Well, there is a problem is you try to apply binary logic to real world problems.
Reality is more floating point (analog) than binary. So, the fact that crime occurs is the fault of 1) the criminal 2) the government - for not enforcing the law better (not having enough police officers for example), for messing up the economy (so a lot of people are unemployed and may turn to crime just to get money to survive) etc. 3) and yes, if the victim did not take reasonable precaution, then, while nobody will blame them for the crime, if I left $1000 in my car and the money got stolen then everybody except the police officers* would laugh at my stupidity "You know that you can't leave anything valuable visible from outside - not even a pack of cigarettes, much less a few Euros and I'm not even talking about $1000". * the police officers would laugh when I can't hear them.
After all, when a laptop with sensitive data gets stolen (either directly or just taking a laptop that was left on a bench in a park etc), a lot of people on/. say that the owner should have encrypted the drive to prevent any information leaks. So, it seems that the owner should take reasonable precautions (encrypting the drive, not leaving the computer unattended in a public place etc).
So, is it entirely unreasonable to ask (not force) a girl that if she met some guy online and wants to meet him in real life, she should meet him in a public place for the first few dates - not go directly to his home or some secluded location. A few girls were raped and/or killed this way. Also, tell the parents (or at least a friend) where you are going - so that if you don't come back, the police will know where to start looking.
Nah, it's much better for one woman to dress provocatively and go trough dark alleys - while the rapist (if there is one hiding) is busy raping her, other women can pass those alleys safely (unless there is a second rapist, well, if there are n rapists, the (n+1)th woman will be safe). When the rapist finishes raping her, arrest him.
See, I can go to extremes too.
So: 1.A woman dressed provocatively is more likely to be raped. 2.Asking a woman to dress less provocatively is a horrible thing to do. 3.Rape is also a horrible thing (probably more horrible than #2). 4.Each rapist will at least be able to attempt a rape before he is caught. What do you propose to reduce the number of rapes?
Unless a way is found to catch and put in jail all rapists, even before they rape their first victim (which is very unlikely), people have to do everything they can to prevent (or reduce the probability of) rapes. So, it may mean that women should dress more conservatively, especially if they cannot protect themselves from a rapist (are not physically strong and do not have a strong boyfriend/husband with them). A strong woman who can fight off the rapist can dress however she wants. Also, rapists are not evenly distributed, so not going to places that are known to attract rapists is probably a good idea too.
Just like not walking with $1000 sticking out of your back pocket. Or leaving said $1000 in a car.
Actually, when I arrive at my destination (if it's not a closed yard) with my car, I take the GPS receiver (if I used it), the front panel of the tape deck and everything else valuable I had in the car (my wallet, cell phone, anything I bought while on the way there (or put the items in the trunk at the previous place)). Also, when I had new (and quite expensive) speakers installed in the car, I asked the guy to make it look like the speakers were installed by the manufacturer of my car and not very noticeable from far away, so as not to give anyone ideas.
And all this for just protecting from thieves (even in a parking lot that has video surveillance). If something is stolen, it may still be possible for the police to recover it, while it is impossible for the police to make the rapist un-rape a woman, so it is logical that a woman should protect herself from rapists even more than I protect myself from thieves..
In my country, in some parking lots they might smash the car window just to steal an opened cigarette pack (which may be empty). People who would do it are usually underage, so cigarettes are not sold to them.
Every so often I read in the news that someone robbed (and injured or killed) an old man or woman for all the money he/she had - a few Euros.
Oh, and every once in a while, some girl (usually) meets a guy online (on Facebook or any of the local alternative), decides to meet him at his home (or some secluded location) and gets raped and/or killed. So, if you meet a nice guy/girl online - first meetings in real life have to be in public locations.
I remind you though, that even with perfect law enforcement, every rapist will still be able to rape at least once to be caught and put in jail (since putting people in jail just for thinking bad thoughts is looked down upon by almost all civilized people; not that there is a way of reading those thoughts at least for now). Well, unless the rapists become even more civilized and call the police to inform about their plans to rape somebody.
So, there will always be some rapist lurking in a dark alley. If wearing clothing that turns him on increases the probability of getting raped, don't do it.
