It's easy to quote signal to noise ratio figures because they're listed in the specs of just about every bit of audio equipment, and the theory is taught in every introductory signal processing course. To me such figures are largely irrelevant. Many modern CD recordings are compressed so hard at the mastering stage that they sound bloody awful, noise or otherwise. (We had loudness wars with 45s too, have we learned nothing?) Those that aren't over-compressed probably don't use all 16 bits very effectively anyway, so the theoretical SNR is not realised. Also, the 96dB figure is the theoretical SNR of the CD medium itself; the 'signal' on that CD probably has a noise component, originating from the equipment used in the studio, and the analogue stages of the player itself.
Some of my favourite records are 45s from the 60s that I bought second hand, and which must have spent more time out of their sleeves than in. There is an abundance of surface noise, scratches, and distortion from mastering. Still, they sound great to me. A great song with noise is still a great song.
When arguing the pros and cons of analogue vs. digital you also have to bear in mind that not all distortion is a bad thing. To illustrate, I can make copies of CDs onto a 20+ year old tape recorder (1/4 track, 1/4 inch, 7.5ips, Dolby B) which sound, to me, better than the original CD. The tape recorder specs claim 65dB SNR with Dobly. There's no way that I can have done anything other than _add_ noise, colouration, and distortion, and I know there's nothing above 17kHz on the tape, yet the sound is wonderful, smooth yet detailed, and without the harshness that you can get on some CD recordings, particularly older ones. If I had the time and money I'd make copies of all my CDs onto tape, but what with a reel of tape costing at least as much as the CD itself, and the hassle of threading the machine each time, I don't think I'll bother.:-)
>Of course, I master digitally on a DAT, because >my analog setup would introduce more noise.
I mix (I don't master) to 1/2 track 1/4 inch tape at 15ips. No significant noise that I can hear, and more importantly, it sounds great. If I want to get my sounds onto CD I go to a mastering engineer who has better A/D converters than I could ever afford, and better than the ones in any DAT recorder.
I don't want to encourage the grits pourers on Slashdot, but I do wish somebody would explain what's going on.
Here in the UK the word 'grit' describes a crunchy building material, like sand or gravel. (I had assumed that you were referring to the individual particles as 'grits', in the same way that you erroneously refer to Lego bricks as 'Legos'.)
Naturally, I was puzzled as to why anybody would want to heat up gravel and pour it into their pants. Now I learn that butter is involved I am much more interested, but no less confused. Please explain!
>The schools then all gave up, and started buying >Windows machines. Around the end of the Win 3.1 >era. Computer classes, which used to teach BASIC >programming, were degraded into lessons on MS >Word.
I don't believe that Unix or Windows is the best OS for teaching computing, particularly for younger children.
A lot of the people I see struggling with computers seem to lack a basic understanding of what a computer is, and what it can reasonably be expected to do for them. I think the best way to learn the basic principles of computing is through programming, probably in a language like BBC BASIC, which is exactly what I learned on nearly twenty years ago.
You don't learn to operate particle accelerators in school physics lessons, or do finite element analysis in the metalwork class - you learn the basics. Why should computing be any different?
I have an ordinary upright non-robotic Dyson vacuum cleaner.
The body of the cleaner, where you might expect the bag to be, is a big transparent plastic cylinder with another cylinder inside it. There are a couple of downwards pointing cone shaped thingies that fit inside the tops of the cylinders.
The air swirls around and around the cones until the dirt gets dizzy and drops to the bottom. Because the bin is transparent you can see how full it is, or if you've accidentally picked up anything that you shouldn't have (coins, pets, etc.)
The absolute best thing about it is that it even sorts your dirt out for you. Big dirt in the outside bin and fine dust in the middle. I don't know why but this pleases me immensely.
Deefer said: >plus I think it's waterproof... Handy for >all those red wine spills!
Unfortunately not. The instruction book specifically warns you not to try to pick up damp stuff. I don't know why, perhaps it would be hard to get the damp dust-sludge out of the bin.
I think the real reason that Linux has no drivers for Winmodems is not that they suck, but that the manufacturers have chosen not to make programming information available.
I haven't ever used a Winmodem, so I don't know how hard they suck, if at all.
>Jane's decided to correct mistakes and gather >all possible information before, not after, the >piece was published.
Wasn't the article "published" the moment it appeared online?
So, Jane's have realised that online documents can be modified (or completely rewritten) more easily than paper ones can. That's great, but it's not really that novel, is it?
>Ordinary folks who don't understand computers >don't deserve to be mocked. Ordinary people who >want to use their computers but refuse to learn >anything about them do.
