For me, the stickyness of the food plays a big role also. If it's something like an M&M, chances are I'm going to eat it even after several minutes. If it's sweet and sour pork...that's a different matter.
To keep up with the good journalists who wrote this article, shown with "...or nearly 1000 million times fainter...", or at nature.com with their "...thousandth of a millimetre across..." and "...rated at a millionth of a milliamp...", you should state 50 million as some obscure number, such as 50000 thousand, or 50000 kilomiles, or 5000 10000 miles. Come on man, keep with the times.
Just break the antenna off, block it with tinfoil, or do something equally destructive to it's ability to send the data. Keep your mail nice and empty. I'm sure they will have something to make sure this doesn't happen.
Now, what would be interesting would be to forge someone elses car (preferably an enemies), then drive around like crazy one night. Muhahah! Or, just find the encoding scheme, and send millions of dollars worth of fines to the enemy! hahah...HAHAHAH...MUHAHAH!
Improve cornering...great...now, anytime a SUV changes lanes too fast, it'll flip.
Seriously though, this will be bad for a lot of tall cars. Cars are designed to slide instead of flip. If you nearly double the grip, your gunna have a lot of cars that can potentially flip now.
I would think it would be possible for them to explain differences in a color chart where the colors all look the same brightness to normal people. Maybe they could see differences in transition too.
I can't not lie unconvincingly. I was arrested last year for being under the influence. I kept telling the guy that my heart rate was up cause I had walked about a half a mile, my mouth was dry because I had walked about half a mile, I was having "uncrontrollable muscle spasms" because I had walked a half a mile in shorts and a t-shirt in 40 to 50 degree F weather. I got very nervous after two more cop cars pulled up, one of them a drug specialist, which added to all the other symptoms. etc. etc. It all lead to me being arrested and pissing the cop off cause I didn't care that I had been arrested. It was funny, but sucked.
From that link "1. Manual reel mowers don't cut tall weeds well (but they do great on grass!). Because of the design, the reel will roll over tall weeds and dandelions without cutting much. So they aren't a good choice to mow a vacant lot, but they'll do superbly with a grass lawn."
heheh...this means it won't work for me, since that is all our lawn consists of...weeds. I'll have to check out electric mowers though.
You know, you don't have to live in a mud hut to not be wastefull. Just look around and you will see that there is a lot of needless waste. For instance, just look at some of the packaging for food products.
But your right, it was mostly things done in the past, and we are trying to fix what was "screwed" (I don't consider it screwed, cause, as you pointed out, they are improving). And, it was an Anti-American potshot, and doesn't deserve an interesting...hopefully it will be metamoderated as unfair.
Sometimes I just can't believe people post these hollow Anti-American posts.
If you melt a penny using something that can create a lot of heat, like a Fresnel lens, you will see that the zinc inside melts much faster than the outer copper shell. You can make the whole penny form into a teardrop shape.
You said to create the sum and different, you needed modulation.
You said
To create a new frequency, you need modulation. For example, amplitude modulation of Fc with Fm will create Fc-Fm, Fc and Fc+Fm frequency components. The two new frequencies are called sidebands, if you're interested.
And I said...
...that will mix two signals together, creating the sum and difference of the signals. This is what you are calling modulation
Do you see how we are saying the same thing? And, you are saying you need modulation to do this...which is incorrect based off the defenitions I gave you.
So the 30kHz tone doesn't come out of the CD player, but you can hear it... riiight. Can you also see things that aren't there?
Read what I said...
I never said that the sound would be comming out of a CD player
In otherwords, I never said the source of the audio was a CD player. And, I never said that you you could hear the 30kHz...only that it will, after certain physical things happen, create a tone that you can hear. It seems that you didn't read the link I provided which would have cleared things up for you about why and how this happens. I didn't think I had to explain, cause I assumed you would understand that I was refering to the Tartini tones.
You are getting a new wave with a different frequency by mixing the two waves together at the surface. This wave would then radiate off the surface, becomming a seperate entity.
