A South African friend said "Oh, I highly approve of police taking bribes! That way they're accountable to the citizens rather than to the government".
He's right, in light of the South African government. He'd be right too in some major US cities: Chicago and Washington, for sure.
It's Obama's fault for being a puppet, then. Saying that it's his fault because he allows people to pull the strings is just the same as saying he's corrupt.
He could have put his foot down on any number of things at any point. He didn't.
Maybe it'd be hard to elect anyone else -- I voted for him because McCain/Palin is even scarier. But saying that he's not a rat bastard because the other guys are also rat bastards doesn't excuse him.
Then get a state constitutional amendment. It's easy enough to do if the goal is to stop those icky gays from wearing tuxedos and exchanging rings, shouldn't it be possible to prevent mass robbery?
That small town shouldn't have been allowed to declare bankruptcy. They took money from people against the law and with the use of violence -- that's robbery. The courts ought to garnish the wages of everyone who was responsible until they pay their debts for that robbery.
I just moved to the DC area, and I fucking *hate* it. They set the speed limits so low that in the event that you're out when there's little traffic, driving a comfortable and safe speed equates to doing 20+. Then they can pick and choose who to ticket. (The councilmember from Anacostia, I think, recently got pulled over for doing 105 in her county-owned vehicle on the Beltway and was let off with a warning.) This place is a wreck.
I don't think there should be speed limits, at all, ever. There should be only the offense of reckless driving, and to be convicted of such the police should have to prove that you were driving in a manner unsafe for the conditions and traffic load. You'd have to have some criteria to take the arbitrariness out of it, based on traffic load (i.e. "driving so many sigma above the speed of traffic")... but if you take the profit out of it, then they'll only go after people when they're actually risking public safety rather than "risking public safety" with the scare quotes.
Of course, you'd also have to do something about the folks who get pulled over for "driving while Mexican", but that can be taken care of by firing Joe Arpaio.
Yes, sometimes it is dangerous to drive above the speed limit. Much of the time it's not. You say "never drive or walk near roads", which implies that you're an urbanite, probably from a large city on the East Coast with high population density and ready access to public transportation. The rest of the country is an entirely different ball game. Drive from Tucson to El Paso on I-10 (or from Phoenix to Los Angeles on the same road) and then come back and tell me that speeding is never safe.
It won't once those court costs and fees stop going to the courts. Why will they stop? Because the law will make them stop. That's what the initiative process does: it is a way to force the popular will into the laws. Sometimes it's abused, sometimes it's imperfect, true -- but it's there.
Yes -- the police and courts will lose money on every traffic ticket. Currently they lose money on every murder they investigate and prosecute, but they keep doing it (usually). Why? Because it's what the taxpayers want them to do, and it's their fucking job. The taxpayers do not want them writing tickets to people driving ten over on I-10, but they do it anyway because they want the cash. The only incentives the police should have to investigate "crimes" are moral and professional ones, not monetary ones (other than "this is why we're paying you").
... or, really, anywhere with a ballot initiative process.
Citizens should push for ballot initiatives that require that all money collected for traffic and parking offenses goes back to the citizens as a tax credit. This should have broad popular support in most places.
Yeah, the police/DoT would have to raise taxes to replace the lost revenue... but it would create a system where they have no fiscal incentive to engage in highway robbery, which is what traffic enforcement these days amounts to.
That's what would happen if it were used in many US cities. Some (Chicago, DC) have gotten so effective at disarming all members of the populace other than the thugs that there'd be few people who would try that.
But in broad swaths of the South, Midwest, Northwest, and West? Yeah, you'd have people taking potshots at it.
The result quoted in the summary, that DC didn't manage to pull off a secure electronic vote, shouldn't be interpreted as a condemnation of e-voting, for the simple reason that this city couldn't manage to find the exit to a paper bag with a map and GPS. The incompetence around here is hilarious: there's a reason everyone working for the government lives in either Maryland or northern Virginia, since being in DC itself just means you get to hear sirens 24/7.
Everyone's heard of Marion Barry, the crack-smoking mayor? Turns out they elected him mayor again right away when he got out of prison. He mismanaged the city finances so badly that Bill Clinton cut him off from a lot of his authority, and he flounced* from the mayorship -- and got elected to the City Council. Since then he's gone eight years without paying income taxes, driven drunk, and embezzled money. Now he wants to run for mayor again.
