Because, of course, clicking on TFA is far too difficult.
As is googling. Far too hard.
In seriousness though, XBMC is quite popular, how could you be a/. reader and not know what it is? Especially with all the hype around Raspberry Pi at the moment?
I didn't see anything about patents in TFS or TFA... So while the concept may have arisen before (in the aforementioned FPSs), but the concept of prior art doesn't really apply.
Peer review is quite valuable though. Sure, you can post your research on blogspot, but how much credibility are you going to get then? And how much exposure?
There are other publishers than Elsevier, Springer is one and they seem much more ethical to me. FWIW. I'm not too educated in this regard.
Feel free to STFU, I know what I'm talking about, idiot. I'm an electronic engineer, I've done a heck of a lot of signal processing in my time. TFA is wrong.
Fair point. The people who go on about 24/192 probably don't really listen to the kind of music which is affected by the loudness war. Most audiophiles I know are heavily into jazz or classical music, the recordings of those usually try to be quite faithful to the original.
44.1kHz will be able to capture the basic information of the signal, as the human ear can hear to 20kHz in some cases, and Nyquist's theorem says that to recover the information you need to sample at least double the highest frequency. Oversampling (i.e. 192kHz) allows much more room to develop a good anti-aliasing filter. It may be that the reverb is phase-shifted somewhat with standard AA-filters, but ones designed for the higher sampling rate can have more linear phase. Also, higher sampling rates allow for better reconstruction of the actual wave form, if you're interested in music rather than just information. So yes, sampling a telephone call at 192kHz would be stupid, but if you're an audiophile, doing it for music is quite reasonable.
No loss from the original sampling, i.e. they didn't loose any information in the compression. Most music is sampled at (correct me if I'm wrong someone?) 44kHz, I forget how many bits, I think 16. The thing being touted is sampling it at 192kHz with 24bit resolution, which is much higher on both counts, and therefore, in theory, should produce better quality reproduction of the sound based on oversampling and reduction of the signal to quantization noise rate. The point the TFA makes is that human ears can't hear the difference, although I think that some audiophiles may beg to differ.
FWIW, I have quite bad ears, a recording needs to be quite bad before I notice it. I'm an electronic engineer though, so I know all the theory...
Well for one thing, the Open CD was discontinued in 2007. A more up-to-date collection of free software would be useful for advocates distributing to their friends.
I may be wrong here, but isn't Methodone withdrawl actually harder to deal with than Heroin withdrawl? I always thought that Methodone was just less illegal, which is why it's used.
I for one welcome our new drug vaccine overlords, by the way. I've seen a lot of guys absolutely ruined by heroin addiction.
Ok, you make some very good points here. I apologise for my rash statements. I understand you much better now.
If you can show that everything that has ever happened inside the aquarium would have happened exactly like it did without anyone from the outside interfering, you have proved that there was no outside effect.
In simpler words: If god never does anything, then the question of his existence becomes meaningless.
I understand. Though I might just point out, that while science is ever expanding its body of knowledge to which you referred, but I think you'll agree with me when I say that we'll never know everything. Thus, it's impossible to say that God has never done anything, all that we can say is that we've found no evidence of God having done anything. Which is your point, I realise.
My viewpoint would be to ask, "Who created the laws of physics?" It may be argued that they're self-existent, I guess, that may be so. I don't know. I believe that God had a hand in designing the universe, even if he's done nothing to directly influence it since it started 13.7 billion years ago.
So, once more, what would make you question your faith? Name it, and it shall be provided. If you can't name it, please be so kind and remove any reference to science from your argument and at least have the balls to state that you have simply choosen to belief in something no matter what the evidence.
I think to ask me what would make me question my faith is a bit of an unfair question. I question my faith all the time. There are some things I don't understand, but I don't find any inconsistencies which make me doubt its validity. I'm not stupid, I'm not going to believe in something just because it's told to me. That would be gullible. My evidence is in my personal life. In the New Testament, Jesus said, (and I paraphrase here, I don't have a copy to hand, John chapter 7 I think) that if you do what he said you'd know it's from God. I've done it, and I know it. Doubtless others (you probably included) will not accept my evidence, but it's evidence enough for me, and it keeps working. Ordinarily I wouldn't have a problem with discussing this, but it's of a personal nature and I don't really feel that slashdot is the right forum.
but every argument you've put forth is logically flawed, and you know that if you stop to think.