Lots of words. No actual meaning. You might as well have said the Internet needs more MHz, for all the sense it made.
I don't understand how it was a lot of words...and how this isn't understandable for someone with a science background like you said you had...but...
From my understanding, you have two tones. They can be from two seperate speakers, or the same...it doesn't make a difference, it creates the same pressure waves in the air. So, the two waves will travel along and hit some flexible surface...like a wall or couch or pretty much anything. This surface will vibrate from the first and second tone. Beat waves will be created. These beat waves will be physically moving the surface back and fourth at the beat waves frequency. When something vibrates, what does it do? Makes pressure waves! What are moving pressure waves in the air? Sound! And, oh look, the defenition of radiate is "To send out rays or waves." So, the wall will vibrate the air, and you will have an actual wave comming off of the surface, moving away from it, radiating off of it. It will be it's own entity. It will not only exist because of the other two waves...it is it's own descrete thing. You can easily look up the defenition of entity at dictionary.com to understand what I was talking about. It is "Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit". See what I was saying now? If you got a spectrum analyzer, you would now see three frequency components instead of two. I believe the surface has to be nonlinear for this to happen though...which all in my house are, including the air. And, like I showed you in my post, this is how some of those ultrasonic speakers work. They vibrate the surface with two frequencies that are some frequency away from each other, creating tones that you can hear that are the difference of the two. That's why I posted those. I meant for you to read them so you might understand.
I have a question. In your post before this last one, you said,
Interference does not physically occur at the "surfaces that they reflect off of".
Please tell me, where do you think the signals are being mixed? If it's not at the surface...then where? Behind it? Above it? below it? In front of it? Where? It seems like you don't think interferece has anything to do
I really don't think I'm confused...to me...it seems that you are dodging the answers/questions.
In RF, a mixer is a nonlinear device that will mix two signals together, creating the sum and difference of the signals. This is what you are calling modulation
I said nothing of the sort. I don't appreciate your attempts to insert your pseudo-scientific babble into my mouth.
I was going off of this sentence that you wrote... To create a new frequency, you need modulation.
Which seems to me, that you are saying that you can't create new frequencies without modulation. Wait a second...that is what you said.:)
As I've already said, there are no 30kHz signals out of your CD player, so it hardly matters if your tweeters can reproduce 30kHz tones or not.
I never said that the sound would be comming out of a CD player...or any other thing...only that it does, in fact, make a tone that you could hear.
And, nothing I said contained even a scrap of psuedoscience...I don't know where you get that idea from. And, nothing was nonsense...please post anything that I might have gotten wrong...but I know it wasn't nonsense.
And, I know I need a dictionary for spelling...but maybe you should invest one to learn defenitions. (ohh...low blow..sorry).
Counterstrike is just a mod for half-life. I don't think they changed it at all. When you buy it, I believe your just buying a retarded copy of Half-Life, and a CD-Key.
The whole controdictory thing was based off the fact that, what you call, modulation occurs, at some point, by the construction and destruction of waves in a system (like the surface of your head or a wall) that is nonlinear. I thought we were only talking about at the surface of an object...which is all that the post was about. I am aware that mixing waves in the air, or in an object, or anything linear doesn't create new frequency components...that would be awfull for radios stations if it did.:)
I did explain. You didn't understand. He said:
waves can mix (construct and destruct creating new frequency components)
Construction and deconstruction is called interference. It changes the intensity of a wave. Intensity is related to volume. Interference cannot create new frequency components.
If you look at the rest of that sentence, "at the surfaces that they reflect off of", this would be where the modulation and interference is *physically* happening...this is where the nonlinear mixing occurs, which is what we are talking about (things making new frequency components from bouncing off the surface of something). So, the new waves are created from the construction and destruction of waves (it just has to be in a nonlinear system)...try to make something that does what you call modulation without this happening.
The construction and destruction of the waves on a nonlinear surface (or in a component, like a MIXER used in RF) is how modulation occurs...which is what I think I/he was saying (the whole head and surface and what the post was about thing, we never said it would happen in air or anywhere else).