Oh, and if you just met a guy in a bar, it's probably not a good idea to let him into your home or go to his home just after exiting the bar. He probably won't try to do that in a public place (like the bar), so going to the bar is OK, as long a you don't drink too much).
There is a risk that if I stop for a hitchhiker, he (or she) might try to rob me. This pops up on the news every so often. So, I do not stop. There is also a reverse risk - that if I am hitchhiking, the guy who stops might be a serial killer (there were some female hitchhikers raped and killed), so, I do not try to save the few Euros and take the bus. There is another risk that drunk drivers can run over pedestrians on sidewalks - so when I go outside I keep an eye on any incoming out of control cars. Pedestrians crossing the street (at a specially marked crossing) get run over sometimes, which means I look before I cross the street - even if one driver obeys the law and stops to let me pass, the one driving next to him might not.
If wearing sexy clothing and going trough dark alleys (especially if several women were raped in that area and the rapist still at large) increases the probability of being raped, then you should not do it.
If a human is in danger of being killed by a tiger and some other human sees it he will most likely choose to kill the tiger to save the human (if it is possible - the other guy has a gun etc). If someone sees a zebra attacked by a tiger, they will most likely not shoot the tiger to save the deer.
If a dog kills a human, aside from specific cases (military dogs etc) the dog will be put down because it is a danger to humans. It may even be done to a dog that has not killed a human yet, hut has tried to do it seriously enough.
It is also the "protect yourself" argument. If I leave $1000 in my car visible from outside and leave the car in a public space, how likely do you think it would be for me to still find that $1000 after a few hours?
Yes, theft is illegal and if the police ever finds the guy he will pay a fine or go to prison. However, it still was very stupid of me to leave money visible from outside (at least I should have put it in the glove compartment or wherever.
After all, why do people install car alarms, theft is illegal, so no alarm is needed. Oh, and you don't need to lock the door of your house - since theft is illegal, it will be the fault of the thief to steal your stuff.
But I guess that you lock your house and your car when you are not in them. You also probably don't put valuable objects inside the car visible from outside.
The rapist is like a wild animal - you have to protect yourself from it. If covering up reduces the chance or you being raped even by 1%, then you should probably cover up. After all, if you do get raped, it won't matter that the rapist will go to prison - you will still be raped (compared to theft where police may be able to recover your property).
Thanks for your recommendation. I always thought that if I buy a new hard drive (currently my newest drive is about 4 years old) I would buy a server-grade drive (like WD RE4 or Seagate Constellation) since they are designed with 24/7 use in mind (not that my current home-grade drives are unreliable, but increasing data densities may result in lower reliability). I do not really mind the noise or heat - fans are louder than the drives anyway and hard drives do not get very hot in my experience (even the two 15kRPM ones I have - currently at 22C when the room is at 14C). Still, when I decide to buy a new hard drive, I'll look into the Samsung Ecogreen ones. But it may be that I will be building a RAID (currently there is none, since my drives have different capacities) and those drives may not be able to be in the array.
One year? Is the SSD designed to refresh itself as long as it gets power or does the PC have to do it? If the SSD does not refresh itself then anybody who is using a SSd as a system drive might start having weird problems after a year or so (various system files and the boot sector getting corrupt).
Sure a geek knows to "backup backup backup" but consumers don't and those are the ones getting burnt by SSDs
Even having backups, I like when expensive stuff lasts long. If a SSD that costs 3 times as much as a HDD of a similar capacity does not even last as long as the HDD, then, unless I really need the speed, I'm better off with HDDs. Not only I will have less downtime but I will also pay less for the drives. Or I could spend the same amount of money and get 3 HDDs in RAID 5 - that will be even more reliable. Maybe I can add more RAM and have a RAMdrive for the files that need to be accessed super fast. Or a SSD just for those files.
If you don't know how to bypass your meter without breaking the seal on the meter,
Not without digging up the cable. The meter is outside in a box, behind a sheet of transparent material (glass, plexiglass or something else). The circuit breaker is mounted on the glass, with only the switch part sticking out. There is a seal on the glass, so I cannot remove it to access the wires. If I made a hole in the glass, that would also be discovered in the next inspection (at least when the meter was inside the house it would have been possible to get to the cable trough the wall and install wires that I could remove before letting in the inspector).
