There's no such thing as a square wave at a given frequency. A square wave is the sum of the fundamental and all odd harmonics, and a triangle wave is represented by another, similar series.
You might have sine, triangle, and square waves whose fundamentals are all at 20 kHz, but both the square and triangle waves will sound exactly the same as the sine wave if they are sampled and reproduced properly at 44.1 kHz. The antialiasing filter will remove the harmonics before the signals are digitized, resulting in three recordings of a sine wave.
Higher sampling rates allow you to use cheaper antialiasing filters, but that's hardly a constraint worth worrying about in a modern digital signal chain.
Look at the "Occupy" protests. They were massive, they were long-lasting, they were crushed through excessive violence and the political leaders responsible for that crushing have seen their poll numbers RISE as a result of using terror and intimidation on those who were asking only that the 1% pay fair dues
Pro tip: If private appropriation of public resources is not OK when it's done by a multinational corporation, it's also not OK when it's done by a motley assortment of bums, drifters, and trust-fund anarchists. And it's not "speech," either way.
The US is about equal to all those you list in terms of civil rights, meaningful free speech (not just the playstuff that's actually allowed)
You know how I know you're a barking idiot?
Re:Hate to put a damper on the celebration
on
Diablo III Released
·
· Score: 1
It's a complicated law. As I understand it, the exemptions to the access-control anticircumvention clause allow you to use the necessary tools, but you''re still prohibited from distributing such tools.
That means that in the event of a Blizzard shutdown, you would be allowed to fire up a debugger and create a keygen yourself without breaking the law, but you would still be forbidden to give that keygen to anyone else. The game would disappear down the memory hole, just as predicted by many people when the DMCA was under consideration.
Many confusing and ugly legal issues could have been avoided if Congress had forced authors to choose between private technological protection (DRM) and standard legal protection (copyright) for their works, without artificially tying them together.
They even gave her credit for financial results that happened when she was already out of office.
To be fair, you can't criticize CEOs for an obsessive focus on the next quarter's numbers on one hand, and then fail to give them credit for longer-term success on the other. Some people have argued that HP's improved outlook post-Fiorina came about at least partially due to strategic moves that looked irresponsible and counterproductive at the time.
The awful truth is that sometimes, slashing and burning a once-great company's payroll and product lines is exactly the right thing to do for that company's long-term health.
I'm not defending Fiorina specifically, just saying that even the very wise cannot see all ends, even in retrospect.
Or it could be that the executive staff just received some of the worst engineering advice ever. High-power terrestrial transmissions anywhere near the GPS band are forbidden not only by US law but also by international treaty, for reasons that could have been explained if these clowns had bothered to ask any qualified RF engineer.
Translating for the MBAs out there: "A lot of people who knew what they were doing agreed not to do stuff like this."
Lack of due diligence on Falcone's part does not justify making exceptions to the laws the rest of us have to follow.
As a scientist, I'm frustrated by the apparent fact that most people don't care about the science.
The best remedy for this situation would be a record of successful predictions made by climate models. So far, there haven't been very many successful, substantial predictions that you can point to when people question the science.
As a result, statements like 50 feet higher is what will happen if we burn all the Canadian oil sands don't really help your cause. They're reminiscent of bullshit like this, which "deniers" will cheerfully throw in your face for the next 100 years. When the battle is fought between breathless hyperbole and proudly-borne ignorance, the truth will suffer all the collateral damage.
So you need to make fewer sweeping pronunciations like that, and more like, In 19xx we predicted that X would happen in 20xx if Y was done (or not done). X was, in fact, the outcome.
This is not an unusual or exceptional burden to place on your shoulders -- it's merely the standard that the rest of us have to meet in our day-to-day work.
Why do people find it so hard to believe someone is doing their job instead of just being out to inconvenience them?
Because it's a lot cheaper to take reasonable care and lose a few planes and/or buildings every so often, than it is to panic and overregulate to the tune of countless billions of dollars per year in job losses and other economic damage.
Think how much farther ahead we'd all be if the Bush administration had taken this advice to heart after 9/11. We may have saved a few Boeings, but we created the untouchable bureaucratic monster called the TSA, and spent a couple of trillion dollars starting wars that ultimately killed more people on both sides.