I get my deffenition of mixing from component in electronics. And, I never said that mixing was the same as construction and destruction. That's just how it physically happens inside/on the mixer.
In RF, a mixer is a nonlinear device that will mix two signals together, creating the sum and difference of the signals. This is what you are calling modulation (even though, it doesn't fit my deffenition, or the one at dictionary.com, here, since you are not varrying the phase, amplitude, or frequency of a wave).
Here is an example,If a signal exists at 1450 Khz and mixed with the vfo of 995 Khz we still get an i.f. of 1450 - 995 = 455 Khz. And here
Because of the transistor being biased in a non-linear region it also operates as a mixer.
These examples are the same way that I use mixer, and mixed.
The act of putting something through a mixer would be called mixing. This is where I was getting my deffenition of mixing from. Maybe it's wrong (I know it is in some contexts). But I've never had a problem with using it before. I was assuming we were talking about the mixing at the surface (which is what the post was about).
This is where your confusion lies. Let's say I take two frequency components; 500Hz and 450Hz. I mix the two. How many frequencies do I have? I have two. I have 450Hz and 500Hz. You apparently think we have a new frequency 950Hz. That's incorrect.
To me, when "mix" is used in that context (anytime with waves), I think you mean mix...like in a mixer in electronics...past tense being mixed like in the example above the above. If you mixed them in a mixer (words starting to sound strange), you will have the new component. Just look at the IF stage of a radio. If you said "passed them through each other" or "mixed them in a linear system", I probably would have understood what you meant better. Just a difference in deffenition. But, like I said, I assumed we were both talking about at a surface. The way I use mix seems to be common.
Sure, but he would still be wrong. You can't construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves. Yes, you'll get a new wave, but it's the sum of existing frequency components.
You were refering to the sentence in this thread, shown here, which is
waves can mix (construct and destruct creating new frequency components) at the surfaces that they reflect off of (including those in your head), creating a new wave off of the surface with the new frequency component...
I'm going off of those...
All I'm saying is that he would not be wrong. You are getting a new wave with a different frequency by mixing the two waves together at the surface. This wave would then radiate off the surface, becomming a seperate entity. If you get a spectrum analyzer...you should be able to see it on the graph. Before, you should have just seen the ones who created it. So, it didn't exist before...it's new. This new wave (new as in, the wave is its own entity now) would have a new frequency which would be the sum and difference of the frequencies that created it. So, you are creating a new frequency component. Component for me meaning, from the previouse link, "A constituent element, as of a system", and element meaning, from the previouse link, "A fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity." And, since any signal can be considered as a sum of sines and cosines, a frequency component could be considered an element of a system...the system being the signal's waveform....the element being a sin or cosine wave with a frequency wich composes the complete signal which will get to your ear.
Going back to what you said...
Sure, but he would still be wrong. You can't construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves. Yes, you'll get a new wave, but it's the sum of existing frequency components.
You said that you didn't say anything remotely like my second interpretation...I'm assuming you meant the interpretation of the second sentence. You say, shown above, that you will get a new wave with a new frequency than existed before. To me, this can be considered as a new frequency component...it's a frequency that didn't exist alone before. If you get a spectrum analyzer...you should be able to see it on the graph. Before, you should have just seen the others. So, it didn't exist before...it's new.
Back to being contradictory... You can construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves when a new wave is created on a surface. This is a new wave with a different frequency than existed alone before. Looking at the second sentence, this is what you said.
To me, it seems that, in the first sentence, you are saying that you *cannot* create a new frequency component by mixing signals. To me, it also seems that you say you *can* create a new wave, with a different and new (didn't exist alone before) frequency component, that is the sum of the existing frequency components. And, looking at your other sentence, "A resonating surface can modulate a wave to create new frequency components.", you seem to support this...along with the "second interprotation". To me, that seems contradictory...maybe it's just me.
I know I repeated a lot...but I was trying to be a s clear as possible.
