The whole point is that a cloud of analog noise sounds better than a cloud of digital noise. You will have harmonic distortion either way you go. With analog, you get better sounding distortion.
True but the 44.1kHz 16-bit CDs are uncompressed while the 48kHz are compressed using lossy compression (AAC isn't it?).
No, DVD-Audio has either uncompressed Linear PCM audio, or lossless compressed MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) and it can get up to 192kHz for stereo, or 96kHz for 5.1 channel.
What you were thinking of was AC3, which is what nearly all DVD-Video discs use for their audio track. Its usually 48kHz, and it is compressed lossily.
The audio tracks on DVD movies are a completely different technology than DVD-Audio. The audio track on a DVD-Video is a compressed AC3 stream, usually 48kHz. I'm not sure, but I don't think the DVD-Video standard even allows 96kHz AC3 audio.
DVD-Audio on the other hand is PCM (uncompressed) audio at 24-bit with sample rates ranging from 48kHz to 192kHz.
P.S. Yes I know that DVDs can technically contain PCM audio tracks, but I've never seen one, and I do lots of renting and ripping. I don't think it can get up to 96kHz anyway, and it certainly won't be 24-bit.
Even if you interpret the 2nd amendment as saying everyone has a right to keep and bear arms instead of just the militia (nice job at conveniently leaving that part out), I ask again where does it say you can *sell* guns? All I see is the right to have and use them.
Will young men start raping girls if they see somebody naked? C'mon.
You'd be surprised at just how many idiots in this country believe there is a link between you looking at pornography and your propensity to commit sex crimes.
Even though it is possible that in some far off distant future, 16 Exabytes will be required for some application, it is highly doubtful. To put it in perspective, 1 Exabyte (2^60 bytes) is estimated to be enough to store every single word ever spoken (in text, not in sound) by any human since the dawn of history.
The 68K family has 16 semi-general purpose registers while the x86 has half that, and there have been 68k emulators for x86 for a long time. In fact, the number of registers to be emulated is not that important when you can't map to the registers of the host machine because there are not enougth.
68K architecture may have 16 registers, but they are 16-bit, while x86 are 32-bit. On top of that, you can get away with only mapping 7 or 8 (D0, D1, D2, A0, A1, A5, A6, A7), because the rest aren't often used. In PPC assembly, use most or all 32 registers at the same time is quite common, because with a RISC instruction set, you *have* to do everything in registers.
The number of registers is *very* important, because each significantly used register that you can't map is one that will have to be fetched from cache or from main memory very often. That adds up to a very significant performance drop.
But in any case going from 16 to 32 registers doesn't add any complexity.
Of course it doesn't add complexity. Writing an emulator is in fact quite simple. I could write a PPC emulator in Perl and have it run anywhere Perl does. That doesn't mean it will be fast. In fact, it will probably be so slow that it would literally take a month just to boot up MacOS.
I guess the complexity lies in the instruction set and the MMU.
The PPC memory manager may be somewhat trickier to implement than the 68K memory manager but not that much, and in many ways the PPC instruction set should be easier to implement than the 68K one. It has much fewer addressing modes and only one way to load to and store from memory.
You want to try to emulate PPC on x86?! Good luck. PPC has tons more general purpose registers than x86 does. There is a reason why the only Macintosh emulators for x86 only do 68K emulation.
You know, I thought about this in high school and decided that it would be a lot easier to get sodium out of lye than out of salt.
Just do the reaction in reverse, 4(NaOH) + heat -> 2(Na2) + 2(H2O) + O2.
I know that isn't exactly the reaction in reverse, but I couldn't think of any practical way to get the H2 back in, so I was hoping that reaction would work. Any actual chemists know if it will or not? You'd have to have some way of separating the water and sodium though.
Propagation implies competing with nearly identical organisms that don't have the mutation. What that boils down to is that for every mutated survivor, a non-mutated creature must die - unless you postulate unlimited resources, which we don't have and have never had.
Propagation does not imply competition. Propagation happens at birth, there is no one to compete against then. Why would a non-mutated creature have to die? A birth with a mutation isn't above and beyond the normal number of births. There is no extra creature that has to be killed off. It simply replaces one of the non-mutated creatures that would have been born. In the case of a neutral mutation, the mutation will spread until 50% of the population has it.
What motivation does nature have to pay this price? Is not the tendency of mechanistic nature toward survival? And if so, why? If nature is truly impartial, an organism has no more motivation to live than to die.
There is no motivation necessary, because there is no price to pay. Organisms have a drive to survive because it is a good survival characteristic. Organisms don't want to survive, or don't care, usually don't.
On top of this, the vast majority of mutations are highly destructive, so they kill off the organism (in some situations, the entire species), and there is no principle to counteract this destruction in mechanistic science.
No, you are completely wrong here. The vast majority of mutations are either neutral or dependent upon the environment.
Finally, unlike in frauds like Mr Dawkins' weasel, selectivity is very weak, and the natural tendency observed in biology is for novelties to become de-selected again rather than to propagate.
