Please, I am perfectly aware of that. It's not in the signal encoding part, it's in how we determine maximum audible frequencies: you play sine waves and determine at what frequency you stop hearing it. Now, take a frequency at the high end of that spectrum: can you hear the difference between, a sine and a more complex wave? If so, does that mean you can hear the higher harmonics? But as established, you can't. If your idea were correct, we would only be able to detect sine waves at the upper end of the audible spectrum. Any more complex waveform would be decomposed into harmonics and those harmonics would not be heard. Comprende?
I once had the same idea that 192kHz is overkill, but I've been following a course on digital audio processing and I'm not so sure any more: it's not about the frequencies per se, but about the shape of the waveform. This has its influence on the timbre of the sound. Not that I'm convinced that 192k quality can be heard either, but it's not simply a matter of the Fourier spectrum and frequency response of the ear. That said, a lot of it is probably just nitpicking, if you want better sound I suggest investing in better speakers just like the article said. When playing high quality music through laptop speakers, the sampling rate isn't the reason why it sounds shitty.
Back in the days when I was still smoking weed, I was rolling a joint and noticed my dog was looking at me in an investigative way. So I took a small bud of weed and let her smell it. She sniffed, and then she shook her snout against my hand making me drop it. Immediately she took it, and ran away a couple of metres. I tried to get it back, but she turned her body keeping me away from it while she ate it. During the rest of the evening, she kept lying in the sofa, upside down, paws up in the air. Eventually she got up and ate her bowl completely empty, then got back into the sofa. It's the funniest thing I ever saw her do. I don't know if it's normal or not. Do dogs like weed? Mine did for sure.
So infertile people don't deserve to get married? People who willingly choose not to have children don't deserve to get married? I'm hearing your religious excuse machine already spinning up from here.
No that's just one of the problems. The rabbit hole goes much deeper than that. Also, even with such deep inspections, the public interface is, well, public, so you cannot optimise it away. At best you can use tools to hint at such cases. After that you can modify the API (and the API documentation).
Well, it was an embedded company. This was the first project of such a large scale, and they lacked experience. The manager had worked there for 30 years, and had an electrical engineering background. So it wasn't an ideal situation: he was certainly competent and he could definitely write code, but lacked the experience in software engineering, like how to keep a large software base maintainable. So for example, he had this obsession with not changing code once it was tested. Since all these modules were tested, he was very nervous about changing it. What he failed to see, though, was that more modules were going to be added, and without a clean definition of how this data was to be represented, constant conversions were going to be needed (plus some other things I'm not going into now). Also, automated testing was not a practice there. This is one of the things I worked on introducing at the company, although frankly it was much to late to add it to the existing project. So he was never going to allow to merge the changes back in, because it "broke" tested code.
And I'm not saying I'm all for changing tested code - not at all , but in some circumstances, spending some effort up front can save you a lot of time later on. And I'm sure it would have.
Also, I'm quite confident of my skills. Sure I can still improve, but I surely developed a reputation of writing code that "just works". After 4 years, only a small fraction of the bugs were assigned to me, mostly they were located in parts I didn't write. Mastering the programming language is important, but there are lots of other very important things that matter. You just need a lot of discipline, checking all input, immediately failing when something goes wrong (not letting bad data trickle down the code), clean separations, higher order programming, trying to minimise the interface between modules etc... The list is so large, it becomes more of an intuition.
I hope this clarifies it a bit, I surely wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
OK, to clarify: I wasn't doing that on live code, it was a special experimental branch. My manager didn't want me to spend more time on it. But I was allowed to experiment, and then turn to the manager, present it and ask his input. Just stopping on my assignments and doing a weeks long rewrite needs approval of course, but fooling around a bit while you're stuck with another problem, was no problem. Is it really so abnormal to work that way?
Well, no, I got paid so if they don't want me to do that, I don't do it. Simple as that. But I did write a mail saying what parts of the code were going to continue to be bug-prone if if didn't get cleaned out. When I was packing, I found it back and I was completely spot on. One of the parts I mentioned needed a small change at that time, and it was already taking an engineer two weeks to implement it, constantly introducing new bugs. In hindsight my manager said I was correct. Nobody wanted to see me go, I rescued the project on more than one occasion. It was on an embedded platform so when performance was degrading I wrote a tool to find out where it was spending most of its time. Four months later we shipped a new version with more features and a lot of performance improvement, faster than it ever was. It's been in use ever since.
I also left the company without slamming doors, it was not directly related with that project but it did cause some changes: managers were now taking on smaller projects, with less R&D investments and less risks. I can understand their reasoning, but that didn't keep me motivated. That's all.
I do think it matters. Yes, a compiler can throw out dead code, but not in all cases. E.g. if you have an enum where some values aren't used, and you then call a function if a variable has that unused value, how is the compiler going to find out? It's not only functions, there could be unused tests in code etc. All this clogs up the code and can make reading the code a living hell. It can turn an elegant part into a mess. Not mentioning the time wasted of developers trying to find out what a function does, only to discover it's not used. The article doesn't deal with the results in terms of code size or performance, but I'm very interested to find out.