I don't think your comment about schooling was called for...bei
but...let me try again, cause I don't think your getting it...
"You can't construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves. Yes, you'll get a new wave, but it's the sum of existing frequency components."
Looking at the first sentence...your saying you can't create a new wave with a different frequency. Looking at the second sentence, you are saying that you can create a new wave with a different frequency. Get it?
It is the sum, but it is still a new frequency component...new as in not old...didn't exist before...wasn't created, but now exists.
So you are, in fact, making a new indepedent (after it leaves the surface) wave.
Slashdot Mirror
For me, the stickyness of the food plays a big role also. If it's something like an M&M, chances are I'm going to eat it even after several minutes. If it's sweet and sour pork...that's a different matter.
To keep up with the good journalists who wrote this article, shown with "...or nearly 1000 million times fainter...", or at nature.com with their "...thousandth of a millimetre across..." and "...rated at a millionth of a milliamp...", you should state 50 million as some obscure number, such as 50000 thousand, or 50000 kilomiles, or 5000 10000 miles. Come on man, keep with the times.
Just break the antenna off, block it with tinfoil, or do something equally destructive to it's ability to send the data. Keep your mail nice and empty. I'm sure they will have something to make sure this doesn't happen.
Now, what would be interesting would be to forge someone elses car (preferably an enemies), then drive around like crazy one night. Muhahah! Or, just find the encoding scheme, and send millions of dollars worth of fines to the enemy! hahah...HAHAHAH...MUHAHAH!
Improve cornering...great...now, anytime a SUV changes lanes too fast, it'll flip.
Seriously though, this will be bad for a lot of tall cars. Cars are designed to slide instead of flip. If you nearly double the grip, your gunna have a lot of cars that can potentially flip now.
I would think it would be possible for them to explain differences in a color chart where the colors all look the same brightness to normal people. Maybe they could see differences in transition too.
Of course not. That would be commiting a crime!
The rain didn't reach the ground!? How did you know it was raining? How hot were these days? What was the humidity?
it's damn hot...so where the hell is all the rain!?
Oh yeah.
I wonder if there is a deposit for them. This would be the only way it would make sense to me.
heheh...comparing the prices of carbon and titanium, seems that carbon is MUCH cheaper.
Heck, I dropped materials containing a considerable amount of carbon in the toilet this morning.
that fileswapping *did*, in fact, increase sales. This would explain them not going after new music.
That would explain going after older music since they know noone will buy it, just burn it.
I can't not lie unconvincingly. I was arrested last year for being under the influence. I kept telling the guy that my heart rate was up cause I had walked about a half a mile, my mouth was dry because I had walked about half a mile, I was having "uncrontrollable muscle spasms" because I had walked a half a mile in shorts and a t-shirt in 40 to 50 degree F weather. I got very nervous after two more cop cars pulled up, one of them a drug specialist, which added to all the other symptoms. etc. etc. It all lead to me being arrested and pissing the cop off cause I didn't care that I had been arrested. It was funny, but sucked.
From that link
"1. Manual reel mowers don't cut tall weeds well (but they do great on grass!). Because of the design, the reel will roll over tall weeds and dandelions without cutting much. So they aren't a good choice to mow a vacant lot, but they'll do superbly with a grass lawn."
heheh...this means it won't work for me, since that is all our lawn consists of...weeds. I'll have to check out electric mowers though.
You know, you don't have to live in a mud hut to not be wastefull. Just look around and you will see that there is a lot of needless waste. For instance, just look at some of the packaging for food products.
But your right, it was mostly things done in the past, and we are trying to fix what was "screwed" (I don't consider it screwed, cause, as you pointed out, they are improving). And, it was an Anti-American potshot, and doesn't deserve an interesting...hopefully it will be metamoderated as unfair.
Sometimes I just can't believe people post these hollow Anti-American posts.
If you melt a penny using something that can create a lot of heat, like a Fresnel lens, you will see that the zinc inside melts much faster than the outer copper shell. You can make the whole penny form into a teardrop shape.