In my low-voltage LED lit utopia, I was envisioning no exposed wire
So, the TV, heater and cooler would be mounted inside walls too?
So you're ok with stealing power from a hotel, but you draw the line at stealing from a large utility?
It would depend on the price. If the hotel asked me to pay for the power used, I would be OK with it, as long as the price was the same as the one I get from the utility (or the price at which the hotel gets the power). I already am paying for the room. Also, it seems that with these "smart" outlets I would also need a "smart" device. Since I do not want to buy a "smart" transformer (so I could plug any device to it) or "smart" power supplies/adapters for every device I would have to get access to the wires just to make the device work.
If the hotel wants me to pay for the electricity - just have a meter. At least that way I can connect any device I want.
Much like I don't bypass my electric meter even though I know how to do it it, but I'm not willing to accept the risk or danger of doing so.
I don't do it because there is a seal on it that I would have to remove to bypass the meter, but then I will have to pay a huge fine. If the meter was not sealed or bypassing it would not be against the law I would have done it already (or at least I would reset it once in a while - less evidence than would be if I bypassed it)
By the time this technology is commonplace, hotels will have non-replaceable LED lighting that's built in to the fixtures (never needs replacing over the lifetime of the hotel room), and maybe the whole room's lighting will be low voltage LED lighting powered by a single controller so it all (Lights, TV, heat, cooling, etc) will all be controlled by a single remote control.
As long as there is enough power in a easily accessible wire, I can bring an adapter that would make the power there compatible with my stuff.
When playing a game, I never skip a cutscene that I have not seen before. I may even watch it a few times. If I have seen the cutscene a few times (because, say, the cutscene is between my save point and the boss fight in which I get my ass kicked) then I will skip it as I already know what is in it.
If I was watching a cutscene and got interrupted I start wishing for a "pause" button and usually (if my save point was not too far before the cutscene) reload the game so I can watch the cutscene.
I am primarily interested in the story, so I play in such a way to get all the story elements (I listen to all audio logs that I find for example). Going around shooting stuff is fun for a while, but if there is no story then the game just feels like multiplayer, but with bots and can get boring very quickly. Still, a game can be good even if it has no story, but I usually get tired playing these games and wait longer and longer before resuming the game - I may not even finish it (assuming there is a "finish"). On the other hand, give me an adventure game (or some other game with a good story) and I will play it as soon as I have free time and will finish it (assuming the controls/gameplay are not completely terrible).
Anyway, this seems useful, as long as the back sensor has no false positives and the front sensor has no false negatives. Though, depending on the maximum deceleration it allows etc, it can be a problem if you are driving at 130km/h and a new sign tells you that the speed limit is now 90 and that there is a speed camera nearby.
When I have to brake suddenly, I just hope that either the person driving behind me was keeping a safe distance or at least that his car is much newer than mine so its front is softer than the back of my car:) Oh, and that he paid for the mandatory insurance so that the insurance will be able to pay the mechanic to straighten out the car.
I have some records that were made in the Soviet Union but have foreign music in them. The cover usually states "produced under license from $foreign_label" and has a logo of the foreign label in addition to "Melodiya", so, it means that a record label can allow some other record manufacturer to produce copies of the record (or just license the songs to be put in the new record). This would be a license. In this case, the "other record manufacturer" is Apple, but it makes digital copies instead of records. So, the artist should get the 25% of the money that Apple pays for the license to make copies (whether the agreement specifies a sum for each copy made or a one time payment should be irrelevant).
Well, if my car had ABS, I would not disable it, but since it doesn't... I'm curious though, on what conditions the modern braking systems decide to not stop the car even if the driver presses the brake pedal? There is a sign that stopping is forbidden, another car is too close behind you, something else? Really, how does it figure out that it would be a good idea to hit that moose instead of stopping (or at least hitting it after slowing down)?
You are forgetting the bandwidth limit. A 21kHz triangle wave will have harmonics at 42, 63 Khz and so on. However, if you filter out those harmonics, you end up with a sine wave. Also, to convert three points to a sine wave, you do not need to calculate the interpolation (be it step, straight lines or something else). just convert it to analog as is (getting a triangle wave) and then use a filter to throw out anything above half of sample rate. you will end up with the original sine wave.