Anyway: you can either have clean code or maintainable code, but not both at once in my experience.
I've been working on a project where there were 3 separate wrappers around a database, each returning different objects containing the same data... So you had to convert those each time two modules using different wrappers needed to communicate. I tried to clean it up a bit, but eventually I stopped because my manager was frowning upon that because "I broke working code". Also there were parts that I didn't know if they were still in use. I also ran a profiler and found 80% of the functions never got called. That doesn't mean it's dead code of course, but looking at the function names I got an eerie feeling with a bunch of them. Anyway, I learned a lot about how not to manage software, I quit the company since then and I can only hope things have changed over there.
I was also wondering about that 30.000 feet figure. I cant understand how people can write this down and not question how it is even possible to begin with. A paragraph explaining the method used is the least you expect. But no... Anyway at that altitude it would have been a spy mission using an airplane, and I highly doubt the U.S. would give away such information. Then I noticed the GeoEye source in the images, and after googling I found that their satellites fly at 681km altitude. That's 2.23 million feet. So the question remains: why the 30.000 feet? It makes no sense at all!
How can we know that? Is it by measuring the flatness of the universe? But then how do you go from that to determining the full size? Isn't that extrapolation put to the extreme?
I would say yes. If you look at all the craters on the moon, each and every one of them is made by a near-Earth object per definition. One that got cleaned up and never bothered us again.
Well except perhaps a few who weren't in an elliptical orbit around the sun, like extrasolar comets or something like that.
Why use the word strange? Perhaps it's rare, but then again, with about 10000000000000000000000 stars in the observable universe alone (and we don't have a clue how much bigger it really is), how would you define strange? A statement like "What are the odds of that" quickly becomes moot.
Well, basically none. Radio waves can travel some distance underwater but are quickly damped. For submarines very low frequencies of a few Hz have been used. They can get a bit deeper, but you need very, very large antenna's for that.
Are you equally fast in addition as in subtraction in general, or just in this particular example? I'm way quicker in adding, and I think most people are. But I do think people use different techniques internally, so your visualisation might be helpful, personally I just go into "number mode", I think it is more of a linguistic approach in some sense. It would be cool if these different approaches could be detected in a brain scan.
Slashdot Mirror
I just implemented a pong game in Minecraft.. 21st century = you implement games inside other game worlds.
Erm no. If those harmonics are below the cutoff frequency for sampling, they will get sampled, perfectly.
I agree. I never claimed otherwise.
Please, I am perfectly aware of that. It's not in the signal encoding part, it's in how we determine maximum audible frequencies: you play sine waves and determine at what frequency you stop hearing it. Now, take a frequency at the high end of that spectrum: can you hear the difference between, a sine and a more complex wave? If so, does that mean you can hear the higher harmonics? But as established, you can't. If your idea were correct, we would only be able to detect sine waves at the upper end of the audible spectrum. Any more complex waveform would be decomposed into harmonics and those harmonics would not be heard. Comprende?
Did you just say the U.S. is planning to eradicate the rest of the world?
I once had the same idea that 192kHz is overkill, but I've been following a course on digital audio processing and I'm not so sure any more: it's not about the frequencies per se, but about the shape of the waveform. This has its influence on the timbre of the sound. Not that I'm convinced that 192k quality can be heard either, but it's not simply a matter of the Fourier spectrum and frequency response of the ear. That said, a lot of it is probably just nitpicking, if you want better sound I suggest investing in better speakers just like the article said. When playing high quality music through laptop speakers, the sampling rate isn't the reason why it sounds shitty.
Yeah, my dog ate my stash, man.
Back in the days when I was still smoking weed, I was rolling a joint and noticed my dog was looking at me in an investigative way. So I took a small bud of weed and let her smell it. She sniffed, and then she shook her snout against my hand making me drop it. Immediately she took it, and ran away a couple of metres. I tried to get it back, but she turned her body keeping me away from it while she ate it. During the rest of the evening, she kept lying in the sofa, upside down, paws up in the air. Eventually she got up and ate her bowl completely empty, then got back into the sofa. It's the funniest thing I ever saw her do. I don't know if it's normal or not. Do dogs like weed? Mine did for sure.
Just what the world needs: more weaponry. Don't these people have anything better to do with their lives than inventing new murder equipment?
So infertile people don't deserve to get married? People who willingly choose not to have children don't deserve to get married? I'm hearing your religious excuse machine already spinning up from here.
Erm.. those people?
The study was made in cooperation with the University of Transylvania.
No that's just one of the problems. The rabbit hole goes much deeper than that. Also, even with such deep inspections, the public interface is, well, public, so you cannot optimise it away. At best you can use tools to hint at such cases. After that you can modify the API (and the API documentation).
Well, it was an embedded company. This was the first project of such a large scale, and they lacked experience. The manager had worked there for 30 years, and had an electrical engineering background. So it wasn't an ideal situation: he was certainly competent and he could definitely write code, but lacked the experience in software engineering, like how to keep a large software base maintainable. So for example, he had this obsession with not changing code once it was tested. Since all these modules were tested, he was very nervous about changing it. What he failed to see, though, was that more modules were going to be added, and without a clean definition of how this data was to be represented, constant conversions were going to be needed (plus some other things I'm not going into now). Also, automated testing was not a practice there. This is one of the things I worked on introducing at the company, although frankly it was much to late to add it to the existing project. So he was never going to allow to merge the changes back in, because it "broke" tested code.