And just like China, how they imprison people that speak badly about the government, or leak information, such as a virus outreak. :)
I feel like a dumbass...
:)
I was a bad boy and didn't preview first...sorry for the lack of and .
You said
And I said...
Do you see how we are saying the same thing? And, you are saying you need modulation to do this...which is incorrect based off the defenitions I gave you.
Read what I said...
In otherwords, I never said the source of the audio was a CD player. And, I never said that you you could hear the 30kHz...only that it will, after certain physical things happen, create a tone that you can hear. It seems that you didn't read the link I provided which would have cleared things up for you about why and how this happens. I didn't think I had to explain, cause I assumed you would understand that I was refering to the Tartini tones.
I don't understand how it was a lot of words...and how this isn't understandable for someone with a science background like you said you had...but...
From my understanding, you have two tones. They can be from two seperate speakers, or the same...it doesn't make a difference, it creates the same pressure waves in the air. So, the two waves will travel along and hit some flexible surface...like a wall or couch or pretty much anything. This surface will vibrate from the first and second tone. Beat waves will be created. These beat waves will be physically moving the surface back and fourth at the beat waves frequency. When something vibrates, what does it do? Makes pressure waves! What are moving pressure waves in the air? Sound! And, oh look, the defenition of radiate is "To send out rays or waves." So, the wall will vibrate the air, and you will have an actual wave comming off of the surface, moving away from it, radiating off of it. It will be it's own entity. It will not only exist because of the other two waves...it is it's own descrete thing. You can easily look up the defenition of entity at dictionary.com to understand what I was talking about. It is "Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit". See what I was saying now? If you got a spectrum analyzer, you would now see three frequency components instead of two. I believe the surface has to be nonlinear for this to happen though...which all in my house are, including the air. And, like I showed you in my post, this is how some of those ultrasonic speakers work. They vibrate the surface with two frequencies that are some frequency away from each other, creating tones that you can hear that are the difference of the two. That's why I posted those. I meant for you to read them so you might understand.
I have a question. In your post before this last one, you said,
Please tell me, where do you think the signals are being mixed? If it's not at the surface...then where? Behind it? Above it? below it? In front of it? Where? It seems like you don't think interferece has anything to do
Maybe it depends on your personal view of the universe...
Read this to see what I'm talking about. It was featured here on slashdot a while ago.
Remember, the visible universe is growing by a lightyear every year as light is just hitting us from very distant stars. :)
I was going off of this sentence that you wrote...
To create a new frequency, you need modulation.
Which seems to me, that you are saying that you can't create new frequencies without modulation. Wait a second...that is what you said.
I never said that the sound would be comming out of a CD player...or any other thing...only that it does, in fact, make a tone that you could hear.
And, nothing I said contained even a scrap of psuedoscience...I don't know where you get that idea from. And, nothing was nonsense...please post anything that I might have gotten wrong...but I know it wasn't nonsense.
And, I know I need a dictionary for spelling...but maybe you should invest one to learn defenitions. (ohh...low blow..sorry).
Counterstrike is just a mod for half-life. I don't think they changed it at all. When you buy it, I believe your just buying a retarded copy of Half-Life, and a CD-Key.
The whole controdictory thing was based off the fact that, what you call, modulation occurs, at some point, by the construction and destruction of waves in a system (like the surface of your head or a wall) that is nonlinear. I thought we were only talking about at the surface of an object...which is all that the post was about. I am aware that mixing waves in the air, or in an object, or anything linear doesn't create new frequency components...that would be awfull for radios stations if it did.
I did explain. You didn't understand. He said:
waves can mix (construct and destruct creating new frequency components)
Construction and deconstruction is called interference. It changes the intensity of a wave. Intensity is related to volume. Interference cannot create new frequency components.
If you look at the rest of that sentence, "at the surfaces that they reflect off of", this would be where the modulation and interference is *physically* happening...this is where the nonlinear mixing occurs, which is what we are talking about (things making new frequency components from bouncing off the surface of something). So, the new waves are created from the construction and destruction of waves (it just has to be in a nonlinear system)...try to make something that does what you call modulation without this happening.