The strength of the selectivity is dependent upon the impact of the mutation. That natural tendency is only true for harmful (inherent or otherwise) mutations. In fact, that is the definition of a harmful mutation.
Plain, ordinary degeneration falls under that definition. What you're saying is that if a colony of rats take up residence on a toxic waste dump, and they start to be born with defective or missing limbs, patchy hair, blindness etc, this is evolution; this is progress.
There is no such thing as "degeneration" or "progress". That implies a value scale where there is none. The rats living on a toxic waste dump would be considered evolution if it was genetic. However, birth defects caused by toxic waste are NOT genetic and so are NOT evolution.
Ballroom dancing is not a prerequisite of quantum mechanics, nor vice versa.
Yes, and how the universe, the solar system, or life started is irrelevant to evolution as well.
Mr Montag, are you having a lend of me? Where has biology observed evolution? Can you name any situation in which genuine developmental improvement has been witnessed, let alone witnessed to be a result of evolutionary processes?
Certainly. There is a very nice FAQ about this over at talkorigins.org. Or, if you want an example that everyone has heard of, take penecillin-resistant strains of bacteria. BTW, developmental improvement is NOT a requirement of being considered evolution, as it has no meaning in the context.
Wrong [johnmyers.com], and I quote:
"In one graduate class, the professor told us we didn't have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far too uncertain and conflicting. Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating. Afterwards, the professor said something like this, 'If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuff, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system. So, keep the faith.'"
Wow. I don't think I've seen a better example of a strawman. Please, outline what makes the geologic dating systems uncertain, and just which ones conflict. And BTW, the only assumption that radiometric dating makes is that the half-life of the measured material is a constant. This is a VERY reasonable assumption since quantum mechanics (the most accurate theory in the history of science) demands it.
No, it isn't. It's based almost entirely on surmise
I got news for you buddy, *all* hypotheses and theories are based on surmise and inference. Extrapolating from the evidence is making an inference.
Drinking and Driving still kills more people than speed.
Yeah, but you ever notice how drunk drivers never seem to hurt themselves or any of the other drunks out on the roads at 2 AM when the bars close, but only sober drivers? I think everyone should be driving drunk and we'd see a large decrease in the number of auto deaths.
First off, the term is buffer overflow, a buffer underrun happens during burning a CD. They work by writing data past the end of an array (usually a string buffer) literally overflowing the buffer. By writing the right data into the right places, you can replace code that was going to be executed with your own code.
Can you change the color and shape of the window border, move the various widgets that control them and make them look like something else, even changing their function?
Can you make my OS X look like Star Trek LCARS interface like I could with OS 9 and Kaleidoscope? (I said *could*, not *did*)
Actually, you can. I've seen some projects that add windowshade capability to all windows system-wide by updating some of the frameworks. I imagine you could do a similar thing for just about any UI feature you would want to add.
Slashdot Mirror
Just how many DVDs have *you* ever seen that use PCM instead of AC3?
The whole point is that a cloud of analog noise sounds better than a cloud of digital noise. You will have harmonic distortion either way you go. With analog, you get better sounding distortion.
No, DVD-Audio has either uncompressed Linear PCM audio, or lossless compressed MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) and it can get up to 192kHz for stereo, or 96kHz for 5.1 channel.
What you were thinking of was AC3, which is what nearly all DVD-Video discs use for their audio track. Its usually 48kHz, and it is compressed lossily.
DVD-Rs have come down in price drastically over the past year. There are several standalone DVD-R recorders.
DVD-Audio on the other hand is PCM (uncompressed) audio at 24-bit with sample rates ranging from 48kHz to 192kHz.
P.S. Yes I know that DVDs can technically contain PCM audio tracks, but I've never seen one, and I do lots of renting and ripping. I don't think it can get up to 96kHz anyway, and it certainly won't be 24-bit.
Even if you interpret the 2nd amendment as saying everyone has a right to keep and bear arms instead of just the militia (nice job at conveniently leaving that part out), I ask again where does it say you can *sell* guns? All I see is the right to have and use them.
Please show me where in the 2nd amendment the right to *sell* guns is guaranteed.
The constitution *requires* me to own guns?!?! Just when I thought gun nuts couldn't go any further.
You'd be surprised at just how many idiots in this country believe there is a link between you looking at pornography and your propensity to commit sex crimes.
Even though it is possible that in some far off distant future, 16 Exabytes will be required for some application, it is highly doubtful. To put it in perspective, 1 Exabyte (2^60 bytes) is estimated to be enough to store every single word ever spoken (in text, not in sound) by any human since the dawn of history.
68K architecture may have 16 registers, but they are 16-bit, while x86 are 32-bit. On top of that, you can get away with only mapping 7 or 8 (D0, D1, D2, A0, A1, A5, A6, A7), because the rest aren't often used. In PPC assembly, use most or all 32 registers at the same time is quite common, because with a RISC instruction set, you *have* to do everything in registers.
The number of registers is *very* important, because each significantly used register that you can't map is one that will have to be fetched from cache or from main memory very often. That adds up to a very significant performance drop.