The guy is a complete scumbag. The Washington Post said "To understand Washington, you have to understand Marion Barry."
*Flounce: To leave after a post (on the internet) where you proclaim yourself a martyr, with great drama
You have to take into account the format size, too. An aperture of f/1.4 on Four Thirds gives the same depth of field (at the same angle of view) as 2.8 on FX or film. This is in part what motivates the demand of these very very fast Micro Four Thirds lenses (there are 45 and 25mm f/0.95's); additionally, the normal Four Thirds system has very fast zooms and macros (there's a f/2 50mm macro, and f/2 zooms from 14mm to 100mm). This is to compensate for the greater DOF and worse low-light performance of the smaller sensor. No (small-format) compact camera offers this, as they've got crop factors of ~5.
No system will give you 7-600mm. The thing to worry about is field of view (or, equivalently, "35mm equivalent focal length") -- Four Thirds (2x crop) offers 14mm to 1000mm EFL, but there is an expensive 300mm f/2.8 you can teleconvert up to 1200mm EFL if you want. Canon and Nikon each have 14mm to 600mm.
On shutter speed, the portrait crowd actually wants 1/8000 so they can shoot at full aperture outside. I'm a nut and use 1/4000 and faster for hummingbirds in flight.
Dark frame subtraction is only useful (and used) for shutter speeds above one second -- this is true for cameras from the cheapest 1/3.2" sensor on my old Panasonic FZ3 to the rather nice Four Thirds sensor in my DSLR.
More likely, each output pixel requires taking only part of the information from the input pixels (since you've got to do something other than "average them" to get the light field information), exacerbating the noise.
Depth of field effects are considered part of the art of photography, much like amplifier distortion is part of the art of playing electric guitar. People pay a great deal for the capacity to get *narrower* depth of field: compare the price of Canon's 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.2 lenses. People most often buy the f/1.2 as a very very narrow depth of field portrait lens, rather than a very very low-light lens. Other lenses are known for the particular way that they throw backgrounds out of focus -- Nikon will even sell you one where you can choose exactly how the background is defocuses.
I think this trend in photography is overblown (I don't see the appeal of portraits where half of one eye is out of focus), but there's no doubt that artistic manipulation of depth of field is a big part of the art.
You can even hide the taskbar on all these UI's if you want the damn space back. I have a 1920x1080 screen on this laptop and leave the taskbar open and two tabs tall, since I have a zillion terminals and copies of Evince running. On my netbook it's one tab tall and I hide it sometimes. On a phone I'd probably want to hide it all the time, except when I specifically want it.
The taskbar is the most useful thing a UI can do. Don't muck it up by absorbing the action "launch a copy of X" into it (I do that far less often than I switch windows). Don't make me hit modifier keys to get it unless I want to.
My fundamental problem with Unity and all of the hellspawn UI's that copy OSX is that they conflate the two concepts of "make window XYZ the active one, and maximize it if possible" and "launch an instance of program XYZ". These tasks really have nothing to do with each other, other than both resulting, at the end, in program XYZ being on top.
The most common window-manager task I do is to switch from one window to another. GNOME, very sensibly, gives me a taskbar with all of the things running, and I can click on the one I want, and see at a glance what I've got open and how many instances of each. This is important -- this is the main fucking thing I want my window manager to do for me, is fucking manage my windows.
I don't need a giant list of all the programs on my computer lying around on my screen waiting for me to click them, especially if it takes away from my ability to do the above. On the rare instance when I want to launch a new program, I'll fish around in a menu for it, or hit some magic keystroke (like alt-f2) and type its name. If I really want a big list of my common programs, I'll hit Ctrl-Alt-D and pick one from the icons that I've put on my desktop for that purpose. Or I'll even program a hotkey for it (ctrl-alt-T shits out a new terminal window on my system).
This is even worse for Unix folks, half of whose programs tend to be terminals. How people use OSX for scientific computing is beyond me. Just show me my fucking taskbar and get everything else that I didn't ask for out of my way.
The trouble is that it is impossible for the US government to accomplish any project of large enough size to be political and which will take more than four years.
Well, unless it involves the military -- they've bamboozled the electorate into pretty consistently fellating them regardless of the wisdom of whatever it is they are doing.
