Classical noise gate does not work in frequency domain, it simply quietens down the signal if the filtered amplitude is below some threshold. It doesn't eliminate the hum when there's useful signal, the fact it doesn't bother us is simply because our hearing applies psychoacoustic masking. Just because you don't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there.
A modern equivalent of a noise gate works in the frequency domain and looks at spectra of "short" timeslices of the signal. It applies some heuristics for deciding whether a given part of the spectrum is noise or useful signal, and zeroes out what it considers noise. That's not routinely applied to respectable recordings at all. It's usually used for cleaning up/restoration of old recordings.
And none of it applies to simply recording some audio out there. Nature doesn't cryptographically sign the audio. It lost its private key long ago and didn't bother since;)
SMS spam doesn't count against any bandwidth limits. It also doesn't incur any charges, because in the U.S., at least on prepaid plans, you're not charged for receving SMSes, only for reading them. Deleting an unopened message is free.
I think many here are missing one little detail. On every U.S. prepaid cellphone I've seen, the messages are not opened automatically. You get charged only for opening a message, not for receiving it!. You get a message, and if instead of clicking "Read" you go to the Inbox and look at the sender, you can delete the message without being charged.
If you call internationally from the US, the calls to mobile phones in most countries are in fact more expensive than calls to landlines. As you'd expect, since in those countries the mobile call recipient doesn't get billed for the call -- the cost is passed up to the caller, a US caller in this case.
Do ISPs really filter out the mails? All that gmail does for me is put some stuff in the inbox, and some other suff in the spam folder. Nothing is filtered out. I can read spam all day if I want to, it's just in its own cozy folder. Doesn't seem like a lot of free speech curtailment if you ask me.
So, if I apply a tracking notch to the doctored recordings to remove the original hum and its harmonics, and then superimpose data from the database, I'm all set? Well, thank you!
Copyright is one thing, patents are another. The issue here would be patent infringement.
The open standards are a red herring. The truth is: you want to implement AD, you need to fork out real money ($10k in case of the Samba project), and pray they sell them to you. It doesn't matter that the base standards are open -- the MS-developed spec is what you design and implement to, not some nebulous openthisorthat, unless the MS spec includes some other standards by reference, as may be the case. As I've said, in real life even solely strict adherence to an open standard may be hard to achieve. Here we not only have a closed spec, but a spec that so far was only shaken down by one project, as far as we know (MS probably developed to a separete internal set of documents). In real life, anyone who works with standards will know that they are pretty much useless unless there's a large implementer base that participates in the standardization process. That way anything that's not clear, or where the standard diverges from leading implementation, is amended over time. Yet here we have only one project (samba) that can't really change anything in the MS spec. I'm dealing with industrial communication protocols and it usually takes well over a decade, with participation of a dozen active vendors, to arrive at a standard that's somewhat "implement and you're done". Microsoft would have needed to achieve a feat never done before for their spec/internal standard to be that good.
Sometimes the fact that there is a standard doesn't even mean that anyone who implements has much in the way of getting it right. There are standards out there where a key property of compliant implementations, a property that should be front and center in the standard, is buried in one sentence somewhere as if it was an afterthough, and if you miss it you're not compliant. It's par for the course, a way of keeping competitors at bay. Yes, technically it's an open standard, but in practice you need to cross out every sentence in the standard once you've implemented it, otherwise you'll miss something important. IETF documents are not written that way, BTW, so it's not like there's any reason to be so obtuse.
When you implement, the fact that it's "based" on open standards is wholly meaningless. Those "added" things are absolutely necessary for interoperability with AD systems. Usually, in the industry, when a standard is extended, the sole adherence to the base standard is sufficient to provide some or even most functionality. Say, a never version of the standard may give you improved synchronization across data acquisition devices. If all you have is a CIFS server, an LDAP server and a KDC, you can't interoperate with AD. You won't get reduced functionality or anything, it simply won't work at all. Microsoft's extensions aren't optional, thus any based-on-open-standards-thing is hogwash. Looks good on paper only. End of story right there.
All of that is of course built on top of laws of nature, which are to be found in any half-decent technical/academic bookstore. So, what was your point, again?
For those too thick to get the point: Even products designed for exact adherence to standards sometimes fail at compliance, or you run into poorly specified corner cases, etc. That "mostly" qualifier in your sentence makes all the difference. IOW: You've never had to work with such "mostly" standards-following products. All I can tell you it's a nightmare.
