your ports, everything.
There are limitations to what high-level languages can do. When I started out on the Amstrad CPC, I remember the computer booted up into a very inefficient non-standardised BASIC, which had many added commands which were really functions to allow access to the unique hardware of the CPC (sound and graphics). These were ridiculously slow, with the Z80 processor and 32K memory available for programs. If you wanted to make a simple animation for example (say, a little 2D sprite walking across the screen), you needed to do it in Z80 assembly language IF you wanted the computer to do ANYTHING else at the same time (e.g. scan for keyboard interrupt, play sound chip in background, or even just a second sprite).
x86 assembly language isn't hard, but it's the only way you're going to be able to play control freak with your PC hardware. Many excellent Linux applications are done almost 100% in assembly language, including the excellent SNES emulator ZSNES (which makes much the same demands on Linux as the old 8-bit Amstrad, and keeps perfect time). If speed is really important then there's no other way. For some reason I think secret organizations like GCHQ would employ skilled assembly programmers so they can keep looking for ways to brute force public-key encrypted messages in the shortest possible time.
In my opinion, a lot of people are able to use a few libraries in VC++ or similar to be able to make useful programs, and also new things like Python, Perl, etc. but that doesn't necessarily make them a "coder" just because they're able to use some built-in functions. To be a "coder" means you PREFER to use plain C, and know assembly language (even though assembly language is different for every platform - an assembly language programmer knows exactly what info he needs to find out re opcodes and registers and memory addressing and interrupts, to program his program with the same techniques).
Register an account dude. I'm not responding after this to any anonymous people.
When you say she's 'up to the job', can you explain who put her 'up to the job' in the first place, and what their real motivation is? I think as far as the Bilderberg Group is concerned, they will put anyone up to any job, as long as they are satisfied that they truly pwn them, their family, their associates, etc. But the interesting questions remain unanswered:
1) Who put her up to this (the people behind the scenes)? 2) Why (not the reasons they give but rather what was in it for them)?
The one fact we can deduce from what's been shown to us, is that MS will not be allowed to return to its 1990s business practices because according to these bureaucrats (not us commentators, or shareholders or employees) its competitive practices are somehow no longer "acceptable" when at one time they apparently were. So I'm wondering where we are right now, regarding the post-WW2 schedule for an "ever-closer" unity.
"Kroes attended conferences organized by the Bilderberg Group in 2005 and 2006."
"In 2004 Neelie Kroes was appointed the European Commissioner for Competition. Her nomination was heavily criticised because of her ties to big business and alleged involvement in shady arms deals."
perhaps explaining the reason why:
"Kroes refused to become minister of Defense in 1988"
"As a minister she was responsible for the privatisation of the Post and Telephone Services." - she was put in charge of supervising this, which seemed to be time-coordinated with actions by other governments in Western Europe (killing the old left).
"After her time as minister Kroes became a member of the Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce, furthermore she served as a board member for Ballast Nedam (shipping), ABP-PGGM (a pension fund), NIB (an investment bank), McDonald's Netherlands, Nedlloyd, and Nederlandse Spoorwegen (the privatized Dutch railroad company)."
We [Bilderberg] build 'em up: "As chairperson of Nijenrode University, Kroes awarded an honorary doctorate to Microsoft founder Bill Gates in 1996.".. and we knock 'em down: "As a European Commissioner for Competition one of her first tasks in 2004 was to oversee the fining brought onto Microsoft by the European Commission (see European Union Microsoft antitrust case)."
A loyal servant of the Dutch aristocracy: "Kroes is Knight in the Order of the Dutch Lion since 1981, and Grand Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau since 1989;"
It would sound similar, but not the same in any case.
Apart from the loss of massive amounts of information that cannot be sampled because of the limitations of the bitrate, there is the quality of the DAC and ADC chips to consider.
I borrowed a 1982 LP once from a friend, and still have the CD I made from that LP. The CD sounds much more abrasive that the LP did. Again, this may be because I am listening on very sensitive gear. The recorded sound had tube and some transistor distortion in parts, introduced by the mixing engineer. Those parts sound very bad on CD because of the loss of both even- and odd-order harmonics (even though they sound similar, they are no longer likeable because the much of the inaudible but complementary harmonic content has not been captured).
No I don't have to do anything at all. If you're interested in this subject you can research what government has been saying to business, and what business has been asking it to do, for yourself.