The construction and destruction of the waves on a nonlinear surface (or in a component, like a MIXER used in RF) is how modulation occurs...which is what I think I/he was saying (the whole head and surface and what the post was about thing, we never said it would happen in air or anywhere else).
I get my deffenition of mixing from component in electronics. And, I never said that mixing was the same as construction and destruction. That's just how it physically happens inside/on the mixer.
In RF, a mixer is a nonlinear device that will mix two signals together, creating the sum and difference of the signals. This is what you are calling modulation (even though, it doesn't fit my deffenition, or the one at dictionary.com, here, since you are not varrying the phase, amplitude, or frequency of a wave).
Here is an example,If a signal exists at 1450 Khz and mixed with the vfo of 995 Khz we still get an i.f. of 1450 - 995 = 455 Khz. And here
These examples are the same way that I use mixer, and mixed.
The act of putting something through a mixer would be called mixing. This is where I was getting my deffenition of mixing from. Maybe it's wrong (I know it is in some contexts). But I've never had a problem with using it before. I was assuming we were talking about the mixing at the surface (which is what the post was about).
To me, when "mix" is used in that context (anytime with waves), I think you mean mix...like in a mixer in electronics...past tense being mixed like in the example above the above. If you mixed them in a mixer (words starting to sound strange), you will have the new component. Just look at the IF stage of a radio. If you said "passed them through each other" or "mixed them in a linear system", I probably would have understood what you meant better. Just a difference in deffenition. But, like I said, I assumed we were both talking about at a surface. The way I use mix seems to be common.
Just for an
from this post, you say
You were refering to the sentence in this thread, shown here, which is
I'm going off of those...
All I'm saying is that he would not be wrong. You are getting a new wave with a different frequency by mixing the two waves together at the surface. This wave would then radiate off the surface, becomming a seperate entity. If you get a spectrum analyzer...you should be able to see it on the graph. Before, you should have just seen the ones who created it. So, it didn't exist before...it's new.
This new wave (new as in, the wave is its own entity now) would have a new frequency which would be the sum and difference of the frequencies that created it. So, you are creating a new frequency component.
Component for me meaning, from the previouse link, "A constituent element, as of a system", and element meaning, from the previouse link, "A fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity." And, since any signal can be considered as a sum of sines and cosines, a frequency component could be considered an element of a system...the system being the signal's waveform....the element being a sin or cosine wave with a frequency wich composes the complete signal which will get to your ear.
Going back to what you said...
You said that you didn't say anything remotely like my second interpretation...I'm assuming you meant the interpretation of the second sentence. You say, shown above, that you will get a new wave with a new frequency than existed before. To me, this can be considered as a new frequency component...it's a frequency that didn't exist alone before. If you get a spectrum analyzer...you should be able to see it on the graph. Before, you should have just seen the others. So, it didn't exist before...it's new.
Back to being contradictory...
You can construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves when a new wave is created on a surface. This is a new wave with a different frequency than existed alone before. Looking at the second sentence, this is what you said.
To me, it seems that, in the first sentence, you are saying that you *cannot* create a new frequency component by mixing signals. To me, it also seems that you say you *can* create a new wave, with a different and new (didn't exist alone before) frequency component, that is the sum of the existing frequency components. And, looking at your other sentence, "A resonating surface can modulate a wave to create new frequency components.", you seem to support this...along with the "second interprotation".
To me, that seems contradictory...maybe it's just me.
I know I repeated a lot...but I was trying to be a s clear as possible.
I don't think your comment about schooling was called for...bei
but...let me try again, cause I don't think your getting it...
Looking at the first sentence...your saying you can't create a new wave with a different frequency. Looking at the second sentence, you are saying that you can create a new wave with a different frequency. Get it?
It is the sum, but it is still a new frequency component...new as in not old...didn't exist before...wasn't created, but now exists.
So you are, in fact, making a new indepedent (after it leaves the surface) wave.