The aliasing happens when you do the analog to digital conversion; if aliasing exists in the digital recording, it's going to exist irrespective of what kind device is attached to the D/A converter on output.
Very true. I guess I should say that I've usually seen aliasing compensated for by putting a lowpass filter on the analog out.
<geezer>Old Amigas had a 3.3kHz lowpass filter that was tied to the power LED for some reason. Clever people wrote utilities to turn off that filter by dimming the LED, so suddenly the sound output went from muddy to relatively bright.</geezer>
We theorize that the Apple buds were less capable of reproducing high frequencies and that this weakness amplified the listeners' perception of aliasing in the compressed audio signal. But that's just a theory.
Can anyone explain this to me? I know what aliasing is; basically it's when your top frequencies hit the Nyquist limit and kind of bounce back downward (how's that for scientific?), and I know what it sounds like. However, the last time I checked, you'd remove aliasing by cutting high frequencies out of the final analog wave with a lowpass filter. Unless something's radically changed since then, wouldn't the presumably lower-response Apple buds actually show less aliasing that the expensive ones that can better reproduce the higher (and unwanted) frequencies?
Or have I been trolled into reasoning with audiophiles? If that's the case, let me know so I can pack up and go home.
It's way past time to end this ludicrous segregation of Indians into subcitizens on reservations. I propose that we convert reservations into private property contained within the states or regions encapsulating them, with the tribal council or other group elected by the tribal members given the deed to the property. Furthermore, declare a 100-year statute of limitations on all property disputes nationally.
Seriously, let's repatriate our brothers and put this insanity to rest.
You mean, the intermediate-user niche. Every power user I know tried Gentoo and then went back to their binary distro of choice. Nothing against Gentoo, but sometimes you just want to let someone else make sure everything's working so you can get back to work.
open source is open source, with or without a license... i generally dont really care about licenses...
Meanwhile, in the real world, I'm responsible to people who trust me to make technological decisions for them. My boss "gets" the GPL because I've explained it to him, and he's OK with it. I'll be darned if I'm going to randomly incorporate Open Source code into our Free Software codebase and suddenly lose the right to redistribute it (or worse).
I generally don't really care about licenses either, except where not caring about them puts me or my employer at legal risk. Then I care a whole awful lot about them.
According to the Department of Labor, the current unemployment rate is 4.5%. In the last 59 years, the average has been 5.6%. Of those 59 years, it was less than 4.5% 13 times and greater 44 times, with a maximum of 9.7% just after Carter left office and a general downward trend since then.
We have all the jobs we need. Any more and you can expect inflation to start kicking in pretty seriously.
Yes, the function naming in php is crap. Show us a scripting language where it isn't.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of another scripting language that has no support whatsoever for namespaces. So while I can't necessarily show you a language whose function naming doesn't suck, neither can I show you any whose sucks as badly.
I won't know for 30 years whether the orange soil (containing natural asbestos) construction sites in my area has given me lung cancer (and the companies responsible for digging up the stuff will be out of business, so I won't be able to sue them).
You know, screw you. Everyone does something that could potentially harm someone else, from the dairy stocker that moves too slow and lets a couple of bacteria grow in a jug of milk, to the people who design keyboards that don't actively fight carpal tunnel syndrome. I don't care what you do for a living - you've caused harm or allowed harm to be caused either accidentally, unknowingly, or purposefully. So on behalf of everyone you may eventually want to sue for some real or perceived malady, kiss my ass, hypocrite.
Sorry, I know this is off-topic but whenever I see someone with their finger on the lawyer trigger, my first instinct is to kick them in the butt. I just don't have any tolerance for people who are so desperate to be a paid victim that they don't care how badly they destroy our society in the process.
You don't think cutting off the end of the data counts as corrupting it?
GGP: You can set SQL modes, such as STRICT_ALL_TABLES, that will cause MySQL to reject invalid data instead of truncating it.
GP: This should never, ever be even considered to ship enabled.
Me: I don't follow MySQL development, so does that actually cause data corruption or something?
I was trying to figure out why the grandparent didn't think STRICT_ALL_TABLES should be enabled, when it seems to me like that should be the only acceptable value.
Because this is a GPL protocol, any product which uses it to connect to a MySQL server, or to emulate a MySQL server, or to interpose between any client and server which uses the protocol, or for any similar purpose, is also bound by the GPL.
Fiction: the protocol is GPLed. Frankly, that's just dumb; the GPL's scope doesn't include protocols.
Fact: the MySQL client libraries are GPLed. If you use the official MySQL libraries and wish to distribute your program, your choices are to buy a commercial license or release your code under the GPL. I am unaware of any non-GPL client libraries for MySQL, although I've never had a reason to actually look for them.
Basically, the author was mostly right, even if for the wrong reasons.
This should never, ever be even considered to ship enabled.
Why's that? I don't follow MySQL development, so does that actually cause data corruption or something? Errors when it shouldn't? Something else heinous? It sounds like the setting you should want to always enable.
I use del.icio.us and the Firefox plug-in for it, and all my bookmarks are stored in a database that I can access from any computer.