No, it's you who confused "The Grid" with a drama series. I was referring to "The Grid" as referred to on a television documentary on the UK public propaganda channel: "Information TV". The time line for this migration from the internet to "The Grid" was clearly detailed by a government official speaking to a UK telecoms conference.
I didn't even know there was a television series called "The Grid". That doesn't seem like coincidence. Seems more a propaganda offensive to get the public used to the idea before it's imposed.
They just can't wait to kill the internet
on
EU Weighs Copyright Law
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It's been their plan all along to implement something called "The Grid" - a massive centralized network including phones, computers, televisions, etc. This "Grid" would be accessible only by first giving personally identifiable info in the form of some kind of digital signature. The UK government proposed this to the telecoms industry in 1999 or thereabouts.
IIRC, this particular legislation would, according to the masterplan, be about 2 or 3 years ahead of schedule.
The EU is a very sinister machine. Power resides in the hands of the Council 100%. The Council proposes legislation, and submits them to the European Parliament for rubber-stamping. In most cases, the MEPs haven't read the legislation they're voting on (this isn't a piece of Slashdot bull - this is really the truth) and wouldn't be able to understand it anyway. They are there because it's a very easy way to get fat without doing anything. The European Parliament can send a piece of legislation back to the Council for amendment (and the Council usually just makes superficial changes), but the second time around it goes through (different rules regarding the majority).
Make no mistake: the Council itself is a puppet of the G6, the Carlyle Group and other secretive friends. It's been decided the internet (in the form it is in right now) has to go down. The Council has to formulate a 5/10 year plan and direct national governments and the EU about what they have to do.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're my enemy's enemy, that doesn't mean you're my friend. These days you won't find an idealist anywhere.
Ganja is in the dominion of Jah, and is not within the jurisdiction of the governments of men. Anyone who takes a stand against cannabis is putting themselves at war with their own soul. All of you smokers know this is true, but can't be explained or admitted in public.
Gee-whiz Captain America I didn't know majority rule sucks. Where in the Constitution does it say that? Hehehe, so when you guys vote for something, it's not supposed to be taken seriously. OK, I learned something...
LOL. Exactly. You're already there with the 'imperialism'. Watch now as the idiots' faces fall when they realise this is how we saw them all along. Tyrannised. We ain't getting modded up for this either.. Maybe we should tell them they're 'free Romans' or something. LOL
Wow! Insightful.. Hope you're insightful enough to tell your elected representatives to leave the building when they're voted out of office.
You guys have got no sense at all. When we complain about American imperialism, you say well our culture dominates the world get used to it (you mean McDonald's haha), call us leftists and then complain when you find out you aren't even the American empire you're just serfs in the control of the few. When something nerdy gets posted to Slashdot and someone like me replies with analysis and information we don't get modded up unless it's a banal one-liner. So what the hell. Bollocks to you all. We'd like to help you on this issue but you gave us Nixon and now GW Bush. Have fun.
It looks like everyone is a "manager" here..
Did the Realist school of audio ever teach you what the Nyquist theorem is?
Sorry mate but that just seems like a bit of a brush-off. Can you address what I wrote, rather than just make assumptions about what I know about maths? Nyquist is indeed simple: According to the Nyquist theorem, the sampling frequency must be at least twice the highest signal frequency recorded. Now what I've said in my post is, even if the highest frequency recorded (or heard) is only 12khz, if I sample this music at 24khz (which should be all that's needed to accurately reproduce the sound according to Nyquist, because 24khz is double 12khz), there will an audible difference between this sample and the same music, sampled at 44khz. I am a musician myself, and I sometimes use digital. My software allows me to choose 22khz, or 44khz, 48khz or 96khz sampling rates when multitracking. If Nyquist is not debunked, why do I need 48khz or 96khz sampling rates?? I can't hear above 15khz and there's nothing in my recorded audio above 15khz. Do you understand this yourself? Be honest. I've explained it twice now.
They're probably not as tough as you think. I don't live in the States, but without giving too many details: here in the UK in my former life as a civil servant, I had the lot thrown at me. Threats of physical harm, planted evidence, blackmail, you name it. I stood up to them and I haven't been chucked in a secret prison yet, and I'm still in high spirits and determined to see justice done whatever it takes. Wickedness lasts for a time, but righteousness lasts forever.