$20 billion is 1% of the cost of the Iraq war. We piss away mountains of money on things far less useful (and far more harmful) than shooting bunnies into space.
Wow. That's pretty damn impressive -- that despite the fluid nature of blood the spins retained magnetic order over macroscopic distances *after* bouncing around through his arteries.
Bombing of civilian populations from the air had been done by everybody for a long time, under the notion that WWII was a war between nations, and that the civilian population is part of a nation. The Germans started it (in the Battle of Britain), but that's only because they were the first to achieve airpower sufficient to bomb anybody -- we certainly had the aircraft designed to do it (B-17's and Lancasters, whose designation I forget) early on. The Germans never did field a real heavy bomber, but they wrecked a bunch of London nonetheless.
I read this pre-Internet in some reputable histories of WWII, so I don't have a link.
The amount of damage the nukes did to Japan was on the same order as what conventional bombing had already done: incendiary raids on Tokyo killed hundreds of thousands in a night and injured a million. There were bombing raids that turned back and chucked their bombs in the sea (for safety in landing) saying "We can't find anything still standing to bomb." Hiroshima was left standing precisely so we *would* have a target for the A-bomb.
The Emperor had been trying to get a surrender for a while before that (Wikipedia: "Emperor Hirohito's viewing of the destroyed areas of Tokyo in March 1945, is said to have been the beginning of his personal involvement in the peace process, culminating in Japan's surrender five months later.[17]")
From Morison's official history of the US Navy in the war, it seems that Japan would likely have surrendered in weeks (without a US invasion) without the A-bombs, but that we had no way of knowing that -- he doesn't condemn Truman for using the bombs like some of the leftist historians do. (They say that "the use of A-bombs is an atrocity"; what they miss is that war, itself, is an atrocity. You never hear these folks talk about Dresden or Tokyo or Leningrad.)
Not sure how far you're going back, but there have been some very significant contributions of people of French, Italian, Dutch, English, etc., descent: Fourier to nearly everything, Marconi to radio, Maxwell and Faraday to electrodynamics, Lavoisier and Mendeleev (Russian) to chemistry, Darwin to biology, Edison to electricity, Pasteur to medicine, etc.
If you want to say that the modern age is mostly European (and at that mostly Western European), then you're right, but I don't think it's narrowly confined to Germany.
Right now I have 28 very nice Nvidia GPU's ticking away computing determinants of large matrices for me -- and this is just to estimate how much computer time I will need for the real calculation, which will use on the order of 100K GPU-hours. The high-performance computing crowd is switching from conventional supercomputers to Nvidia GPU's as fast as the code can be written.
These things ain't cheap: the new ones that they're putting into clusters cost $1.5k each, and I bet the profit margin on them is a lot bigger than on Geforce 555M's. More importantly this is an avenue for Nvidia to dominate the high-performance computing market, especially if they do things like implement a way for a GPU on one node to talk to a GPU on another node (by a direct-to-Infiniband link or something), bypassing the PCI Express busses. (Right now it's GPU -> PCI Express -> RAM -> Infiniband -> RAM -> PCI Express -> GPU.)
Needless to say the overwhelming majority of these machines run Linux. (Your average physicist can't even imagine what a Windows supercomputer would look like. I sure can't.)
The quantization noise introduced by using 16bit rather than higher precision samples is 10 * 16 log 2/log 10 = 48 dB below peak. Can you hear this? Maybe -- maybe in low-level signals anyway.
From experience with Impulse Tracker back in the day, I can definitely tell the difference between 8 bit and 16 bit samples played in a quiet room (noise 24 dB below peak). However, this is with samples that weren't properly dithered before downsampling; I imagine the quantization noise would be less onerous if they were.
Classical music has a notoriously wide dynamic range; it's not inconceivable for there to be plenty of passages in a Romantic orchestral work that are themselves 24 dB below peak, and then the SNR is only 24 dB -- somewhat perceptibly not transparent, but the noise is probably nothing more than a slight hiss unless there's no dithering. (Of course, there is probably more than -24dB of noise in the analog original, anyway, if it's an orchestral recording.)
As for 192kHz -- it's not going to make anything worse, but it's not going to make anything better either unless you're trying to call dogs, thanks to Mr. Nyquist.
Slashdot Mirror
A South African friend said "Oh, I highly approve of police taking bribes! That way they're accountable to the citizens rather than to the government".