Pardon me? There is no logical flaw in my assertion that science cannot either prove or disprove God. How can you set up an experiment to show the existence or nonexistence of God? I'll concede that there may have been flaws in some other of my statements if you pick them apart, I'm not the most intelligent man in the world nor an expert debater, but I'll stand by that one. You, on the other hand, haven't shown much evidence to support your claims to the contrary. You seem to assume that it's self-evident, that the mere existence of science and logic disproves the notion of a God. I've offered some support in my description of my profession and interest in astrophysics, but I'll grant you that that can also just be classified as "my opinion."
And no, the funny thing is that if I am right then we will not know for sure once we get there, because there's nothing to get to, and when you're dead there's no "you" left to know anything.
Well, I guess the other funny thing is that if I am right, then we will know for sure. Don't worry, friend, I believe in a merciful God. But you don't care about that. Nothing that I say now is going to affect your viewpoint in any way. So there's not really much point to continuing this.
I agree with you there. It's just unfortunate that the militant atheists are often the most vocal. Just as the idiot Christians are often also the most vocal. FWIW, I think it's fair that a faith-based charity would only want to hire adherents, if that's the principle on which they operate. All your other points I agree with completely though.
The "god theory" has been thoroughly disproven, as it has failed every test ever attempted. More importantly, it adds nothing to existing theories. There is nothing in the world that is explained better with a god than without one. As such, god is simply not required.
From a scientific point of view, god has been disproven. You can step out of science - nothing can force you to accept the scientific principle as "valid" - and assert your faith there. But then, by god, have the balls to say so!
I'm getting very tired of this discussion. Those most vocal among us here seem to do nothing more than stick their fingers in their ears and sing "I'm not going to listen, I already know what I think is right and I'm not going to listen to anyone else!" You not least of which.
I reject both these statements of yours. Science can do nothing to disprove God. FWIW, I'm not some cretin who is ignorant of science. I'm an electronic engineer, I design radio telescope receivers, so I have more than just a passing knowledge of astrophysics. I'm very familiar with all the theories of the origin of the universe (and yes, I realise that by most definitions, these are considered facts, and I accept them as such). In no way do these disprove the existence of a God. You assert that they do. I reject such assertions as invalid. Even in the story of the history of the universe as science presents it, I see the hand of God. You say that the concept of a god adds nothing to existing theories. That may be so, purely from a physics point of view. An experiment doesn't need to acknowledge the existence of the creator of that experiment in order to test whatever principle is under observation. But from a human point of view, to my family and me it makes all the difference in the world. You may say that I'm weak and insecure, that my mind is crippled if it needs such a crutch, and that I'm deluding myself if I'd like to think my soul continues living after I die. You're entitled to your opinion. Ultimately, the only way we'll ever know for sure is once we get there.
Please excuse me while I go and do things which renew my faith and make me happy. You can carry on ripping evidence of God to shreds. I hope that helps you find some kind of pleasure. I wish you well on your search for truth.
If you were looking for a response, then I deeply apologise, I've grown tired of this. Having my faith under attack in such a manner by people who refuse to acknowledge anyone else's beliefs isn't exactly uplifting. I have a feeling whatever I say won't really make much of a difference to you anyway.
If you'll excuse me I'm going to find solace in some of my religion's evil and distorted rituals. For some reason, brainless and idiotic though they may be, they always leave me feeling that my soul is at peace.
Your points are valid. I don't vote against the teaching of evolution. FWIW, I'm not even American, but I wouldn't if I was. My personal belief is that homosexuality is wrong, fine, hate me for that if you will. I have some very good friends who are gay though, I don't judge them for that. And I heartily agree with Ron Paul that the government should stay out of the bedroom. I've never had to vote for or against gay marriage, I don't think I would vote against it though. My faith teaches me that certain things are good and certain aren't, but it also teaches me that all people should be free to practise whatever their beliefs are, so long as they don't cause others harm.