That's super. I have a very old programming book (on Pascal LOL - don't worry I don't use Pascal) explaining the sorting algorithms in very simple terms, by way of explaining how they are implemented within the programming language itself. It doesn't use any mathematical notation to explain why one is more efficient than the other, but it's very clear.
The big advantage of vinyl produced from an analog source, is that there is no digital sampling at all. Not only that, but Sony recently released a new super audio CD format with a much higher sampling rate than standard audio CD. If Nyquist is any more than a rule of thumb hypothesis at best, why would they release a 96khz format? After all, only whales and some other creatures can hear frequencies up to 48 khz. So, Nyquist is debunked and if higher sampling rate = higher quality (which I believe is true and so does Sony apparently), then vinyl is inherently superior to CD.
I couldn't explain why the harmonics would be lost (it's some complex maths) but some harmonics are definitely lost with sampling. If you ask the guys who write VST effects, they will be able to explain the in-depth maths behind this, and why they are unable to mimic tube-amplifier "warmth" (i.e. even-order distortion) or tape saturation with any realism at all, when they are forced to use 16- or 32-bit 44khz. They are all resigned to the fact that using that bitrate and resolution, they can't make a convincing tube or tape saturation in software.
The music I converted and which lost the pleasantness of the distortion in the vinyl record was a dub reggae record. The distortion was pushed to its limit in places, producing a bubbly sort of psychedelic sensation, giving the music a texture. This sound was reproduced in the CD, but didn't sound pleasant at all.
Thank you but I consider those sorting algorithms to be the basics of programming and I wouldn't dare call myself SpaghettiCODER if I didn't even know how they worked let alone implement them.
I disagree with your comment about the Art of Assembly Language Programming (Randall Hyde). That's an excellent book.
That makes me feel a bit better! So I don't need to study big-O for now.
(For the ignorant, it takes two string pointers and copies the second one to the end of the first one; this requires zipping all the way from the start to the end of the first string to find where said end is. It then helpfully returns the pointer to the beginning of the first string, the very parameter you passed in. Never mind that the new end of the first string would be very handy for the next strcat to that same string.)
This programmer is generally good at what he does, but the idea that strcat is woefully inefficient is not obvious to him. Even after explaining it to him, yes he will avoid it, but he does not really understand why. He, and far too many other programmers, measure their program's "speed" in lines of code. Sure, they know that a subroutine call has to count those subroutine lines of codes as well, but they simply have no concept of the fact that some operations take longer than others, that there are better ways of doing simple things.
I think every beginning programmer should have to spend a semester on some funky old z80, for instance, all in assembler, debugging in machine language, before they can call themselves a good programmer. The idea is not to get them skilled in z80s, but to give them a basic idea of how computers work.
It's the equivalent of learning to drive a stick shift car without understand why there are gears at all. If you are ignorant of the very basics of internal combustion engines and can't understand the dangers of lugging or redlining an engine and the importance of using the right RPM, you will never be a good driver. It matters not whether you ever drive a stick in real life, it's just a matter of knowing how to handle your equipment. Do you believe programmers should know big-O notation?
There are limitations to what high-level languages can do. When I started out on the Amstrad CPC, I remember the computer booted up into a very inefficient non-standardised BASIC, which had many added commands which were really functions to allow access to the unique hardware of the CPC (sound and graphics). These were ridiculously slow, with the Z80 processor and 32K memory available for programs. If you wanted to make a simple animation for example (say, a little 2D sprite walking across the screen), you needed to do it in Z80 assembly language IF you wanted the computer to do ANYTHING else at the same time (e.g. scan for keyboard interrupt, play sound chip in background, or even just a second sprite).
x86 assembly language isn't hard, but it's the only way you're going to be able to play control freak with your PC hardware. Many excellent Linux applications are done almost 100% in assembly language, including the excellent SNES emulator ZSNES (which makes much the same demands on Linux as the old 8-bit Amstrad, and keeps perfect time). If speed is really important then there's no other way. For some reason I think secret organizations like GCHQ would employ skilled assembly programmers so they can keep looking for ways to brute force public-key encrypted messages in the shortest possible time.
In my opinion, a lot of people are able to use a few libraries in VC++ or similar to be able to make useful programs, and also new things like Python, Perl, etc. but that doesn't necessarily make them a "coder" just because they're able to use some built-in functions. To be a "coder" means you PREFER to use plain C, and know assembly language (even though assembly language is different for every platform - an assembly language programmer knows exactly what info he needs to find out re opcodes and registers and memory addressing and interrupts, to program his program with the same techniques).