That's all well and good, but what do you do on the day that del.icio.us inevitable goes offline, perhaps forever? OK, maybe it won't, but do you really want to trust all your data to a remote service that basically operates at their own whim?
Oh, and, it's fully cross-platform public domain, too.
I was ready to correct you on the difference between open source and public domain, but upon further reading, you're right: it's completely public domain. They'll sell you a license if you really must have one for some reason, but it's available for downloading and embedding for any use you want to put it to. Kudos, dev team. That's pretty cool of you.
Should you be able to patent an alloy? Should you be able to blanket patent alloys that are reflective and restrict their use to your 'idea'? Isn't that something mother nature made possible?
That actually sounds reasonable to me. Otherwise, you could make a similar argument against pretty much any chemical in any application, and it seems to me that at least some patents on chemicals are truly novel and useful and non-obvious.
I agree with you that the words "sex toy" should have been featured prominently.
Umm, I don't agree with that at all. The title of the article included the word "iGasm". What did you think it would be about?
Again, take some responsibility for yourself. The Internet is a wild place - learn to think critically if it's that important to you not to click a "NSFW" link.
Over at Fark. At Slashdot, we make the dangerous assumption that you'll be smart enough not to click on links in a story about sex toys if you can't handle the consequences.
This isn't Fark. Either man up and tell your boss about something funny you saw so that he hears about it first from you, or take some responsibility for yourself and don't click links in a story about a sex toy.
If it says 16.7 million, it's an 8-bit display. If it says 16.2 million, it's 6-bits with dithering.
Out of curiosity, how did they come up with 16.2 million? That's close enough to 16.7 million that I can't figure which numbers they must be multiplying to get it.
Yeah, I know I could look it up, but I imagine other people are also wondering.
To be absolutely precise, it's not even 768 colors, it's 766. 255 shades of red, 255 shades of green, 255 shades of blue, and black.
Or, more accurately, 768 (256 of each, including black). But since the basic unit of a display is the pixel, you can't just add them together; they're taken as a whole and you have to multiply them.
Your parent is referring to the fact that the R, G, and B elements on a LCD are distinct. Each one can show 256 different shades.
Well, I've heard (but can't verify) that LCDs more typically have 6 bits (64 shades) of each. Forgetting subpixel trickery, that's 256KiColors of pixels, which is several hundred times more than the 768 he claimed.
Your average display can only show 768 unique colors.
Assuming a worst-case scenario of 6-bit R, G, and B values, you're off by a factor of about 340. An old Amiga could display 4096 colors onscreen at once, and I assure you it looked nothing like today's 24-bit (or 18-bit LCD) displays.
History, repeat thyself. Honestly, there's a legitimate point to that. If the advertised specs say that it can display "millions of colors", then there's a reasonable expectation that a given pixel will be able to represent over 1 million colors (most likely 16MiColors, but who's counting?). Yeah, this might seem a little silly, but if you can't deliver then don't promise it.
I can imagine a graphics geek being pretty legitimately pissed about seeing gradients where he shouldn't, in the same way that if they advertised a 128-bit FPU, a programmer might be a little annoyed to find that it was really "32-bit but we cleverly fake the rest".
Slashdot Mirror
Very true. I guess I should say that I've usually seen aliasing compensated for by putting a lowpass filter on the analog out.
<geezer>Old Amigas had a 3.3kHz lowpass filter that was tied to the power LED for some reason. Clever people wrote utilities to turn off that filter by dimming the LED, so suddenly the sound output went from muddy to relatively bright.</geezer>
Can anyone explain this to me? I know what aliasing is; basically it's when your top frequencies hit the Nyquist limit and kind of bounce back downward (how's that for scientific?), and I know what it sounds like. However, the last time I checked, you'd remove aliasing by cutting high frequencies out of the final analog wave with a lowpass filter. Unless something's radically changed since then, wouldn't the presumably lower-response Apple buds actually show less aliasing that the expensive ones that can better reproduce the higher (and unwanted) frequencies?
Or have I been trolled into reasoning with audiophiles? If that's the case, let me know so I can pack up and go home.
It's way past time to end this ludicrous segregation of Indians into subcitizens on reservations. I propose that we convert reservations into private property contained within the states or regions encapsulating them, with the tribal council or other group elected by the tribal members given the deed to the property. Furthermore, declare a 100-year statute of limitations on all property disputes nationally.
Seriously, let's repatriate our brothers and put this insanity to rest.
You mean, the intermediate-user niche. Every power user I know tried Gentoo and then went back to their binary distro of choice. Nothing against Gentoo, but sometimes you just want to let someone else make sure everything's working so you can get back to work.
Only for a few laps.
Meanwhile, in the real world, I'm responsible to people who trust me to make technological decisions for them. My boss "gets" the GPL because I've explained it to him, and he's OK with it. I'll be darned if I'm going to randomly incorporate Open Source code into our Free Software codebase and suddenly lose the right to redistribute it (or worse).
I generally don't really care about licenses either, except where not caring about them puts me or my employer at legal risk. Then I care a whole awful lot about them.