It's probably easier for those of us who grew up on the home computers of the 80s where all we had was the ROM BASIC and a cassette recorder. We had to learn what was going on to get anything out of the machines, and it wasn't too difficult. Subsequent developments in computing have been incremental changes that we have been able to take in our stride.
For new users of the late 90s, computers must seem overwhelmingly complicated. I completely understand a reluctance to learn how it all works.
As well as the users who are unwilling to learn, part of the problem must be the techies who are unwilling to teach. I'm sure most of us have been asked to fix a problem on a friend's computer, and have proceeded to zoom through countless dialogs at the speed of light, fiddling with options as we go, and simultaneously typing obscure commands into a terminal window. With the problem fixed we go away, feeling superior, only to be asked to fix the same problem again the next week. A better approach, in my opinion, is to let the user make the changes themselves, explaining each setting as we come to it, and why it needs to be changed. As long as I make an effort not to sound too patronising the users seem to appreciate the help, and get the satisfaction of feeling that they've fixed the problem themselves. With a bit of luck they'll be able to fix the same problem should it occur again, and may even have the confidence to tackle a whole load of similar problems in the future. It may take a little bit longer the first time but in the long run, everybody gains.
Not a good example. I have a real problem with getting left and right confused and could easily have made the same mistake. (I also get really mixed up over the little icons on my cooker knobs that tell me which ring is going to light up.)
Most people who know me would agree that I am not stupid, although if you saw me struggling to follow directions or boil an egg you could be forgiven for coming to that conclusion.:-)
> I believe the 'Alt Gr' stands for 'Alternate Group'...
Dunno. I used to call it 'Alt Green' because the key cap was printed in that colour on one of my old PC keyboards. The Sun 5c keyboard I'm using now is printed with 'Alt Graph'. I still don't know what it's for.
Professional racing cyclists have been measured generating about 400W of power during a sustained effort, and considerably more for a brief period of time. Obviously, we're not all pro cyclists, but I'd think that even the average slashdotter could easily generate 25W with their legs. (Maybe more after a couple of mints). Doing the same with your fingers is another matter altogether.:-)
I suspect the experiment at the museum was not working properly, or was badly designed. I remember doing the same thing at a big museum in Munich (forget the name, it was very good though) and struggling to light the bulb, despite the fact that I am a reasonably competent amateur racing cyclist. Of course, as soon as I had collapsed into a sweaty heap a five year old child stepped up and started up the TV set, apparently effortlessly...
Getting back towards the subject, has anybody used one of those batteryless torches where you squeeze the handle to light them up? Those must need a couple of watts, and my little hands got tired pretty quickly. I can't see how typing could possibly generate enough power to have a significant effect on the battery life of a notebook, but I'd love to be proved wrong.
>In my last year of high school my friends >all bought the most expensive graphing >calculators we could afford since we knew >we'd need them in college.
I don't want to suggest that graphing calculators aren't both fun and useful, but did you actually find that you _needed_ them at college?
I studied Engineering/Electrical and Information Sciences at Cambridge University in the UK, which is exactly the sort of subject for which a fancy calculator could be useful. In fact, the recommended calculator, and the only one that we were allowed to use in examinations, was a little non-programmable Casio (fx-115, I think). To my surprise I found that it did everything I ever needed of it.
My mother is a physics teacher in the UK (A level, age 16-18ish) and she finds that she wastes a lot of time when students don't know how to use their graphing calculators properly. At the same time they struggle to grasp basic mathematical concepts, don't know how to sketch a graph, and of course, they tend to assume that the answer on the calculator display is never wrong.
Calculators and computers have their place in education, but giving the kids too many tools may mean that they never get to learn the principles and basic mathematical skills that are most important.
If I was designing an electric fence I would probably stick a few grounded conductors in between the live ones. I don't want no pesky kids stealing my dinosaurs.
There are different kinds of averages. Most people say 'average' when they mean 'mean', which is defined as sum(x)/n. The median is the value that half the people are dumber than, as rw2 explained above. Another kind of average is the 'mode' which is the value with the highest frequency. Those are all the averages I know about. Are there others? Do all their names start with 'm'?
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy to quote signal to noise ratio figures because they're listed in the specs of just about every bit of audio equipment, and the theory is taught in every introductory signal processing course. To me such figures are largely irrelevant. Many modern CD recordings are compressed so hard at the mastering stage that they sound bloody awful, noise or otherwise. (We had loudness wars with 45s too, have we learned nothing?) Those that aren't over-compressed probably don't use all 16 bits very effectively anyway, so the theoretical SNR is not realised. Also, the 96dB figure is the theoretical SNR of the CD medium itself; the 'signal' on that CD probably has a noise component, originating from the equipment used in the studio, and the analogue stages of the player itself.