Yes, some practitioners of religion are idiots. Many nonbelievers are idiots too. The point that I've been trying to make all over the place is that this doesn't imply that religion in and of itself is a bad thing.
The points you've made there are all fair. Ok, I concede, maybe religion is used as an excuse not to think in some cases, or to exercise power in some cases, but I maintain that that still doesn't make religion inherently evil. Anything used wrongly isn't by definition bad.
Your taking offense means absolutely nothing for the validity or non-validity of an argument. You seem to be a sensible person, but please don't use the "that's offensive!" defense. It doesn't belong in any civilised debate.
I suppose I can concede this. I won't anymore. I apologise. By the way. Civilised debate? I'd have said, you must be new here, but your UID sort of invalidates that straight away:P
Lack of evidence of a god when that evidence should be there is in fact evidence that there isn't a god. So I'd say it's overwhelmingly likely that your belief is false. (Of course there are no absolutes, but it seems strange to take the overwhelmingly unlikely position rather than the overwhelmingly likely one when living one's life.)
Two things from this. One. Even if it's overwhelmingly likely that my belief is false, it can't be taken as fact that my belief is false. Even if I'm probably wrong, I might still be right, and it's not right to come along and say "You're wrong, you're an idiot" when that fact cannot be established. Apologies for my lack of eloquence, it's been a long day and I'm tired now:P but I think I made my point.
Second, I'd argue that there is much evidence for the existence of a God. I've said elsewhere, though, that I don't believe that this is the appropriate forum for presenting such a case. On/. I prefer to assert that, completely from a scientific point of view that it is impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. I think that's not an unreasonable presumption.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, of course, clicking on TFA is far too difficult.
As is googling. Far too hard.
In seriousness though, XBMC is quite popular, how could you be a /. reader and not know what it is? Especially with all the hype around Raspberry Pi at the moment?
Am I the only person who is wondering why FaceBook feels that it is within their rights to draft a new law? Or did I misunderstand TFS?
You already sort of responded to yourself there. Don't need to go to all the trouble of supergluing microphones, just don't buy the damn TV.
Samsung make nice TVs though, I'm sure there's still a model without big brother built in.
I didn't see anything about patents in TFS or TFA... So while the concept may have arisen before (in the aforementioned FPSs), but the concept of prior art doesn't really apply.
Peer review is quite valuable though. Sure, you can post your research on blogspot, but how much credibility are you going to get then? And how much exposure?
There are other publishers than Elsevier, Springer is one and they seem much more ethical to me. FWIW. I'm not too educated in this regard.
I don't disagree with you but can you cite any examples?
Which is pretty much an internet death sentence. Smart.
Feel free to STFU, I know what I'm talking about, idiot. I'm an electronic engineer, I've done a heck of a lot of signal processing in my time. TFA is wrong.
Fair point. The people who go on about 24/192 probably don't really listen to the kind of music which is affected by the loudness war. Most audiophiles I know are heavily into jazz or classical music, the recordings of those usually try to be quite faithful to the original.
Dude, I didn't spend four years studying an EE degree (a large part of which was signal processing) only to be told by TFA that I've been misinformed.
Now get off my lawn, AC
There may be no theoretical benefit, but since there's no such thing as an ideal sampler or filter or quantiser, it has many practical benefits.
44.1kHz will be able to capture the basic information of the signal, as the human ear can hear to 20kHz in some cases, and Nyquist's theorem says that to recover the information you need to sample at least double the highest frequency. Oversampling (i.e. 192kHz) allows much more room to develop a good anti-aliasing filter. It may be that the reverb is phase-shifted somewhat with standard AA-filters, but ones designed for the higher sampling rate can have more linear phase. Also, higher sampling rates allow for better reconstruction of the actual wave form, if you're interested in music rather than just information. So yes, sampling a telephone call at 192kHz would be stupid, but if you're an audiophile, doing it for music is quite reasonable.