Register an account dude. I'm not responding after this to any anonymous people.
When you say she's 'up to the job', can you explain who put her 'up to the job' in the first place, and what their real motivation is? I think as far as the Bilderberg Group is concerned, they will put anyone up to any job, as long as they are satisfied that they truly pwn them, their family, their associates, etc. But the interesting questions remain unanswered:
1) Who put her up to this (the people behind the scenes)?
2) Why (not the reasons they give but rather what was in it for them)?
The one fact we can deduce from what's been shown to us, is that MS will not be allowed to return to its 1990s business practices because according to these bureaucrats (not us commentators, or shareholders or employees) its competitive practices are somehow no longer "acceptable" when at one time they apparently were. So I'm wondering where we are right now, regarding the post-WW2 schedule for an "ever-closer" unity.
Here are some interesting quotes from Wikipedia.
.. and we knock 'em down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neelie_Kroes
"Kroes attended conferences organized by the Bilderberg Group in 2005 and 2006."
"In 2004 Neelie Kroes was appointed the European Commissioner for Competition. Her nomination was heavily criticised because of her ties to big business and alleged involvement in shady arms deals."
perhaps explaining the reason why:
"Kroes refused to become minister of Defense in 1988"
"As a minister she was responsible for the privatisation of the Post and Telephone Services." - she was put in charge of supervising this, which seemed to be time-coordinated with actions by other governments in Western Europe (killing the old left).
"After her time as minister Kroes became a member of the Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce, furthermore she served as a board member for Ballast Nedam (shipping), ABP-PGGM (a pension fund), NIB (an investment bank), McDonald's Netherlands, Nedlloyd, and Nederlandse Spoorwegen (the privatized Dutch railroad company)."
We [Bilderberg] build 'em up:
"As chairperson of Nijenrode University, Kroes awarded an honorary doctorate to Microsoft founder Bill Gates in 1996."
"As a European Commissioner for Competition one of her first tasks in 2004 was to oversee the fining brought onto Microsoft by the European Commission (see European Union Microsoft antitrust case)."
A loyal servant of the Dutch aristocracy:
"Kroes is Knight in the Order of the Dutch Lion since 1981, and Grand Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau since 1989;"
Sinister cow. One coal-miner is worth ten of her.
It would sound similar, but not the same in any case. Apart from the loss of massive amounts of information that cannot be sampled because of the limitations of the bitrate, there is the quality of the DAC and ADC chips to consider. I borrowed a 1982 LP once from a friend, and still have the CD I made from that LP. The CD sounds much more abrasive that the LP did. Again, this may be because I am listening on very sensitive gear. The recorded sound had tube and some transistor distortion in parts, introduced by the mixing engineer. Those parts sound very bad on CD because of the loss of both even- and odd-order harmonics (even though they sound similar, they are no longer likeable because the much of the inaudible but complementary harmonic content has not been captured).
LOL is that you again Mr Coward? Would you like to be even more famous?
No I don't have to do anything at all. If you're interested in this subject you can research what government has been saying to business, and what business has been asking it to do, for yourself.
No, it's you who confused "The Grid" with a drama series. I was referring to "The Grid" as referred to on a television documentary on the UK public propaganda channel: "Information TV". The time line for this migration from the internet to "The Grid" was clearly detailed by a government official speaking to a UK telecoms conference.
I didn't even know there was a television series called "The Grid". That doesn't seem like coincidence. Seems more a propaganda offensive to get the public used to the idea before it's imposed.
IIRC, this particular legislation would, according to the masterplan, be about 2 or 3 years ahead of schedule.
The EU is a very sinister machine. Power resides in the hands of the Council 100%. The Council proposes legislation, and submits them to the European Parliament for rubber-stamping. In most cases, the MEPs haven't read the legislation they're voting on (this isn't a piece of Slashdot bull - this is really the truth) and wouldn't be able to understand it anyway. They are there because it's a very easy way to get fat without doing anything. The European Parliament can send a piece of legislation back to the Council for amendment (and the Council usually just makes superficial changes), but the second time around it goes through (different rules regarding the majority).
Make no mistake: the Council itself is a puppet of the G6, the Carlyle Group and other secretive friends. It's been decided the internet (in the form it is in right now) has to go down. The Council has to formulate a 5/10 year plan and direct national governments and the EU about what they have to do.
I'm gleefully looking forward to it as well.