:-)
Some of my favourite records are 45s from the 60s that I bought second hand, and which must have spent more time out of their sleeves than in. There is an abundance of surface noise, scratches, and distortion from mastering. Still, they sound great to me. A great song with noise is still a great song.
When arguing the pros and cons of analogue vs. digital you also have to bear in mind that not all distortion is a bad thing. To illustrate, I can make copies of CDs onto a 20+ year old tape recorder (1/4 track, 1/4 inch, 7.5ips, Dolby B) which sound, to me, better than the original CD. The tape recorder specs claim 65dB SNR with Dobly. There's no way that I can have done anything other than _add_ noise, colouration, and distortion, and I know there's nothing above 17kHz on the tape, yet the sound is wonderful, smooth yet detailed, and without the harshness that you can get on some CD recordings, particularly older ones. If I had the time and money I'd make copies of all my CDs onto tape, but what with a reel of tape costing at least as much as the CD itself, and the hassle of threading the machine each time, I don't think I'll bother.
>Of course, I master digitally on a DAT, because
>my analog setup would introduce more noise.
I mix (I don't master) to 1/2 track 1/4 inch tape at 15ips. No significant noise that I can hear, and more importantly, it sounds great. If I want to get my sounds onto CD I go to a mastering engineer who has better A/D converters than I could ever afford, and better than the ones in any DAT recorder.
I don't want to encourage the grits pourers on Slashdot, but I do wish somebody would explain what's going on.
Here in the UK the word 'grit' describes a crunchy building material, like sand or gravel. (I had assumed that you were referring to the individual particles as 'grits', in the same way that you erroneously refer to Lego bricks as 'Legos'.)
Naturally, I was puzzled as to why anybody would want to heat up gravel and pour it into their pants. Now I learn that butter is involved I am much more interested, but no less confused. Please explain!
Love,
Molly.
>The schools then all gave up, and started buying
>Windows machines. Around the end of the Win 3.1
>era. Computer classes, which used to teach BASIC
>programming, were degraded into lessons on MS >Word.
I don't believe that Unix or Windows is the best OS for teaching computing, particularly for younger children.
A lot of the people I see struggling with computers seem to lack a basic understanding of what a computer is, and what it can reasonably be expected to do for them. I think the best way to learn the basic principles of computing is through programming, probably in a language like BBC BASIC, which is exactly what I learned on nearly twenty years ago.
You don't learn to operate particle accelerators in school physics lessons, or do finite element analysis in the metalwork class - you learn the basics. Why should computing be any different?
Molly.
I have an ordinary upright non-robotic Dyson vacuum cleaner.
The body of the cleaner, where you might expect the bag to be, is a big transparent plastic cylinder with another cylinder inside it. There are a couple of downwards pointing cone shaped thingies that fit inside the tops of the cylinders.
The air swirls around and around the cones until the dirt gets dizzy and drops to the bottom. Because the bin is transparent you can see how full it is, or if you've accidentally picked up anything that you shouldn't have (coins, pets, etc.)
The absolute best thing about it is that it even sorts your dirt out for you. Big dirt in the outside bin and fine dust in the middle. I don't know why but this pleases me immensely.
Deefer said:
>plus I think it's waterproof... Handy for
>all those red wine spills!
Unfortunately not. The instruction book specifically warns you not to try to pick up damp stuff. I don't know why, perhaps it would be hard to get the damp dust-sludge out of the bin.
Molly.
Wouldn't a cluster of Beowulfs still be a Beowulf, just with a more exciting network topology?
Molly.
I think the real reason that Linux has no drivers for Winmodems is not that they suck, but that the manufacturers have chosen not to make programming information available.
I haven't ever used a Winmodem, so I don't know how hard they suck, if at all.
Molly.
VideoLogic's Sirocco speakers are rather good. A few new models have recently been added to the range. Have a look at www.videologic.com.
Molly.
I disagree with the suggestion that my name is either boring or hideous, and I would like to recommend a software upgrade.
:-)
You can expect to hear from my sister too.
Love
Molly.
You've never actually SEEN an angry mammoth, have you?
:-)
>Jane's decided to correct mistakes and gather
>all possible information before, not after, the
>piece was published.
Wasn't the article "published" the moment it appeared online?