And I'm not saying I'm all for changing tested code - not at all , but in some circumstances, spending some effort up front can save you a lot of time later on. And I'm sure it would have.
Also, I'm quite confident of my skills. Sure I can still improve, but I surely developed a reputation of writing code that "just works". After 4 years, only a small fraction of the bugs were assigned to me, mostly they were located in parts I didn't write. Mastering the programming language is important, but there are lots of other very important things that matter. You just need a lot of discipline, checking all input, immediately failing when something goes wrong (not letting bad data trickle down the code), clean separations, higher order programming, trying to minimise the interface between modules etc... The list is so large, it becomes more of an intuition.
I hope this clarifies it a bit, I surely wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition.
OK, to clarify: I wasn't doing that on live code, it was a special experimental branch. My manager didn't want me to spend more time on it. But I was allowed to experiment, and then turn to the manager, present it and ask his input. Just stopping on my assignments and doing a weeks long rewrite needs approval of course, but fooling around a bit while you're stuck with another problem, was no problem. Is it really so abnormal to work that way?
Well, no, I got paid so if they don't want me to do that, I don't do it. Simple as that. But I did write a mail saying what parts of the code were going to continue to be bug-prone if if didn't get cleaned out. When I was packing, I found it back and I was completely spot on. One of the parts I mentioned needed a small change at that time, and it was already taking an engineer two weeks to implement it, constantly introducing new bugs. In hindsight my manager said I was correct. Nobody wanted to see me go, I rescued the project on more than one occasion. It was on an embedded platform so when performance was degrading I wrote a tool to find out where it was spending most of its time. Four months later we shipped a new version with more features and a lot of performance improvement, faster than it ever was. It's been in use ever since.
I also left the company without slamming doors, it was not directly related with that project but it did cause some changes: managers were now taking on smaller projects, with less R&D investments and less risks. I can understand their reasoning, but that didn't keep me motivated. That's all.
I do think it matters. Yes, a compiler can throw out dead code, but not in all cases. E.g. if you have an enum where some values aren't used, and you then call a function if a variable has that unused value, how is the compiler going to find out? It's not only functions, there could be unused tests in code etc. All this clogs up the code and can make reading the code a living hell. It can turn an elegant part into a mess. Not mentioning the time wasted of developers trying to find out what a function does, only to discover it's not used. The article doesn't deal with the results in terms of code size or performance, but I'm very interested to find out.
Anyway: you can either have clean code or maintainable code, but not both at once in my experience.
I've been working on a project where there were 3 separate wrappers around a database, each returning different objects containing the same data... So you had to convert those each time two modules using different wrappers needed to communicate. I tried to clean it up a bit, but eventually I stopped because my manager was frowning upon that because "I broke working code". Also there were parts that I didn't know if they were still in use. I also ran a profiler and found 80% of the functions never got called. That doesn't mean it's dead code of course, but looking at the function names I got an eerie feeling with a bunch of them. Anyway, I learned a lot about how not to manage software, I quit the company since then and I can only hope things have changed over there.
I was also wondering about that 30.000 feet figure. I cant understand how people can write this down and not question how it is even possible to begin with. A paragraph explaining the method used is the least you expect. But no... Anyway at that altitude it would have been a spy mission using an airplane, and I highly doubt the U.S. would give away such information. Then I noticed the GeoEye source in the images, and after googling I found that their satellites fly at 681km altitude. That's 2.23 million feet. So the question remains: why the 30.000 feet? It makes no sense at all!
That just reminds me of this movie.
How can we know that? Is it by measuring the flatness of the universe? But then how do you go from that to determining the full size? Isn't that extrapolation put to the extreme?
I would say yes. If you look at all the craters on the moon, each and every one of them is made by a near-Earth object per definition. One that got cleaned up and never bothered us again.
Well except perhaps a few who weren't in an elliptical orbit around the sun, like extrasolar comets or something like that.
Why use the word strange? Perhaps it's rare, but then again, with about 10000000000000000000000 stars in the observable universe alone (and we don't have a clue how much bigger it really is), how would you define strange? A statement like "What are the odds of that" quickly becomes moot.
What wavelength radio waves penetrate underwater?
Well, basically none. Radio waves can travel some distance underwater but are quickly damped. For submarines very low frequencies of a few Hz have been used. They can get a bit deeper, but you need very, very large antenna's for that.
Are you equally fast in addition as in subtraction in general, or just in this particular example? I'm way quicker in adding, and I think most people are. But I do think people use different techniques internally, so your visualisation might be helpful, personally I just go into "number mode", I think it is more of a linguistic approach in some sense.
It would be cool if these different approaches could be detected in a brain scan.
If Iran shuts down a site, it is evil. If the US shut down a site, it is good. Welcome to animal farm!
It was his favourite hard drive, he would have wanted to to take it with him...