It's not even that. They looked at where the map indicated a shire with the city's name was. It's like complaining you end up in the middle of nowhere when you drive to New York (state), its location being the "center" of the New York state. Mildura Shire, Mildura city, two different things. Stupid map users being stupid. Nothing new, move along. It's not entirely Apple's fault, for you can find both Mildura (shire) and Mildura (city) in their data, just that they perhaps wrongly emphasize the shire over the city in the results list.
We were driving from Ohio to mountainous Virginia in the summer and had about 10 gallons of drinking water in the trunk, and a good foldable cart and backpacks to lug it all around just in case the car broke down and we didn't feel like sitting and waiting. Going into a desert without enough drink and food to make it for a week is IMHO crazy. If you have a car, there's no reason at all not to have enough stuff packed to make it comfortably wherever you can be rescued or get in touch with someone.
Our car was a reliable Volvo, and I inspected it well before leaving, including tracing all the coolant hoses and checking for bubbles/soft spots, but you never know.
Ta-da! Of course it works the other way, too. If you're trying to pretend you didn't mess up, but you did, then you're out of "luck":) I think I'd be OK with that.
I can see the sign alone is justification enough for you.
Huh? I specifically said
I [...] see them where it's not safe to turn right on red
How would that imply that I don't examine the situation?
The sign is simply a reminder. As a driver everyone is supposed to look around and ascertain if they see what they need to see or not. Banning right turn on red is IMHO an overreaction.
What's wrong with right turn on red? You look around, if the way is clear, you go. Simple enough.
The major difference between the European and U.S. approach is that stricter licensing laws would pretty much put a large part of population out of work. In most European cities you can live just fine without a car. For the majority of the U.S. population: forget it. You won't get your groceries, you won't get to work, you won't be able to do anything much. Sometimes you won't even be able to go for a walk.
Slashdot Mirror
Classical noise gate does not work in frequency domain, it simply quietens down the signal if the filtered amplitude is below some threshold. It doesn't eliminate the hum when there's useful signal, the fact it doesn't bother us is simply because our hearing applies psychoacoustic masking. Just because you don't notice it doesn't mean it isn't there.
A modern equivalent of a noise gate works in the frequency domain and looks at spectra of "short" timeslices of the signal. It applies some heuristics for deciding whether a given part of the spectrum is noise or useful signal, and zeroes out what it considers noise. That's not routinely applied to respectable recordings at all. It's usually used for cleaning up/restoration of old recordings.
And none of it applies to simply recording some audio out there. Nature doesn't cryptographically sign the audio. It lost its private key long ago and didn't bother since ;)
It looks different because the people who altered the audio didn't care about how the spectrogram looked. Here it'd be a whole different ballgame ;)
Hmm, I didn't know such brokenness existed :(
That's fine, but the whole "based on open standards thing" is wholly meaningless.
Just the $0.24 billion if the entire cost of processing and mailing one card would be $1. What a total waste of money it'd be, in other words.
Because it's usually not entirely practical to make this determination at the polling place. The voting commissions usually have a final say.
SMS spam doesn't count against any bandwidth limits. It also doesn't incur any charges, because in the U.S., at least on prepaid plans, you're not charged for receving SMSes, only for reading them. Deleting an unopened message is free.
I think many here are missing one little detail. On every U.S. prepaid cellphone I've seen, the messages are not opened automatically. You get charged only for opening a message, not for receiving it!. You get a message, and if instead of clicking "Read" you go to the Inbox and look at the sender, you can delete the message without being charged.
If you call internationally from the US, the calls to mobile phones in most countries are in fact more expensive than calls to landlines. As you'd expect, since in those countries the mobile call recipient doesn't get billed for the call -- the cost is passed up to the caller, a US caller in this case.
Do ISPs really filter out the mails? All that gmail does for me is put some stuff in the inbox, and some other suff in the spam folder. Nothing is filtered out. I can read spam all day if I want to, it's just in its own cozy folder. Doesn't seem like a lot of free speech curtailment if you ask me.
So, if I apply a tracking notch to the doctored recordings to remove the original hum and its harmonics, and then superimpose data from the database, I'm all set? Well, thank you!
Copyright is one thing, patents are another. The issue here would be patent infringement.