He's right, in light of the South African government. He'd be right too in some major US cities: Chicago and Washington, for sure.
It's Obama's fault for being a puppet, then. Saying that it's his fault because he allows people to pull the strings is just the same as saying he's corrupt.
He could have put his foot down on any number of things at any point. He didn't.
Maybe it'd be hard to elect anyone else -- I voted for him because McCain/Palin is even scarier. But saying that he's not a rat bastard because the other guys are also rat bastards doesn't excuse him.
Then get a state constitutional amendment. It's easy enough to do if the goal is to stop those icky gays from wearing tuxedos and exchanging rings, shouldn't it be possible to prevent mass robbery?
That small town shouldn't have been allowed to declare bankruptcy. They took money from people against the law and with the use of violence -- that's robbery. The courts ought to garnish the wages of everyone who was responsible until they pay their debts for that robbery.
I just moved to the DC area, and I fucking *hate* it. They set the speed limits so low that in the event that you're out when there's little traffic, driving a comfortable and safe speed equates to doing 20+. Then they can pick and choose who to ticket. (The councilmember from Anacostia, I think, recently got pulled over for doing 105 in her county-owned vehicle on the Beltway and was let off with a warning.) This place is a wreck.
I don't think there should be speed limits, at all, ever. There should be only the offense of reckless driving, and to be convicted of such the police should have to prove that you were driving in a manner unsafe for the conditions and traffic load. You'd have to have some criteria to take the arbitrariness out of it, based on traffic load (i.e. "driving so many sigma above the speed of traffic")... but if you take the profit out of it, then they'll only go after people when they're actually risking public safety rather than "risking public safety" with the scare quotes.
Of course, you'd also have to do something about the folks who get pulled over for "driving while Mexican", but that can be taken care of by firing Joe Arpaio.
Because that claim is factually wrong.
Yes, sometimes it is dangerous to drive above the speed limit. Much of the time it's not. You say "never drive or walk near roads", which implies that you're an urbanite, probably from a large city on the East Coast with high population density and ready access to public transportation. The rest of the country is an entirely different ball game. Drive from Tucson to El Paso on I-10 (or from Phoenix to Los Angeles on the same road) and then come back and tell me that speeding is never safe.
It won't once those court costs and fees stop going to the courts. Why will they stop? Because the law will make them stop. That's what the initiative process does: it is a way to force the popular will into the laws. Sometimes it's abused, sometimes it's imperfect, true -- but it's there.
Yes -- the police and courts will lose money on every traffic ticket. Currently they lose money on every murder they investigate and prosecute, but they keep doing it (usually). Why? Because it's what the taxpayers want them to do, and it's their fucking job. The taxpayers do not want them writing tickets to people driving ten over on I-10, but they do it anyway because they want the cash. The only incentives the police should have to investigate "crimes" are moral and professional ones, not monetary ones (other than "this is why we're paying you").
... or, really, anywhere with a ballot initiative process.
Citizens should push for ballot initiatives that require that all money collected for traffic and parking offenses goes back to the citizens as a tax credit. This should have broad popular support in most places.
Yeah, the police/DoT would have to raise taxes to replace the lost revenue... but it would create a system where they have no fiscal incentive to engage in highway robbery, which is what traffic enforcement these days amounts to.
That's what would happen if it were used in many US cities. Some (Chicago, DC) have gotten so effective at disarming all members of the populace other than the thugs that there'd be few people who would try that.
But in broad swaths of the South, Midwest, Northwest, and West? Yeah, you'd have people taking potshots at it.
So, I live in DC.
The result quoted in the summary, that DC didn't manage to pull off a secure electronic vote, shouldn't be interpreted as a condemnation of e-voting, for the simple reason that this city couldn't manage to find the exit to a paper bag with a map and GPS. The incompetence around here is hilarious: there's a reason everyone working for the government lives in either Maryland or northern Virginia, since being in DC itself just means you get to hear sirens 24/7.
Everyone's heard of Marion Barry, the crack-smoking mayor? Turns out they elected him mayor again right away when he got out of prison. He mismanaged the city finances so badly that Bill Clinton cut him off from a lot of his authority, and he flounced* from the mayorship -- and got elected to the City Council. Since then he's gone eight years without paying income taxes, driven drunk, and embezzled money. Now he wants to run for mayor again.