Basically the spectrum of a digital signal is infinite and repeating. You have the original spectrum (0 to f/2) then a mirror copy of the spectrum (f/2 to f), then a straight copy of the spectrum (f to 3f/2) and so on. To recreate the analog signal you just need to have a bandpass filter to pass the original band (0 to f/2) while stopping all the others. This is why the limit applies to the bandwidth, not the maximum frequency (though for audio, the minimum frequency is zero so the bandwidth is numerically equal to the maximum frequency). If I have a RF signal that goes from 600kHz to 620kHz (bandwidth is 20kHz), I would only need sampling rate just above 40kHz to store it. When I convert it back to analog, I would use a filter that would pass 600-620kHz, instead of 0-20kHz.
And yes, you cannot correctly reproduce a sine wave with less than or exactly 2 points per cycle. this is why the sampling rate has to be higher than twice the bandwidth, not equal to twice the bandwidth.
Why? If I, as a student, know that those guys are cheaters but the teachers do not, then those guys can be "known cheaters". I know a few people like that. If they do badly in an exam, I assume it was because they couldn't cheat.
I remember an exam. The teacher allowed the use of books and even went away for something like half an hour. Still, the "known cheaters" did badly, since the questions were not the ones you can just copy from the book. The teacher also said that if you found a question that you could copy the answer from the book, if you copied it verbatim, you would have to explain the answer to the teacher.
Really? Glad I'm using an old car that actually stops (even if it requires some effort if the road is slippery) when I want it to stop instead of deciding "today is a good day to hit something".
I found that cables usually break around the plugs, so I bought a bunch of plugs and can solder one on if the cable breaks. I only need to do it once though, since the new plug can be soldered again (no need to buy a new plug) if the cable breaks again.
You cannot describe a waveform of a given frequency with one or two samples spread out over one wavelength.
Actually, you can, if the signal has limited frequency range.
For example, take a 22kHz sine wave. It can be described by two points - one at the positive maximum and one at the negative maximum). However, this is an edge case, those two points could have been measured when the voltage crosses zero. However, for a 21kHz sine wave, you can completely describe it if your sampling rate is 44kHz.
But, you cannot describe a triangular signal that has 21kHz frequency using 44kHz sampling rate. Why? Well, a triangular signal has harmonics, so part of the signal is 21kHz, part is 42kHz, part is 63kHz and so on and you can only describe the part that is less than (not less or equal to) half of the sampling rate. However, humans do not hear those high frequency parts. A 21kHz triangular signal would sound the same as a 21kHz sine.
So, why the higher sampling rates and oversampling? In addition to being able to record slightly higher frequencies (I don't think any human can hear 30kHz or 90kHz) it simplifies filters. Recording and playback filters must attenuate frequencies above half of sampling rate as much as possible, while passing the lower frequencies. Since an average human only hears up to 20kHz, a filter for CD recorder or player has to pass 20kHz wile attenuating 22.51kHz by 80dB or more. Filters that are that steep can be expensive and also can distort the "good" signal. On the other hand, if sampling rate is 96kHz, the filter has to pass 20kHz, but stop 48kHz - it does not have to be as steep. Oversampling can increase the sound quality of lower sampling rates by converting the signal to higher sampling rate (while filtering digitally) and then the analog filter at the output of the DAC does not need to be as steep.
Compressed dynamic range sounds better in car stereos
I disagree. I tried listening to music with compressed dynamic range and it sounded awful - no matter whether the car was still (with the motor off) or going at 100km/h (and quite noisy inside because it needs new door seals). Uncompressed music (mostly older music I copied from records, but also some relatively new) sounds great (even though the car was not made with high quality audio in mind, it probably was not a concern in 1982 and the guys who installed better speakers can only do so much).
On the other hand, when listening at home with my headphones, the compressed music sounds OK, I didn't think that there would be such a difference in the car, but there was. With the headphones I can listen to pretty much anything, but in the car it either sounds great or awful.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there is a problem is you try to apply binary logic to real world problems.
Reality is more floating point (analog) than binary. So, the fact that crime occurs is the fault of
1) the criminal
2) the government - for not enforcing the law better (not having enough police officers for example), for messing up the economy (so a lot of people are unemployed and may turn to crime just to get money to survive) etc.