So, Jane's have realised that online documents can be modified (or completely rewritten) more easily than paper ones can. That's great, but it's not really that novel, is it?
What about FreeBSD?
>Ordinary folks who don't understand computers
>don't deserve to be mocked. Ordinary people who
>want to use their computers but refuse to learn
>anything about them do.
It's probably easier for those of us who grew up on the home computers of the 80s where all we had was the ROM BASIC and a cassette recorder. We had to learn what was going on to get anything out of the machines, and it wasn't too difficult. Subsequent developments in computing have been incremental changes that we have been able to take in our stride.
For new users of the late 90s, computers must seem overwhelmingly complicated. I completely understand a reluctance to learn how it all works.
As well as the users who are unwilling to learn, part of the problem must be the techies who are unwilling to teach. I'm sure most of us have been asked to fix a problem on a friend's computer, and have proceeded to zoom through countless dialogs at the speed of light, fiddling with options as we go, and simultaneously typing obscure commands into a terminal window. With the problem fixed we go away, feeling superior, only to be asked to fix the same problem again the next week. A better approach, in my opinion, is to let the user make the changes themselves, explaining each setting as we come to it, and why it needs to be changed. As long as I make an effort not to sound too patronising the users seem to appreciate the help, and get the satisfaction of feeling that they've fixed the problem themselves. With a bit of luck they'll be able to fix the same problem should it occur again, and may even have the confidence to tackle a whole load of similar problems in the future. It may take a little bit longer the first time but in the long run, everybody gains.
Not a good example. I have a real problem with getting left and right confused and could easily have made the same mistake. (I also get really mixed up over the little icons on my cooker knobs that tell me which ring is going to light up.)
:-)
Most people who know me would agree that I am not stupid, although if you saw me struggling to follow directions or boil an egg you could be forgiven for coming to that conclusion.
> I believe the 'Alt Gr' stands for 'Alternate Group'...
Dunno. I used to call it 'Alt Green' because the key cap was printed in that colour on one of my old PC keyboards. The Sun 5c keyboard I'm using now is printed with 'Alt Graph'. I still don't know what it's for.
Molly.
Professional racing cyclists have been measured generating about 400W of power during a sustained effort, and considerably more for a brief period of time. Obviously, we're not all pro cyclists, but I'd think that even the average slashdotter could easily generate 25W with their legs. (Maybe more after a couple of mints). Doing the same with your fingers is another matter altogether. :-)
I suspect the experiment at the museum was not working properly, or was badly designed. I remember doing the same thing at a big museum in Munich (forget the name, it was very good though)
and struggling to light the bulb, despite the fact that I am a reasonably competent amateur racing cyclist. Of course, as soon as I had collapsed into a sweaty heap a five year old child stepped up and started up the TV set, apparently effortlessly...
Getting back towards the subject, has anybody used one of those batteryless torches where you squeeze the handle to light them up? Those must need a couple of watts, and my little hands got tired pretty quickly. I can't see how typing could possibly generate enough power to have a significant effect on the battery life of a notebook, but I'd love to be proved wrong.
>In my last year of high school my friends
>all bought the most expensive graphing
>calculators we could afford since we knew
>we'd need them in college.
I don't want to suggest that graphing calculators aren't both fun and useful, but did you actually find that you _needed_ them at college?
I studied Engineering/Electrical and Information Sciences at Cambridge University in the UK, which is exactly the sort of subject for which a fancy calculator could be useful. In fact, the recommended calculator, and the only one that we were allowed to use in examinations, was a little non-programmable Casio (fx-115, I think). To my surprise I found that it did everything I ever needed of it.
My mother is a physics teacher in the UK (A level, age 16-18ish) and she finds that she wastes a lot of time when students don't know how to use their graphing calculators properly. At the same time they struggle to grasp basic mathematical concepts, don't know how to sketch a graph, and of course, they tend to assume that the answer on the calculator display is never wrong.
Calculators and computers have their place in education, but giving the kids too many tools may mean that they never get to learn the principles and basic mathematical skills that are most important.
The article says the machines use pictures of the iris, not the retina.
Molly.
If I was designing an electric fence I would probably stick a few grounded conductors in between the live ones. I don't want no pesky kids stealing my dinosaurs.
There are different kinds of averages. Most people say 'average' when they mean 'mean', which
is defined as sum(x)/n. The median is the value that half the people are dumber than, as rw2 explained above. Another kind of average is the 'mode' which is the value with the highest frequency.
Those are all the averages I know about. Are there others? Do all their names start with 'm'?
Molly