The guy is a complete scumbag. The Washington Post said "To understand Washington, you have to understand Marion Barry."
*Flounce: To leave after a post (on the internet) where you proclaim yourself a martyr, with great drama
You have to take into account the format size, too. An aperture of f/1.4 on Four Thirds gives the same depth of field (at the same angle of view) as 2.8 on FX or film. This is in part what motivates the demand of these very very fast Micro Four Thirds lenses (there are 45 and 25mm f/0.95's); additionally, the normal Four Thirds system has very fast zooms and macros (there's a f/2 50mm macro, and f/2 zooms from 14mm to 100mm). This is to compensate for the greater DOF and worse low-light performance of the smaller sensor. No (small-format) compact camera offers this, as they've got crop factors of ~5.
No system will give you 7-600mm. The thing to worry about is field of view (or, equivalently, "35mm equivalent focal length") -- Four Thirds (2x crop) offers 14mm to 1000mm EFL, but there is an expensive 300mm f/2.8 you can teleconvert up to 1200mm EFL if you want. Canon and Nikon each have 14mm to 600mm.
On shutter speed, the portrait crowd actually wants 1/8000 so they can shoot at full aperture outside. I'm a nut and use 1/4000 and faster for hummingbirds in flight.
Then get a cameraphone, or just set your camera to aperture priority and dial in the highest aperture and the highest ISO you can stand.
Dark frame subtraction is only useful (and used) for shutter speeds above one second -- this is true for cameras from the cheapest 1/3.2" sensor on my old Panasonic FZ3 to the rather nice Four Thirds sensor in my DSLR.
More likely, each output pixel requires taking only part of the information from the input pixels (since you've got to do something other than "average them" to get the light field information), exacerbating the noise.
Depth of field effects are considered part of the art of photography, much like amplifier distortion is part of the art of playing electric guitar. People pay a great deal for the capacity to get *narrower* depth of field: compare the price of Canon's 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.2 lenses. People most often buy the f/1.2 as a very very narrow depth of field portrait lens, rather than a very very low-light lens. Other lenses are known for the particular way that they throw backgrounds out of focus -- Nikon will even sell you one where you can choose exactly how the background is defocuses.
I think this trend in photography is overblown (I don't see the appeal of portraits where half of one eye is out of focus), but there's no doubt that artistic manipulation of depth of field is a big part of the art.
+1.
You can even hide the taskbar on all these UI's if you want the damn space back. I have a 1920x1080 screen on this laptop and leave the taskbar open and two tabs tall, since I have a zillion terminals and copies of Evince running. On my netbook it's one tab tall and I hide it sometimes. On a phone I'd probably want to hide it all the time, except when I specifically want it.
The taskbar is the most useful thing a UI can do. Don't muck it up by absorbing the action "launch a copy of X" into it (I do that far less often than I switch windows). Don't make me hit modifier keys to get it unless I want to.
My fundamental problem with Unity and all of the hellspawn UI's that copy OSX is that they conflate the two concepts of "make window XYZ the active one, and maximize it if possible" and "launch an instance of program XYZ". These tasks really have nothing to do with each other, other than both resulting, at the end, in program XYZ being on top.
The most common window-manager task I do is to switch from one window to another. GNOME, very sensibly, gives me a taskbar with all of the things running, and I can click on the one I want, and see at a glance what I've got open and how many instances of each. This is important -- this is the main fucking thing I want my window manager to do for me, is fucking manage my windows.
I don't need a giant list of all the programs on my computer lying around on my screen waiting for me to click them, especially if it takes away from my ability to do the above. On the rare instance when I want to launch a new program, I'll fish around in a menu for it, or hit some magic keystroke (like alt-f2) and type its name. If I really want a big list of my common programs, I'll hit Ctrl-Alt-D and pick one from the icons that I've put on my desktop for that purpose. Or I'll even program a hotkey for it (ctrl-alt-T shits out a new terminal window on my system).
This is even worse for Unix folks, half of whose programs tend to be terminals. How people use OSX for scientific computing is beyond me. Just show me my fucking taskbar and get everything else that I didn't ask for out of my way.
The trouble is that it is impossible for the US government to accomplish any project of large enough size to be political and which will take more than four years.
Well, unless it involves the military -- they've bamboozled the electorate into pretty consistently fellating them regardless of the wisdom of whatever it is they are doing.