3) and yes, if the victim did not take reasonable precaution, then, while nobody will blame them for the crime, if I left $1000 in my car and the money got stolen then everybody except the police officers* would laugh at my stupidity "You know that you can't leave anything valuable visible from outside - not even a pack of cigarettes, much less a few Euros and I'm not even talking about $1000".
* the police officers would laugh when I can't hear them.
After all, when a laptop with sensitive data gets stolen (either directly or just taking a laptop that was left on a bench in a park etc), a lot of people on /. say that the owner should have encrypted the drive to prevent any information leaks. So, it seems that the owner should take reasonable precautions (encrypting the drive, not leaving the computer unattended in a public place etc).
So, is it entirely unreasonable to ask (not force) a girl that if she met some guy online and wants to meet him in real life, she should meet him in a public place for the first few dates - not go directly to his home or some secluded location. A few girls were raped and/or killed this way. Also, tell the parents (or at least a friend) where you are going - so that if you don't come back, the police will know where to start looking.
Nah, it's much better for one woman to dress provocatively and go trough dark alleys - while the rapist (if there is one hiding) is busy raping her, other women can pass those alleys safely (unless there is a second rapist, well, if there are n rapists, the (n+1)th woman will be safe).
When the rapist finishes raping her, arrest him.
See, I can go to extremes too.
So:
1.A woman dressed provocatively is more likely to be raped.
2.Asking a woman to dress less provocatively is a horrible thing to do.
3.Rape is also a horrible thing (probably more horrible than #2).
4.Each rapist will at least be able to attempt a rape before he is caught.
What do you propose to reduce the number of rapes?
Yea, I mistyped - was thinking about writing "deer" then changed it to "zebra" but still managed to write "deer".
No, what I am saying is this:
Unless a way is found to catch and put in jail all rapists, even before they rape their first victim (which is very unlikely), people have to do everything they can to prevent (or reduce the probability of) rapes. So, it may mean that women should dress more conservatively, especially if they cannot protect themselves from a rapist (are not physically strong and do not have a strong boyfriend/husband with them). A strong woman who can fight off the rapist can dress however she wants.
Also, rapists are not evenly distributed, so not going to places that are known to attract rapists is probably a good idea too.
Just like not walking with $1000 sticking out of your back pocket. Or leaving said $1000 in a car.
Actually, when I arrive at my destination (if it's not a closed yard) with my car, I take the GPS receiver (if I used it), the front panel of the tape deck and everything else valuable I had in the car (my wallet, cell phone, anything I bought while on the way there (or put the items in the trunk at the previous place)).
Also, when I had new (and quite expensive) speakers installed in the car, I asked the guy to make it look like the speakers were installed by the manufacturer of my car and not very noticeable from far away, so as not to give anyone ideas.
And all this for just protecting from thieves (even in a parking lot that has video surveillance). If something is stolen, it may still be possible for the police to recover it, while it is impossible for the police to make the rapist un-rape a woman, so it is logical that a woman should protect herself from rapists even more than I protect myself from thieves..
In my country, in some parking lots they might smash the car window just to steal an opened cigarette pack (which may be empty). People who would do it are usually underage, so cigarettes are not sold to them.
Every so often I read in the news that someone robbed (and injured or killed) an old man or woman for all the money he/she had - a few Euros.
Oh, and every once in a while, some girl (usually) meets a guy online (on Facebook or any of the local alternative), decides to meet him at his home (or some secluded location) and gets raped and/or killed. So, if you meet a nice guy/girl online - first meetings in real life have to be in public locations.
So, what do you propose?
I remind you though, that even with perfect law enforcement, every rapist will still be able to rape at least once to be caught and put in jail (since putting people in jail just for thinking bad thoughts is looked down upon by almost all civilized people; not that there is a way of reading those thoughts at least for now). Well, unless the rapists become even more civilized and call the police to inform about their plans to rape somebody.
So, there will always be some rapist lurking in a dark alley. If wearing clothing that turns him on increases the probability of getting raped, don't do it.