No loss from the original sampling, i.e. they didn't loose any information in the compression. Most music is sampled at (correct me if I'm wrong someone?) 44kHz, I forget how many bits, I think 16. The thing being touted is sampling it at 192kHz with 24bit resolution, which is much higher on both counts, and therefore, in theory, should produce better quality reproduction of the sound based on oversampling and reduction of the signal to quantization noise rate. The point the TFA makes is that human ears can't hear the difference, although I think that some audiophiles may beg to differ.
FWIW, I have quite bad ears, a recording needs to be quite bad before I notice it. I'm an electronic engineer though, so I know all the theory...
Well for one thing, the Open CD was discontinued in 2007. A more up-to-date collection of free software would be useful for advocates distributing to their friends.
I may be wrong here, but isn't Methodone withdrawl actually harder to deal with than Heroin withdrawl? I always thought that Methodone was just less illegal, which is why it's used.
I for one welcome our new drug vaccine overlords, by the way. I've seen a lot of guys absolutely ruined by heroin addiction.
Ok, you make some very good points here. I apologise for my rash statements. I understand you much better now.
If you can show that everything that has ever happened inside the aquarium would have happened exactly like it did without anyone from the outside interfering, you have proved that there was no outside effect.
In simpler words: If god never does anything, then the question of his existence becomes meaningless.
I understand. Though I might just point out, that while science is ever expanding its body of knowledge to which you referred, but I think you'll agree with me when I say that we'll never know everything. Thus, it's impossible to say that God has never done anything, all that we can say is that we've found no evidence of God having done anything. Which is your point, I realise.
My viewpoint would be to ask, "Who created the laws of physics?" It may be argued that they're self-existent, I guess, that may be so. I don't know. I believe that God had a hand in designing the universe, even if he's done nothing to directly influence it since it started 13.7 billion years ago.
So, once more, what would make you question your faith? Name it, and it shall be provided. If you can't name it, please be so kind and remove any reference to science from your argument and at least have the balls to state that you have simply choosen to belief in something no matter what the evidence.
I think to ask me what would make me question my faith is a bit of an unfair question. I question my faith all the time. There are some things I don't understand, but I don't find any inconsistencies which make me doubt its validity. I'm not stupid, I'm not going to believe in something just because it's told to me. That would be gullible. My evidence is in my personal life. In the New Testament, Jesus said, (and I paraphrase here, I don't have a copy to hand, John chapter 7 I think) that if you do what he said you'd know it's from God. I've done it, and I know it. Doubtless others (you probably included) will not accept my evidence, but it's evidence enough for me, and it keeps working. Ordinarily I wouldn't have a problem with discussing this, but it's of a personal nature and I don't really feel that slashdot is the right forum.
but every argument you've put forth is logically flawed, and you know that if you stop to think.
Pardon me? There is no logical flaw in my assertion that science cannot either prove or disprove God. How can you set up an experiment to show the existence or nonexistence of God? I'll concede that there may have been flaws in some other of my statements if you pick them apart, I'm not the most intelligent man in the world nor an expert debater, but I'll stand by that one. You, on the other hand, haven't shown much evidence to support your claims to the contrary. You seem to assume that it's self-evident, that the mere existence of science and logic disproves the notion of a God. I've offered some support in my description of my profession and interest in astrophysics, but I'll grant you that that can also just be classified as "my opinion."
And no, the funny thing is that if I am right then we will not know for sure once we get there, because there's nothing to get to, and when you're dead there's no "you" left to know anything.
Well, I guess the other funny thing is that if I am right, then we will know for sure. Don't worry, friend, I believe in a merciful God. But you don't care about that. Nothing that I say now is going to affect your viewpoint in any way. So there's not really much point to continuing this.
I agree with you there. It's just unfortunate that the militant atheists are often the most vocal. Just as the idiot Christians are often also the most vocal. FWIW, I think it's fair that a faith-based charity would only want to hire adherents, if that's the principle on which they operate. All your other points I agree with completely though.
I'd rather not say to which faith I adhere. I've had enough flaming already... Good guess though. Thanks for the support, man.
The "god theory" has been thoroughly disproven, as it has failed every test ever attempted. More importantly, it adds nothing to existing theories. There is nothing in the world that is explained better with a god than without one. As such, god is simply not required.