$20 billion is 1% of the cost of the Iraq war. We piss away mountains of money on things far less useful (and far more harmful) than shooting bunnies into space.
Wow. That's pretty damn impressive -- that despite the fluid nature of blood the spins retained magnetic order over macroscopic distances *after* bouncing around through his arteries.
Bombing of civilian populations from the air had been done by everybody for a long time, under the notion that WWII was a war between nations, and that the civilian population is part of a nation. The Germans started it (in the Battle of Britain), but that's only because they were the first to achieve airpower sufficient to bomb anybody -- we certainly had the aircraft designed to do it (B-17's and Lancasters, whose designation I forget) early on. The Germans never did field a real heavy bomber, but they wrecked a bunch of London nonetheless.
I read this pre-Internet in some reputable histories of WWII, so I don't have a link.
The amount of damage the nukes did to Japan was on the same order as what conventional bombing had already done: incendiary raids on Tokyo killed hundreds of thousands in a night and injured a million. There were bombing raids that turned back and chucked their bombs in the sea (for safety in landing) saying "We can't find anything still standing to bomb." Hiroshima was left standing precisely so we *would* have a target for the A-bomb.
The Emperor had been trying to get a surrender for a while before that (Wikipedia: "Emperor Hirohito's viewing of the destroyed areas of Tokyo in March 1945, is said to have been the beginning of his personal involvement in the peace process, culminating in Japan's surrender five months later.[17]")
From Morison's official history of the US Navy in the war, it seems that Japan would likely have surrendered in weeks (without a US invasion) without the A-bombs, but that we had no way of knowing that -- he doesn't condemn Truman for using the bombs like some of the leftist historians do. (They say that "the use of A-bombs is an atrocity"; what they miss is that war, itself, is an atrocity. You never hear these folks talk about Dresden or Tokyo or Leningrad.)
Not sure how far you're going back, but there have been some very significant contributions of people of French, Italian, Dutch, English, etc., descent: Fourier to nearly everything, Marconi to radio, Maxwell and Faraday to electrodynamics, Lavoisier and Mendeleev (Russian) to chemistry, Darwin to biology, Edison to electricity, Pasteur to medicine, etc.
If you want to say that the modern age is mostly European (and at that mostly Western European), then you're right, but I don't think it's narrowly confined to Germany.
-An American of German descent
It appeared pretty scary as shit to Americans, too.
Right now I have 28 very nice Nvidia GPU's ticking away computing determinants of large matrices for me -- and this is just to estimate how much computer time I will need for the real calculation, which will use on the order of 100K GPU-hours. The high-performance computing crowd is switching from conventional supercomputers to Nvidia GPU's as fast as the code can be written.
These things ain't cheap: the new ones that they're putting into clusters cost $1.5k each, and I bet the profit margin on them is a lot bigger than on Geforce 555M's. More importantly this is an avenue for Nvidia to dominate the high-performance computing market, especially if they do things like implement a way for a GPU on one node to talk to a GPU on another node (by a direct-to-Infiniband link or something), bypassing the PCI Express busses. (Right now it's GPU -> PCI Express -> RAM -> Infiniband -> RAM -> PCI Express -> GPU.)
Needless to say the overwhelming majority of these machines run Linux. (Your average physicist can't even imagine what a Windows supercomputer would look like. I sure can't.)
The quantization noise introduced by using 16bit rather than higher precision samples is 10 * 16 log 2/log 10 = 48 dB below peak. Can you hear this? Maybe -- maybe in low-level signals anyway.
From experience with Impulse Tracker back in the day, I can definitely tell the difference between 8 bit and 16 bit samples played in a quiet room (noise 24 dB below peak). However, this is with samples that weren't properly dithered before downsampling; I imagine the quantization noise would be less onerous if they were.
Classical music has a notoriously wide dynamic range; it's not inconceivable for there to be plenty of passages in a Romantic orchestral work that are themselves 24 dB below peak, and then the SNR is only 24 dB -- somewhat perceptibly not transparent, but the noise is probably nothing more than a slight hiss unless there's no dithering. (Of course, there is probably more than -24dB of noise in the analog original, anyway, if it's an orchestral recording.)
As for 192kHz -- it's not going to make anything worse, but it's not going to make anything better either unless you're trying to call dogs, thanks to Mr. Nyquist.