The math doesn't add up, so I suspect that their tests were faulty in some way. At 15kHz, a tone I can even hear and I'm 60, there are only three samples per wavecrest. With only three samples there's no possible way to diffrentiate a square wave from a sawtooth wave from a sine wave.
Whether you can distinguish sine waves and square waves at 15khz isn't really the question. It's whether you can distinguish a square wave at 96hz from the same square wave after a high pass filter and resampling to 44.1hz. You can't. The experiment has been done, the data is in, and the result is consistent with what we'd expect from Nyquist's theorem.
The link you provided mentioned noise levels, this puzzles me. Digital sound should have no noise at all. Perhaps the above mentioned aliasing distortion could be percieved as noise?
The noise is the sampling error. When you try to fit a 24 bit number into a 16 bit number, you're going to have to round. This introduces some noise. Minimizing this noise is the entire reason mastering is done in 24 bit. When you mix in 24 bit and convert down you only get noise once, when you mix in 16 bit you get some noise every time you perform an operation.
I am sorry to say while Linux has improved its hardware support, I find that it runs into those wierdest gaps in its support. A video driver that refuses to detect native resolution, or leaves pixel droppings. A wifi card that does WEP but not WPA. Things like that.
Same sort of shit happens in Windows too. My ATI video card will not adjust overscan in 1024x768. Works just fine in 1280x1024 though. Works fine in Linux too.
There is an implied warranty of fitness for a specific purpose. If you're selling a device that serves the same purpose as an incandescent, fits into the same receptacle as an incandescent, and is found on the same shelves as incandescents, and you fail to disclaim the warranty of fitness, I'm pretty sure you're legally and ethically in the wrong.
I'll give you a hint. They aren't honestly social conservatives any more than they are fiscal conservatives. They're fiscal and social conservatives only when it applies to someone else.
On an aggregate level, R&D has a much better ROI than war. The problem is that the profits from an investment in basic science are realized by society as a whole, instead of the individuals involved in doing or funding the research.
It's even more worrying that civilian instruments are declining with respect to militarism. If it were just cutbacks across the board that caused this, it would be unfortunate. But what we actually see indicates a (continuing) shift in priorities. Military spending is more important to the powers that run the US than scientific spending. Notably, supremacy of the military and disdain for intellectuals are both defining characteristics of fascist states.
However there's a difference between supporting copyright and supporting draconian enforcement policies. And yeah, I think we need to simply accept that realistically there's no way to enforce it without trampling all over privacy and free speech.
If you can't enforce it, it shouldn't be illegal. Unenforcable laws damage respect for the rule of law and give tyrants a law to selectively apply against their enemies.
Copyright holders have no "rights". They have temporary privileges granted for the purpose of promoting the common good. When those privileges become contrary to the common good, they should be revoked. We are long past that point.
The deliberately misnamed "copyright" infringes on several inherent natural rights, e.g. free speech and property rights.
Even as someone who supports the idea of reasonable copyright laws, I do not believe it is possible to stop.
Unenforcable laws damage respect for the law and encourage the arbitrary and capricious use of authority. Your position is even more harmful than that of the copyright maximalists over the long run. At least they try to enforce the law.
Terrorism is something I don't worry about because the incidence is so low. It was low before 9/11 and low after 9/11. The activities of the FBI have nothing to do with that.
If you'rre really worried about terrorism, the best thing we could do is stop our imperialistic adventures in the middle east. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and the snake oil the FBI is peddling isn't worth anything at all.
The right wing in the U.S. these days mostly wants to reduce the power of federal government and leave you the hell alone.
What a bald face lie. They want to reduce the power of federal government to enable corporations to rampage freely across the country, extracting profits and leaving negative externalities for everyone else to deal with.
Personal liberty doesn't enter into it with the right wing. You won't find John Boener advocating for marijuana legalization any time soon.
You assume we still have a functioning democracy, and not a sham. This is a bad assumption. There's less variation between Democrats and Republicans than there was internally in the Communist Party in the USSR. The electoral system is locked down to ensure that no third party ever arises. We have no voice whatsoever.
I'm not afraid of terrorists. The chances of me being hurt by a terrorist are infinitesimal compared to any other cause of death. The right thing to do is ignore them.
But if someone is trying to talk you into bombing innocent people and you don't have a conscience about that or any reservations about loss of life then you're still a threat to society
I thought we were talking about the FBI, not republicans.
In all seriousness though, if you are trying to talk an innocent person into bombing people and you don't have a conscience about that, then you're a threat to society.
Good idea. Perhaps this will help spawn decentralized, encrypted social networks. Something like a mixture of Diaspora and Tor would be pretty freaking sweet.
Slashdot Mirror
The math doesn't add up, so I suspect that their tests were faulty in some way. At 15kHz, a tone I can even hear and I'm 60, there are only three samples per wavecrest. With only three samples there's no possible way to diffrentiate a square wave from a sawtooth wave from a sine wave.
Whether you can distinguish sine waves and square waves at 15khz isn't really the question. It's whether you can distinguish a square wave at 96hz from the same square wave after a high pass filter and resampling to 44.1hz. You can't. The experiment has been done, the data is in, and the result is consistent with what we'd expect from Nyquist's theorem.