Oh, and if you just met a guy in a bar, it's probably not a good idea to let him into your home or go to his home just after exiting the bar. He probably won't try to do that in a public place (like the bar), so going to the bar is OK, as long a you don't drink too much).
The outside is full of risks:
There is a risk that if I stop for a hitchhiker, he (or she) might try to rob me. This pops up on the news every so often. So, I do not stop.
There is also a reverse risk - that if I am hitchhiking, the guy who stops might be a serial killer (there were some female hitchhikers raped and killed), so, I do not try to save the few Euros and take the bus.
There is another risk that drunk drivers can run over pedestrians on sidewalks - so when I go outside I keep an eye on any incoming out of control cars. Pedestrians crossing the street (at a specially marked crossing) get run over sometimes, which means I look before I cross the street - even if one driver obeys the law and stops to let me pass, the one driving next to him might not.
If wearing sexy clothing and going trough dark alleys (especially if several women were raped in that area and the rapist still at large) increases the probability of being raped, then you should not do it.
Let's see:
If a human is in danger of being killed by a tiger and some other human sees it he will most likely choose to kill the tiger to save the human (if it is possible - the other guy has a gun etc).
If someone sees a zebra attacked by a tiger, they will most likely not shoot the tiger to save the deer.
If a dog kills a human, aside from specific cases (military dogs etc) the dog will be put down because it is a danger to humans. It may even be done to a dog that has not killed a human yet, hut has tried to do it seriously enough.
It is also the "protect yourself" argument. If I leave $1000 in my car visible from outside and leave the car in a public space, how likely do you think it would be for me to still find that $1000 after a few hours?
Yes, theft is illegal and if the police ever finds the guy he will pay a fine or go to prison. However, it still was very stupid of me to leave money visible from outside (at least I should have put it in the glove compartment or wherever.
After all, why do people install car alarms, theft is illegal, so no alarm is needed. Oh, and you don't need to lock the door of your house - since theft is illegal, it will be the fault of the thief to steal your stuff.
But I guess that you lock your house and your car when you are not in them. You also probably don't put valuable objects inside the car visible from outside.
The rapist is like a wild animal - you have to protect yourself from it. If covering up reduces the chance or you being raped even by 1%, then you should probably cover up. After all, if you do get raped, it won't matter that the rapist will go to prison - you will still be raped (compared to theft where police may be able to recover your property).
Thanks for your recommendation. I always thought that if I buy a new hard drive (currently my newest drive is about 4 years old) I would buy a server-grade drive (like WD RE4 or Seagate Constellation) since they are designed with 24/7 use in mind (not that my current home-grade drives are unreliable, but increasing data densities may result in lower reliability). I do not really mind the noise or heat - fans are louder than the drives anyway and hard drives do not get very hot in my experience (even the two 15kRPM ones I have - currently at 22C when the room is at 14C).
Still, when I decide to buy a new hard drive, I'll look into the Samsung Ecogreen ones. But it may be that I will be building a RAID (currently there is none, since my drives have different capacities) and those drives may not be able to be in the array.
One year? Is the SSD designed to refresh itself as long as it gets power or does the PC have to do it? If the SSD does not refresh itself then anybody who is using a SSd as a system drive might start having weird problems after a year or so (various system files and the boot sector getting corrupt).
Sure a geek knows to "backup backup backup" but consumers don't and those are the ones getting burnt by SSDs
Even having backups, I like when expensive stuff lasts long. If a SSD that costs 3 times as much as a HDD of a similar capacity does not even last as long as the HDD, then, unless I really need the speed, I'm better off with HDDs. Not only I will have less downtime but I will also pay less for the drives. Or I could spend the same amount of money and get 3 HDDs in RAID 5 - that will be even more reliable. Maybe I can add more RAM and have a RAMdrive for the files that need to be accessed super fast. Or a SSD just for those files.
If you don't know how to bypass your meter without breaking the seal on the meter,
Not without digging up the cable. The meter is outside in a box, behind a sheet of transparent material (glass, plexiglass or something else). The circuit breaker is mounted on the glass, with only the switch part sticking out. There is a seal on the glass, so I cannot remove it to access the wires. If I made a hole in the glass, that would also be discovered in the next inspection (at least when the meter was inside the house it would have been possible to get to the cable trough the wall and install wires that I could remove before letting in the inspector).