The open standards are a red herring. The truth is: you want to implement AD, you need to fork out real money ($10k in case of the Samba project), and pray they sell them to you. It doesn't matter that the base standards are open -- the MS-developed spec is what you design and implement to, not some nebulous openthisorthat, unless the MS spec includes some other standards by reference, as may be the case. As I've said, in real life even solely strict adherence to an open standard may be hard to achieve. Here we not only have a closed spec, but a spec that so far was only shaken down by one project, as far as we know (MS probably developed to a separete internal set of documents). In real life, anyone who works with standards will know that they are pretty much useless unless there's a large implementer base that participates in the standardization process. That way anything that's not clear, or where the standard diverges from leading implementation, is amended over time. Yet here we have only one project (samba) that can't really change anything in the MS spec. I'm dealing with industrial communication protocols and it usually takes well over a decade, with participation of a dozen active vendors, to arrive at a standard that's somewhat "implement and you're done". Microsoft would have needed to achieve a feat never done before for their spec/internal standard to be that good.
Sometimes the fact that there is a standard doesn't even mean that anyone who implements has much in the way of getting it right. There are standards out there where a key property of compliant implementations, a property that should be front and center in the standard, is buried in one sentence somewhere as if it was an afterthough, and if you miss it you're not compliant. It's par for the course, a way of keeping competitors at bay. Yes, technically it's an open standard, but in practice you need to cross out every sentence in the standard once you've implemented it, otherwise you'll miss something important. IETF documents are not written that way, BTW, so it's not like there's any reason to be so obtuse.
When you implement, the fact that it's "based" on open standards is wholly meaningless. Those "added" things are absolutely necessary for interoperability with AD systems. Usually, in the industry, when a standard is extended, the sole adherence to the base standard is sufficient to provide some or even most functionality. Say, a never version of the standard may give you improved synchronization across data acquisition devices. If all you have is a CIFS server, an LDAP server and a KDC, you can't interoperate with AD. You won't get reduced functionality or anything, it simply won't work at all. Microsoft's extensions aren't optional, thus any based-on-open-standards-thing is hogwash. Looks good on paper only. End of story right there.
All of that is of course built on top of laws of nature, which are to be found in any half-decent technical/academic bookstore. So, what was your point, again?
For those too thick to get the point: Even products designed for exact adherence to standards sometimes fail at compliance, or you run into poorly specified corner cases, etc. That "mostly" qualifier in your sentence makes all the difference. IOW: You've never had to work with such "mostly" standards-following products. All I can tell you it's a nightmare.
+1 Informative. Thanks!
It's not even that. They looked at where the map indicated a shire with the city's name was. It's like complaining you end up in the middle of nowhere when you drive to New York (state), its location being the "center" of the New York state. Mildura Shire, Mildura city, two different things. Stupid map users being stupid. Nothing new, move along. It's not entirely Apple's fault, for you can find both Mildura (shire) and Mildura (city) in their data, just that they perhaps wrongly emphasize the shire over the city in the results list.
That's why I read slashdot. Cimexus, thank you. Informative and insightful. Kudos.
We were driving from Ohio to mountainous Virginia in the summer and had about 10 gallons of drinking water in the trunk, and a good foldable cart and backpacks to lug it all around just in case the car broke down and we didn't feel like sitting and waiting. Going into a desert without enough drink and food to make it for a week is IMHO crazy. If you have a car, there's no reason at all not to have enough stuff packed to make it comfortably wherever you can be rescued or get in touch with someone.
Our car was a reliable Volvo, and I inspected it well before leaving, including tracing all the coolant hoses and checking for bubbles/soft spots, but you never know.
Ta-da! Of course it works the other way, too. If you're trying to pretend you didn't mess up, but you did, then you're out of "luck" :) I think I'd be OK with that.
I can see the sign alone is justification enough for you.
Huh? I specifically said
I [...] see them where it's not safe to turn right on red
How would that imply that I don't examine the situation?
The sign is simply a reminder. As a driver everyone is supposed to look around and ascertain if they see what they need to see or not. Banning right turn on red is IMHO an overreaction.
I'd have thought that the "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" sign solves that. And I do usually see them where it's not safe to turn right on red.
In order not to put a whole lot of people at a big disadvantage, you have to start with all those other things and do stricter licensing last.
I'd think there's plenty of precedent that if you crash your car, the car is evidence.
Agreed. The crash didn't happen at 100mph. I think he might have been driving 100mph at a point before the crash.
What's wrong with right turn on red? You look around, if the way is clear, you go. Simple enough.
The major difference between the European and U.S. approach is that stricter licensing laws would pretty much put a large part of population out of work. In most European cities you can live just fine without a car. For the majority of the U.S. population: forget it. You won't get your groceries, you won't get to work, you won't be able to do anything much. Sometimes you won't even be able to go for a walk.