From a scientific point of view, god has been disproven. You can step out of science - nothing can force you to accept the scientific principle as "valid" - and assert your faith there. But then, by god, have the balls to say so!
I'm getting very tired of this discussion. Those most vocal among us here seem to do nothing more than stick their fingers in their ears and sing "I'm not going to listen, I already know what I think is right and I'm not going to listen to anyone else!" You not least of which.
I reject both these statements of yours. Science can do nothing to disprove God. FWIW, I'm not some cretin who is ignorant of science. I'm an electronic engineer, I design radio telescope receivers, so I have more than just a passing knowledge of astrophysics. I'm very familiar with all the theories of the origin of the universe (and yes, I realise that by most definitions, these are considered facts, and I accept them as such). In no way do these disprove the existence of a God. You assert that they do. I reject such assertions as invalid. Even in the story of the history of the universe as science presents it, I see the hand of God. You say that the concept of a god adds nothing to existing theories. That may be so, purely from a physics point of view. An experiment doesn't need to acknowledge the existence of the creator of that experiment in order to test whatever principle is under observation. But from a human point of view, to my family and me it makes all the difference in the world. You may say that I'm weak and insecure, that my mind is crippled if it needs such a crutch, and that I'm deluding myself if I'd like to think my soul continues living after I die. You're entitled to your opinion. Ultimately, the only way we'll ever know for sure is once we get there.
Please excuse me while I go and do things which renew my faith and make me happy. You can carry on ripping evidence of God to shreds. I hope that helps you find some kind of pleasure. I wish you well on your search for truth.
Thank you!
If you were looking for a response, then I deeply apologise, I've grown tired of this. Having my faith under attack in such a manner by people who refuse to acknowledge anyone else's beliefs isn't exactly uplifting. I have a feeling whatever I say won't really make much of a difference to you anyway.
If you'll excuse me I'm going to find solace in some of my religion's evil and distorted rituals. For some reason, brainless and idiotic though they may be, they always leave me feeling that my soul is at peace.
I wish you well in your search for truth.
Your points are valid. I don't vote against the teaching of evolution. FWIW, I'm not even American, but I wouldn't if I was. My personal belief is that homosexuality is wrong, fine, hate me for that if you will. I have some very good friends who are gay though, I don't judge them for that. And I heartily agree with Ron Paul that the government should stay out of the bedroom. I've never had to vote for or against gay marriage, I don't think I would vote against it though. My faith teaches me that certain things are good and certain aren't, but it also teaches me that all people should be free to practise whatever their beliefs are, so long as they don't cause others harm.
Yes, some practitioners of religion are idiots. Many nonbelievers are idiots too. The point that I've been trying to make all over the place is that this doesn't imply that religion in and of itself is a bad thing.
The points you've made there are all fair. Ok, I concede, maybe religion is used as an excuse not to think in some cases, or to exercise power in some cases, but I maintain that that still doesn't make religion inherently evil. Anything used wrongly isn't by definition bad.
Your taking offense means absolutely nothing for the validity or non-validity of an argument. You seem to be a sensible person, but please don't use the "that's offensive!" defense. It doesn't belong in any civilised debate.
I suppose I can concede this. I won't anymore. I apologise. By the way. Civilised debate? I'd have said, you must be new here, but your UID sort of invalidates that straight away :P
Lack of evidence of a god when that evidence should be there is in fact evidence that there isn't a god. So I'd say it's overwhelmingly likely that your belief is false. (Of course there are no absolutes, but it seems strange to take the overwhelmingly unlikely position rather than the overwhelmingly likely one when living one's life.)
Two things from this. One. Even if it's overwhelmingly likely that my belief is false, it can't be taken as fact that my belief is false. Even if I'm probably wrong, I might still be right, and it's not right to come along and say "You're wrong, you're an idiot" when that fact cannot be established. Apologies for my lack of eloquence, it's been a long day and I'm tired now :P but I think I made my point.
Second, I'd argue that there is much evidence for the existence of a God. I've said elsewhere, though, that I don't believe that this is the appropriate forum for presenting such a case. On /. I prefer to assert that, completely from a scientific point of view that it is impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. I think that's not an unreasonable presumption.