In my low-voltage LED lit utopia, I was envisioning no exposed wire
So, the TV, heater and cooler would be mounted inside walls too?
So you're ok with stealing power from a hotel, but you draw the line at stealing from a large utility?
It would depend on the price. If the hotel asked me to pay for the power used, I would be OK with it, as long as the price was the same as the one I get from the utility (or the price at which the hotel gets the power). I already am paying for the room.
Also, it seems that with these "smart" outlets I would also need a "smart" device. Since I do not want to buy a "smart" transformer (so I could plug any device to it) or "smart" power supplies/adapters for every device I would have to get access to the wires just to make the device work.
If the hotel wants me to pay for the electricity - just have a meter. At least that way I can connect any device I want.
Much like I don't bypass my electric meter even though I know how to do it it, but I'm not willing to accept the risk or danger of doing so.
I don't do it because there is a seal on it that I would have to remove to bypass the meter, but then I will have to pay a huge fine. If the meter was not sealed or bypassing it would not be against the law I would have done it already (or at least I would reset it once in a while - less evidence than would be if I bypassed it)
By the time this technology is commonplace, hotels will have non-replaceable LED lighting that's built in to the fixtures (never needs replacing over the lifetime of the hotel room), and maybe the whole room's lighting will be low voltage LED lighting powered by a single controller so it all (Lights, TV, heat, cooling, etc) will all be controlled by a single remote control.
As long as there is enough power in a easily accessible wire, I can bring an adapter that would make the power there compatible with my stuff.
When playing a game, I never skip a cutscene that I have not seen before. I may even watch it a few times. If I have seen the cutscene a few times (because, say, the cutscene is between my save point and the boss fight in which I get my ass kicked) then I will skip it as I already know what is in it.
If I was watching a cutscene and got interrupted I start wishing for a "pause" button and usually (if my save point was not too far before the cutscene) reload the game so I can watch the cutscene.
I am primarily interested in the story, so I play in such a way to get all the story elements (I listen to all audio logs that I find for example). Going around shooting stuff is fun for a while, but if there is no story then the game just feels like multiplayer, but with bots and can get boring very quickly. Still, a game can be good even if it has no story, but I usually get tired playing these games and wait longer and longer before resuming the game - I may not even finish it (assuming there is a "finish"). On the other hand, give me an adventure game (or some other game with a good story) and I will play it as soon as I have free time and will finish it (assuming the controls/gameplay are not completely terrible).
Must be fun to sort out the bugs :)
Anyway, this seems useful, as long as the back sensor has no false positives and the front sensor has no false negatives. Though, depending on the maximum deceleration it allows etc, it can be a problem if you are driving at 130km/h and a new sign tells you that the speed limit is now 90 and that there is a speed camera nearby.
When I have to brake suddenly, I just hope that either the person driving behind me was keeping a safe distance or at least that his car is much newer than mine so its front is softer than the back of my car :) Oh, and that he paid for the mandatory insurance so that the insurance will be able to pay the mechanic to straighten out the car.
Really? I though that the numbers were 4.5% and 5.5%.
5-1/2% == 5-(1/2)% == 5-0.5% == 4.5%
I have some records that were made in the Soviet Union but have foreign music in them. The cover usually states "produced under license from $foreign_label" and has a logo of the foreign label in addition to "Melodiya", so, it means that a record label can allow some other record manufacturer to produce copies of the record (or just license the songs to be put in the new record). This would be a license. In this case, the "other record manufacturer" is Apple, but it makes digital copies instead of records. So, the artist should get the 25% of the money that Apple pays for the license to make copies (whether the agreement specifies a sum for each copy made or a one time payment should be irrelevant).
Well, if my car had ABS, I would not disable it, but since it doesn't...
I'm curious though, on what conditions the modern braking systems decide to not stop the car even if the driver presses the brake pedal? There is a sign that stopping is forbidden, another car is too close behind you, something else? Really, how does it figure out that it would be a good idea to hit that moose instead of stopping (or at least hitting it after slowing down)?
You are forgetting the bandwidth limit.
A 21kHz triangle wave will have harmonics at 42, 63 Khz and so on. However, if you filter out those harmonics, you end up with a sine wave.