The link you provided mentioned noise levels, this puzzles me. Digital sound should have no noise at all. Perhaps the above mentioned aliasing distortion could be percieved as noise?
The noise is the sampling error. When you try to fit a 24 bit number into a 16 bit number, you're going to have to round. This introduces some noise. Minimizing this noise is the entire reason mastering is done in 24 bit. When you mix in 24 bit and convert down you only get noise once, when you mix in 16 bit you get some noise every time you perform an operation.
I am sorry to say while Linux has improved its hardware support, I find that it runs into those wierdest gaps in its support. A video driver that refuses to detect native resolution, or leaves pixel droppings. A wifi card that does WEP but not WPA. Things like that.
Same sort of shit happens in Windows too. My ATI video card will not adjust overscan in 1024x768. Works just fine in 1280x1024 though. Works fine in Linux too.
There is an implied warranty of fitness for a specific purpose. If you're selling a device that serves the same purpose as an incandescent, fits into the same receptacle as an incandescent, and is found on the same shelves as incandescents, and you fail to disclaim the warranty of fitness, I'm pretty sure you're legally and ethically in the wrong.
If it was working yesterday, and I replace it with your "equivalent" replacement, it's your fault if it stops working.
I'll give you a hint. They aren't honestly social conservatives any more than they are fiscal conservatives. They're fiscal and social conservatives only when it applies to someone else.
They could also raise the sampling rates 10x and quadruple the bitrate, it would mean huge files that would blow every analog recording away.
16 bit 44.1khz recordings are transparent to the human ear. No one can distinguish high res audio from 16/44 audio under blind conditions.
On an aggregate level, R&D has a much better ROI than war. The problem is that the profits from an investment in basic science are realized by society as a whole, instead of the individuals involved in doing or funding the research.
It's even more worrying that civilian instruments are declining with respect to militarism. If it were just cutbacks across the board that caused this, it would be unfortunate. But what we actually see indicates a (continuing) shift in priorities. Military spending is more important to the powers that run the US than scientific spending. Notably, supremacy of the military and disdain for intellectuals are both defining characteristics of fascist states.
She's way out of line there. Climate deniers are stupid, not crazy, and you can't cure stupid.
However there's a difference between supporting copyright and supporting draconian enforcement policies. And yeah, I think we need to simply accept that realistically there's no way to enforce it without trampling all over privacy and free speech.
If you can't enforce it, it shouldn't be illegal. Unenforcable laws damage respect for the rule of law and give tyrants a law to selectively apply against their enemies.
I call BS! I am a Swiss and we have direct democracy and it works well, THANK-YOU!
Unless you're a muslim architect.
Conclusion: Democracy is broken.
Copyright holders have no "rights". They have temporary privileges granted for the purpose of promoting the common good. When those privileges become contrary to the common good, they should be revoked. We are long past that point.
The deliberately misnamed "copyright" infringes on several inherent natural rights, e.g. free speech and property rights.
Even as someone who supports the idea of reasonable copyright laws, I do not believe it is possible to stop.
Unenforcable laws damage respect for the law and encourage the arbitrary and capricious use of authority. Your position is even more harmful than that of the copyright maximalists over the long run. At least they try to enforce the law.
Terrorism is something I don't worry about because the incidence is so low. It was low before 9/11 and low after 9/11. The activities of the FBI have nothing to do with that.
If you'rre really worried about terrorism, the best thing we could do is stop our imperialistic adventures in the middle east. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and the snake oil the FBI is peddling isn't worth anything at all.
The right wing in the U.S. these days mostly wants to reduce the power of federal government and leave you the hell alone.
What a bald face lie. They want to reduce the power of federal government to enable corporations to rampage freely across the country, extracting profits and leaving negative externalities for everyone else to deal with.
Personal liberty doesn't enter into it with the right wing. You won't find John Boener advocating for marijuana legalization any time soon.
You assume we still have a functioning democracy, and not a sham. This is a bad assumption. There's less variation between Democrats and Republicans than there was internally in the Communist Party in the USSR. The electoral system is locked down to ensure that no third party ever arises. We have no voice whatsoever.
No, you are underinformed. They create the plots. The FBI has not foiled a single terrorist plot that would have existed without the FBI.
The real troubling fact is that we have no recourse against this sort of criminal behavior by government thugs.
You can "what if" all day long if you like. That doesn't change the fact that the actual threat of terrorism is infinitesimal.
Besides, how exactly is giving a maladjusted loner some fake C4 going to protect against that?
I'm not afraid of terrorists. The chances of me being hurt by a terrorist are infinitesimal compared to any other cause of death. The right thing to do is ignore them.
But if someone is trying to talk you into bombing innocent people and you don't have a conscience about that or any reservations about loss of life then you're still a threat to society
I thought we were talking about the FBI, not republicans.
In all seriousness though, if you are trying to talk an innocent person into bombing people and you don't have a conscience about that, then you're a threat to society.
When it comes to fighting terrorism I'm for the FBI.
Do you realize that every single domestic terror plot foiled by the FBI was created by the FBI?
Good idea. Perhaps this will help spawn decentralized, encrypted social networks. Something like a mixture of Diaspora and Tor would be pretty freaking sweet.
What makes you think there isn't already a back door in Skype? It's not like we can check out the code and verify that it's clean.