Rewriting the rules of international commerce because of a single, isolated plane crash in Dubai -- and doing so before the final reports even come out -- is all too typical of the US government and its apparatchiks in the USPS.
True, those were a bad example of something with "literally" no civilian applications.
But that just reinforces my point. ITAR didn't do jack shit to keep isotope-separation centrifuges out of the Iranians' hands... but a brief glance at the comments in this thread will show plenty of cases where ITAR has served to impede perfectly innocuous economic activity.
That suggests that ITAR is written and enforced by a bunch of power-hungry bureaucrats who are either out of touch with the real-world effects of their regulations, or who have intentions that are very different from most peoples' perception.
Slow approvals yes, but why would I want to arm somone who had expressed unfriendly intentions
Because when the definition of "arms" is sufficiently broad, or when the people in charge are unqualified to decide what should and should not be covered, these regulations are classic examples of government gone berserk.
As long as the bad guys can buy the same defense-rated coffee pot or whatever from China, then all we've done is shoot ourselves in the foot. (Oh, and by restricting free trade, we're also giving the bad guys every incentive in the world to develop their own independent production capacity for such items.)
Regulations like ITAR should only cover things like uranium centrifuges that literally have no legitimate civilian use. Classifying everything invented since 1983 as a munition or dual-use item is demonstrably counterproductive.
Do some personal and open-minded research (don't take other peoples word for it!) and you'll be amazed.
Translation: "I hold my biology textbook to one standard of evidence and the Bible to another. I'm pretty much a dumbass. It's cool. You should try it!"
I'd say that depends on what's being carried on board the Cessna, wouldn't you?
Point being, missile defense is a perfect example of "fighting the last war." A nuke on a small private plane or marine vessel is a much bigger concern than a conventional missile attack from a state actor who is subject to MAD considerations.
If the 747 platform is seen as a next-generation replacement or complement to a Phalanx gun or something like that, then that's silly as well, since anyone who can mount a credible attack on a Phalanx-armed ship can also shoot down a 747.
The question isn't whether you can shoot down the Cessna, as any kid with a.22 and some luck can do that. The question is, can you tell which one to take out?
But that's local defense, not theater or strategic defense.
That's pre-9/11 thinking. It's all "strategic" now.
So your advice is for Netflix to commit corporate suicide by failing to hire lobbyists of their own? Once your company reaches a certain size, non-engagement with the political system is very dangerous, and arguably a breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders. It's pretty clear that "competition" in the US these days is determined by whoever writes the biggest checks to the most influential Congressmen.
Even Microsoft had to learn that the hard way, when Novell, Netscape, and other doomed incumbents went crying to Uncle Sam. The nature of government is to expand and metastasize quickly enough to catch people like Bill Gates off guard. Reed Hastings may be a tone-deaf nitwit in some ways, but as an MSFT board member he would not have missed this lesson.
Unfortunately, trying to to stay out of the game is no longer feasible. Netflix has to become politically active, because they depend on the same cable companies who are behind this load of horse shit.
So there's probably a 100 year window in a civilization's development where its unintentional broadcasts are detectable.
Exactly. A civilization will go unnoticed if we don't detect its emissions that originate from the brief instant (relatively speaking) between their invention of radio and their understanding of information theory.
And if we do think there's other life out there, do we really trust it enough to tell it where we are?
It has, indeed, been pointed out that this is a really bad idea. Safe to say any other intelligent civilizations will reach similar conclusions.
So, yeah, SETI is pretty much a waste of electricity.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no such thing as a square wave at a given frequency. A square wave is the sum of the fundamental and all odd harmonics, and a triangle wave is represented by another, similar series.
You might have sine, triangle, and square waves whose fundamentals are all at 20 kHz, but both the square and triangle waves will sound exactly the same as the sine wave if they are sampled and reproduced properly at 44.1 kHz. The antialiasing filter will remove the harmonics before the signals are digitized, resulting in three recordings of a sine wave.