According to the Department of Labor, the current unemployment rate is 4.5%. In the last 59 years, the average has been 5.6%. Of those 59 years, it was less than 4.5% 13 times and greater 44 times, with a maximum of 9.7% just after Carter left office and a general downward trend since then.
We have all the jobs we need. Any more and you can expect inflation to start kicking in pretty seriously.
Moral of the story: Linux doesn't have good uptimes when you run it on unstable hardware.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of another scripting language that has no support whatsoever for namespaces. So while I can't necessarily show you a language whose function naming doesn't suck, neither can I show you any whose sucks as badly.
I won't know for 30 years whether the orange soil (containing natural asbestos) construction sites in my area has given me lung cancer (and the companies responsible for digging up the stuff will be out of business, so I won't be able to sue them).
You know, screw you. Everyone does something that could potentially harm someone else, from the dairy stocker that moves too slow and lets a couple of bacteria grow in a jug of milk, to the people who design keyboards that don't actively fight carpal tunnel syndrome. I don't care what you do for a living - you've caused harm or allowed harm to be caused either accidentally, unknowingly, or purposefully. So on behalf of everyone you may eventually want to sue for some real or perceived malady, kiss my ass, hypocrite.
Sorry, I know this is off-topic but whenever I see someone with their finger on the lawyer trigger, my first instinct is to kick them in the butt. I just don't have any tolerance for people who are so desperate to be a paid victim that they don't care how badly they destroy our society in the process.
Gotcha. I'd hoped that I'd misunderstood you. :-)
GGP: You can set SQL modes, such as STRICT_ALL_TABLES, that will cause MySQL to reject invalid data instead of truncating it.
GP: This should never, ever be even considered to ship enabled.
Me: I don't follow MySQL development, so does that actually cause data corruption or something?
I was trying to figure out why the grandparent didn't think STRICT_ALL_TABLES should be enabled, when it seems to me like that should be the only acceptable value.
Fiction: the protocol is GPLed. Frankly, that's just dumb; the GPL's scope doesn't include protocols.
Fact: the MySQL client libraries are GPLed. If you use the official MySQL libraries and wish to distribute your program, your choices are to buy a commercial license or release your code under the GPL. I am unaware of any non-GPL client libraries for MySQL, although I've never had a reason to actually look for them.
Basically, the author was mostly right, even if for the wrong reasons.
Why's that? I don't follow MySQL development, so does that actually cause data corruption or something? Errors when it shouldn't? Something else heinous? It sounds like the setting you should want to always enable.
That's all well and good, but what do you do on the day that del.icio.us inevitable goes offline, perhaps forever? OK, maybe it won't, but do you really want to trust all your data to a remote service that basically operates at their own whim?
I was ready to correct you on the difference between open source and public domain, but upon further reading, you're right: it's completely public domain. They'll sell you a license if you really must have one for some reason, but it's available for downloading and embedding for any use you want to put it to. Kudos, dev team. That's pretty cool of you.
That actually sounds reasonable to me. Otherwise, you could make a similar argument against pretty much any chemical in any application, and it seems to me that at least some patents on chemicals are truly novel and useful and non-obvious.
Umm, I don't agree with that at all. The title of the article included the word "iGasm". What did you think it would be about?
Again, take some responsibility for yourself. The Internet is a wild place - learn to think critically if it's that important to you not to click a "NSFW" link.
Over at Fark. At Slashdot, we make the dangerous assumption that you'll be smart enough not to click on links in a story about sex toys if you can't handle the consequences.
This isn't Fark. Either man up and tell your boss about something funny you saw so that he hears about it first from you, or take some responsibility for yourself and don't click links in a story about a sex toy.
Out of curiosity, how did they come up with 16.2 million? That's close enough to 16.7 million that I can't figure which numbers they must be multiplying to get it.
Yeah, I know I could look it up, but I imagine other people are also wondering.
Or, more accurately, 768 (256 of each, including black). But since the basic unit of a display is the pixel, you can't just add them together; they're taken as a whole and you have to multiply them.
Well, I've heard (but can't verify) that LCDs more typically have 6 bits (64 shades) of each. Forgetting subpixel trickery, that's 256KiColors of pixels, which is several hundred times more than the 768 he claimed.
Assuming a worst-case scenario of 6-bit R, G, and B values, you're off by a factor of about 340. An old Amiga could display 4096 colors onscreen at once, and I assure you it looked nothing like today's 24-bit (or 18-bit LCD) displays.
History, repeat thyself. Honestly, there's a legitimate point to that. If the advertised specs say that it can display "millions of colors", then there's a reasonable expectation that a given pixel will be able to represent over 1 million colors (most likely 16MiColors, but who's counting?). Yeah, this might seem a little silly, but if you can't deliver then don't promise it.
I can imagine a graphics geek being pretty legitimately pissed about seeing gradients where he shouldn't, in the same way that if they advertised a 128-bit FPU, a programmer might be a little annoyed to find that it was really "32-bit but we cleverly fake the rest".