Also, to convert three points to a sine wave, you do not need to calculate the interpolation (be it step, straight lines or something else). just convert it to analog as is (getting a triangle wave) and then use a filter to throw out anything above half of sample rate. you will end up with the original sine wave.
Basically the spectrum of a digital signal is infinite and repeating. You have the original spectrum (0 to f/2) then a mirror copy of the spectrum (f/2 to f), then a straight copy of the spectrum (f to 3f/2) and so on. To recreate the analog signal you just need to have a bandpass filter to pass the original band (0 to f/2) while stopping all the others. This is why the limit applies to the bandwidth, not the maximum frequency (though for audio, the minimum frequency is zero so the bandwidth is numerically equal to the maximum frequency).
If I have a RF signal that goes from 600kHz to 620kHz (bandwidth is 20kHz), I would only need sampling rate just above 40kHz to store it. When I convert it back to analog, I would use a filter that would pass 600-620kHz, instead of 0-20kHz.
And yes, you cannot correctly reproduce a sine wave with less than or exactly 2 points per cycle. this is why the sampling rate has to be higher than twice the bandwidth, not equal to twice the bandwidth.
Why? If I, as a student, know that those guys are cheaters but the teachers do not, then those guys can be "known cheaters". I know a few people like that. If they do badly in an exam, I assume it was because they couldn't cheat.
I remember an exam. The teacher allowed the use of books and even went away for something like half an hour. Still, the "known cheaters" did badly, since the questions were not the ones you can just copy from the book. The teacher also said that if you found a question that you could copy the answer from the book, if you copied it verbatim, you would have to explain the answer to the teacher.
Really? Glad I'm using an old car that actually stops (even if it requires some effort if the road is slippery) when I want it to stop instead of deciding "today is a good day to hit something".
I found that cables usually break around the plugs, so I bought a bunch of plugs and can solder one on if the cable breaks. I only need to do it once though, since the new plug can be soldered again (no need to buy a new plug) if the cable breaks again.
You cannot describe a waveform of a given frequency with one or two samples spread out over one wavelength.
Actually, you can, if the signal has limited frequency range.
For example, take a 22kHz sine wave. It can be described by two points - one at the positive maximum and one at the negative maximum). However, this is an edge case, those two points could have been measured when the voltage crosses zero. However, for a 21kHz sine wave, you can completely describe it if your sampling rate is 44kHz.
But, you cannot describe a triangular signal that has 21kHz frequency using 44kHz sampling rate. Why? Well, a triangular signal has harmonics, so part of the signal is 21kHz, part is 42kHz, part is 63kHz and so on and you can only describe the part that is less than (not less or equal to) half of the sampling rate.
However, humans do not hear those high frequency parts. A 21kHz triangular signal would sound the same as a 21kHz sine.
So, why the higher sampling rates and oversampling? In addition to being able to record slightly higher frequencies (I don't think any human can hear 30kHz or 90kHz) it simplifies filters. Recording and playback filters must attenuate frequencies above half of sampling rate as much as possible, while passing the lower frequencies. Since an average human only hears up to 20kHz, a filter for CD recorder or player has to pass 20kHz wile attenuating 22.51kHz by 80dB or more. Filters that are that steep can be expensive and also can distort the "good" signal. On the other hand, if sampling rate is 96kHz, the filter has to pass 20kHz, but stop 48kHz - it does not have to be as steep. Oversampling can increase the sound quality of lower sampling rates by converting the signal to higher sampling rate (while filtering digitally) and then the analog filter at the output of the DAC does not need to be as steep.
Compressed dynamic range sounds better in car stereos
I disagree. I tried listening to music with compressed dynamic range and it sounded awful - no matter whether the car was still (with the motor off) or going at 100km/h (and quite noisy inside because it needs new door seals). Uncompressed music (mostly older music I copied from records, but also some relatively new) sounds great (even though the car was not made with high quality audio in mind, it probably was not a concern in 1982 and the guys who installed better speakers can only do so much).
On the other hand, when listening at home with my headphones, the compressed music sounds OK, I didn't think that there would be such a difference in the car, but there was. With the headphones I can listen to pretty much anything, but in the car it either sounds great or awful.