Higher sampling rates allow you to use cheaper antialiasing filters, but that's hardly a constraint worth worrying about in a modern digital signal chain.
Look at the "Occupy" protests. They were massive, they were long-lasting, they were crushed through excessive violence and the political leaders responsible for that crushing have seen their poll numbers RISE as a result of using terror and intimidation on those who were asking only that the 1% pay fair dues
Pro tip: If private appropriation of public resources is not OK when it's done by a multinational corporation, it's also not OK when it's done by a motley assortment of bums, drifters, and trust-fund anarchists. And it's not "speech," either way.
The US is about equal to all those you list in terms of civil rights, meaningful free speech (not just the playstuff that's actually allowed)
You know how I know you're a barking idiot?
It's a complicated law. As I understand it, the exemptions to the access-control anticircumvention clause allow you to use the necessary tools, but you''re still prohibited from distributing such tools.
That means that in the event of a Blizzard shutdown, you would be allowed to fire up a debugger and create a keygen yourself without breaking the law, but you would still be forbidden to give that keygen to anyone else. The game would disappear down the memory hole, just as predicted by many people when the DMCA was under consideration.
Many confusing and ugly legal issues could have been avoided if Congress had forced authors to choose between private technological protection (DRM) and standard legal protection (copyright) for their works, without artificially tying them together.
They even gave her credit for financial results that happened when she was already out of office.
To be fair, you can't criticize CEOs for an obsessive focus on the next quarter's numbers on one hand, and then fail to give them credit for longer-term success on the other. Some people have argued that HP's improved outlook post-Fiorina came about at least partially due to strategic moves that looked irresponsible and counterproductive at the time.
The awful truth is that sometimes, slashing and burning a once-great company's payroll and product lines is exactly the right thing to do for that company's long-term health.
I'm not defending Fiorina specifically, just saying that even the very wise cannot see all ends, even in retrospect.
They probably did what I tend to do -- develop on 64-bit Windows and then completely forget to test the Win32 build.
That is, the crack only becomes legal if Blizzard stops their servers.
And it will still be illegal to create the crack, since Diablo III will presumably still be under copyright by the time Blizzard pulls the plug.
Or it could be that the executive staff just received some of the worst engineering advice ever. High-power terrestrial transmissions anywhere near the GPS band are forbidden not only by US law but also by international treaty, for reasons that could have been explained if these clowns had bothered to ask any qualified RF engineer.
Translating for the MBAs out there: "A lot of people who knew what they were doing agreed not to do stuff like this."
Lack of due diligence on Falcone's part does not justify making exceptions to the laws the rest of us have to follow.
Deal with it when it happens.
Google didn't bring us J. Edgar Hoover, so they get a free pass this time around.
As a scientist, I'm frustrated by the apparent fact that most people don't care about the science.
The best remedy for this situation would be a record of successful predictions made by climate models. So far, there haven't been very many successful, substantial predictions that you can point to when people question the science.
As a result, statements like 50 feet higher is what will happen if we burn all the Canadian oil sands don't really help your cause. They're reminiscent of bullshit like this, which "deniers" will cheerfully throw in your face for the next 100 years. When the battle is fought between breathless hyperbole and proudly-borne ignorance, the truth will suffer all the collateral damage.
So you need to make fewer sweeping pronunciations like that, and more like, In 19xx we predicted that X would happen in 20xx if Y was done (or not done). X was, in fact, the outcome.
This is not an unusual or exceptional burden to place on your shoulders -- it's merely the standard that the rest of us have to meet in our day-to-day work.
Why do people find it so hard to believe someone is doing their job instead of just being out to inconvenience them?
Because it's a lot cheaper to take reasonable care and lose a few planes and/or buildings every so often, than it is to panic and overregulate to the tune of countless billions of dollars per year in job losses and other economic damage.
Think how much farther ahead we'd all be if the Bush administration had taken this advice to heart after 9/11. We may have saved a few Boeings, but we created the untouchable bureaucratic monster called the TSA, and spent a couple of trillion dollars starting wars that ultimately killed more people on both sides.
Rewriting the rules of international commerce because of a single, isolated plane crash in Dubai -- and doing so before the final reports even come out -- is all too typical of the US government and its apparatchiks in the USPS.