But in any case going from 16 to 32 registers doesn't add any complexity.
Of course it doesn't add complexity. Writing an emulator is in fact quite simple. I could write a PPC emulator in Perl and have it run anywhere Perl does. That doesn't mean it will be fast. In fact, it will probably be so slow that it would literally take a month just to boot up MacOS.
I guess the complexity lies in the instruction set and the MMU.
The PPC memory manager may be somewhat trickier to implement than the 68K memory manager but not that much, and in many ways the PPC instruction set should be easier to implement than the 68K one. It has much fewer addressing modes and only one way to load to and store from memory.
You want to try to emulate PPC on x86?! Good luck. PPC has tons more general purpose registers than x86 does. There is a reason why the only Macintosh emulators for x86 only do 68K emulation.
What happens if you boil NaOH (s)?
Just do the reaction in reverse, 4(NaOH) + heat -> 2(Na2) + 2(H2O) + O2.
I know that isn't exactly the reaction in reverse, but I couldn't think of any practical way to get the H2 back in, so I was hoping that reaction would work. Any actual chemists know if it will or not? You'd have to have some way of separating the water and sodium though.
Technically, its H2 + O2 + Heat -> Explosion, but thats just nitpicking.
What? No you don't. All you need is a centrifuge. All the isotopes of uranium you need to make a bomb are naturally occurring.
You certainly could bond it to something to make it benign. Chlorine gas is lethal, but you don't see anyone dropping dead from eating salt, do you?
Propagation does not imply competition. Propagation happens at birth, there is no one to compete against then. Why would a non-mutated creature have to die? A birth with a mutation isn't above and beyond the normal number of births. There is no extra creature that has to be killed off. It simply replaces one of the non-mutated creatures that would have been born. In the case of a neutral mutation, the mutation will spread until 50% of the population has it.
What motivation does nature have to pay this price? Is not the tendency of mechanistic nature toward survival? And if so, why? If nature is truly impartial, an organism has no more motivation to live than to die.
There is no motivation necessary, because there is no price to pay. Organisms have a drive to survive because it is a good survival characteristic. Organisms don't want to survive, or don't care, usually don't.
On top of this, the vast majority of mutations are highly destructive, so they kill off the organism (in some situations, the entire species), and there is no principle to counteract this destruction in mechanistic science.
No, you are completely wrong here. The vast majority of mutations are either neutral or dependent upon the environment.
Finally, unlike in frauds like Mr Dawkins' weasel, selectivity is very weak, and the natural tendency observed in biology is for novelties to become de-selected again rather than to propagate.
The strength of the selectivity is dependent upon the impact of the mutation. That natural tendency is only true for harmful (inherent or otherwise) mutations. In fact, that is the definition of a harmful mutation.
There is no such thing as "degeneration" or "progress". That implies a value scale where there is none. The rats living on a toxic waste dump would be considered evolution if it was genetic. However, birth defects caused by toxic waste are NOT genetic and so are NOT evolution.
Ballroom dancing is not a prerequisite of quantum mechanics, nor vice versa.
Yes, and how the universe, the solar system, or life started is irrelevant to evolution as well.
Mr Montag, are you having a lend of me? Where has biology observed evolution? Can you name any situation in which genuine developmental improvement has been witnessed, let alone witnessed to be a result of evolutionary processes?
Certainly. There is a very nice FAQ about this over at talkorigins.org. Or, if you want an example that everyone has heard of, take penecillin-resistant strains of bacteria. BTW, developmental improvement is NOT a requirement of being considered evolution, as it has no meaning in the context.
Wrong [johnmyers.com], and I quote:
Wow. I don't think I've seen a better example of a strawman. Please, outline what makes the geologic dating systems uncertain, and just which ones conflict. And BTW, the only assumption that radiometric dating makes is that the half-life of the measured material is a constant. This is a VERY reasonable assumption since quantum mechanics (the most accurate theory in the history of science) demands it.
No, it isn't. It's based almost entirely on surmise
I got news for you buddy, *all* hypotheses and theories are based on surmise and inference. Extrapolating from the evidence is making an inference.
BTW, I'm not so sure they are statistically independent. I think you could make a case for synchronized swerving.
Yeah, but you ever notice how drunk drivers never seem to hurt themselves or any of the other drunks out on the roads at 2 AM when the bars close, but only sober drivers? I think everyone should be driving drunk and we'd see a large decrease in the number of auto deaths.
Maybe you should look to see who I was responding too before you accuse me of being americocentric. Browsing at +1 makes you look like a fool.
First off, the term is buffer overflow, a buffer underrun happens during burning a CD. They work by writing data past the end of an array (usually a string buffer) literally overflowing the buffer. By writing the right data into the right places, you can replace code that was going to be executed with your own code.
Speed limit where I live is 70.
Actually, you can. I've seen some projects that add windowshade capability to all windows system-wide by updating some of the frameworks. I imagine you could do a similar thing for just about any UI feature you would want to add.