You only think you're joking. Google Wickard v Filburn.
How can I have unlimited data without unlimited speed? I'm not going to live forever.
That last sentence is the fault of some dead white guys named Maxwell, Hertz, Shannon, and Nyquist, not anyone at AT&T or Verizon.
True, those were a bad example of something with "literally" no civilian applications.
But that just reinforces my point. ITAR didn't do jack shit to keep isotope-separation centrifuges out of the Iranians' hands... but a brief glance at the comments in this thread will show plenty of cases where ITAR has served to impede perfectly innocuous economic activity.
That suggests that ITAR is written and enforced by a bunch of power-hungry bureaucrats who are either out of touch with the real-world effects of their regulations, or who have intentions that are very different from most peoples' perception.
Slow approvals yes, but why would I want to arm somone who had expressed unfriendly intentions
Because when the definition of "arms" is sufficiently broad, or when the people in charge are unqualified to decide what should and should not be covered, these regulations are classic examples of government gone berserk.
As long as the bad guys can buy the same defense-rated coffee pot or whatever from China, then all we've done is shoot ourselves in the foot. (Oh, and by restricting free trade, we're also giving the bad guys every incentive in the world to develop their own independent production capacity for such items.)
Regulations like ITAR should only cover things like uranium centrifuges that literally have no legitimate civilian use. Classifying everything invented since 1983 as a munition or dual-use item is demonstrably counterproductive.
Do some personal and open-minded research (don't take other peoples word for it!) and you'll be amazed.
Translation: "I hold my biology textbook to one standard of evidence and the Bible to another. I'm pretty much a dumbass. It's cool. You should try it!"
I'd say that depends on what's being carried on board the Cessna, wouldn't you?
Point being, missile defense is a perfect example of "fighting the last war." A nuke on a small private plane or marine vessel is a much bigger concern than a conventional missile attack from a state actor who is subject to MAD considerations.
If the 747 platform is seen as a next-generation replacement or complement to a Phalanx gun or something like that, then that's silly as well, since anyone who can mount a credible attack on a Phalanx-armed ship can also shoot down a 747.
A 50-milliwatt green laser would be a class-IIIb device, right?
The question isn't whether you can shoot down the Cessna, as any kid with a .22 and some luck can do that. The question is, can you tell which one to take out?
But that's local defense, not theater or strategic defense.
That's pre-9/11 thinking. It's all "strategic" now.
The tragedy is that as great as all that you propose is, it's very much illegal and truly isn't fair to the content producers.
Sounds like an excellent point for said producers to bring up the next time their contracts are due for renewal.
But we still need missile defense - more and smaller powers are getting 50-year-old missile technology now
Call me when your "missile defense" works on a Cessna.
So your advice is for Netflix to commit corporate suicide by failing to hire lobbyists of their own? Once your company reaches a certain size, non-engagement with the political system is very dangerous, and arguably a breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders. It's pretty clear that "competition" in the US these days is determined by whoever writes the biggest checks to the most influential Congressmen.
Even Microsoft had to learn that the hard way, when Novell, Netscape, and other doomed incumbents went crying to Uncle Sam. The nature of government is to expand and metastasize quickly enough to catch people like Bill Gates off guard. Reed Hastings may be a tone-deaf nitwit in some ways, but as an MSFT board member he would not have missed this lesson.
Unfortunately, trying to to stay out of the game is no longer feasible. Netflix has to become politically active, because they depend on the same cable companies who are behind this load of horse shit.
So there's probably a 100 year window in a civilization's development where its unintentional broadcasts are detectable.
Exactly. A civilization will go unnoticed if we don't detect its emissions that originate from the brief instant (relatively speaking) between their invention of radio and their understanding of information theory.
And if we do think there's other life out there, do we really trust it enough to tell it where we are?
It has, indeed, been pointed out that this is a really bad idea. Safe to say any other intelligent civilizations will reach similar conclusions.
So, yeah, SETI is pretty much a waste of electricity.
Which would still be a hell of a lot better than the way autosound works now.