Why Forbes is attacking some webcomic's exaggerated and tongue in cheek interpretation of Tesla while trying to present it as some kind of established opinion?
The problem is not with quality of Kinect, it's with the choice of the input method that involves people in baggy clothes flailing arms around while performing surgery.
No one in his right mind will voluntarily sift through all idiocy that comes to USPTO and watch for everything that tries to lay claim on his (or known to him) work that was published long ago, and never went anywhere near patents. It's usually not until the patent is granted and its proud owner is sending threatening letters, that anyone can become aware of the mistake that patent examiners made, and even then the people who are being threatened may have no way to convince the originator of the prior art to step forward when it means suing the patent holder.
If you can not or will not understand what Madison was saying, that's not my problem.
I understand it perfectly, and this has absolutely nothing to do with Second Amendment, as "being armed" is mentioned as a fact of life, not a necessary condition for any purpose. Madison believes that existence of State governments and their democratic nature are supposed to be sufficient for the States to be able to fight off the Federal government if it ended up being oppressive. "Militia" was supposed to be only useful if it was controlled by trustworthy State governments.
Why State governments are supposed to be more trustworthy than the Federal one (after all, both are democratically elected, and States were supposed to be more powerful), or what should happen if State governments will oppress people with their power, is never explained. Better yet, Madison was proven wrong by Civil War, when Federal government, supported by the North, crushed the South and deprived it of at least two democratically made decisions -- to preserve slavery and to form the Confederacy. And everyone is glad that this happened because one of those decisions was the worst decision made in the whole history of US, and the other was just stupid.
And if one person published something, then five years later someone else patented it, the latter will still be able to successfully threaten the former (and whoever else used his work) because it would take a huge, costly lawsuit to prove that prior art is actually prior art. There is no "complain to USPTO, get patent invalidated" process, everything has to go through the courts, no matter how obvious.
The problem is the fourier transform the ear does is with a very narrow window, and a combination of nonlinear and hysteresis effects make preresponse perceptible even when its fundamental frequency is outside the usual audio band.
This sounds like some serious stretching of the possibilities, considering that cochlea is an array of independent mechanical band-pass filters (thus not only narrow window for its fourier transform but also possibly inconsistent window per frequency) placed after a mechanical transmission line and a just as mechanical low-pass filter. No aliasing but plenty of things that have to be compensated or ignored in post-processing that happens in our brain -- both not exactly in favor of this hypothesis.
How about something really mundane -- a combination of loudspeakers' crossover filters and physically different high/low loudspeakers drivers producng inconsistent delay on lower and higher frequencies? This is a common problem and a pain to compensate, so loudspeakers' phase responses are anything but linear. Low frequencies simply reach the air (and the listener) later, creating the impression of distorted high-frequency "pre-ringing" on wide-band signal because higher frequencies arrived earlier, even if there was no distortion in the signal. Delaying high frequencies compensates this effect if it is present, and creates regular echo if it is not. Since delays are not compensated perfectly, you still have distortion (attributed to "phase variation" that shouldn't be perceivable at frequencies this high).
In general, of course, DAC may have to oversample to apply its own filters, but this is confined to DAC itself, signal comes in as 48kHz digital and comes out as analog.
He said that they explicitly stated so in "other documents", he didn't say in "the Constitution".
And I just as explicitly said that NOWHERE any of those people made such a ridiculous claim. Limiting things to the text of Constitution is your strawman -- I don't think it even qualifies as a strawman because you are not even attacking it.
the other documents that he refers to are called the Federlist Papers. These are the arguments that the men who wrote the Constitution made in favor of their adoption. The men who wrote the document knew far more about their intent than anyone else.
Where exactly in Federalist Papers, or anywhere else, is a statement about Second Amendment having a putpose to enable a future revolution?
Not that Second Amendment is important. Not that militia is necessary (probably the only somewhat related thing one can find in Federalist Papers). Not that future revolution may happen. Not that people must be vigilant to keep government from acting against their collective interests, and this may end in violent, armed revolution.
I mean, specifically a claim that Second Amendment was included in Constitution to enable people in the future to overthrow a government.
Digital sampling / playback at any frequency can have the side effect introducing signals at playback that were inaudible in the original. A high frequency (>20KHz) signal that is sampled can look identical to a lower frequency signal. At playback you hear the lower alias of the original. So an orignal at about 45Hz will be aliased back right into the very audible 1KHz band with the standard 44.1 KHz sampling.
And this is why you filter before you digitize. What all recording equipment already does.
Congress has a great deal of attraction for people filled with avarice and ambition (love of money and love of power).
Ambition is not about power, it's about achievement. In your poisonous culture power is the only form of achievement that is valued, but that's why I see it as poisonous.
The founding fathers also explicitly stated in other documents that one of the primary reasons for the second amendment was to keep the government in check.
No. At no point anyone involved with writing Constitution or Bill of Rights in particular, made any comments about reasons and purposes of the Second Amendment. There were plenty of statements about violent revolutions being necessary in the future, but nothing about government having an obligation to enable them by providing legal protecting of future armed dissenters.
There is a difference between products made for your fellow neighbors and products made for rich foreigners that are looking for a cheap way to do some complex work. And then, there are "services" that are supposed to work as a part of company's operations torn out of the rest of the body.
There is no need to make fun of a perfectly valid expression in the Indian dialect of English. I am sure, some American-isms sound just as bad for British ears.
The rest, of course, describesl a very typical problem with outsourced software development, and applies to more than just one country.
You will only succeed in boring the recepient into not responding and thinking you are some kind of zealot/lunatic.
I do not argue with stupid people to convince them -- what use can I possibly have for an idiot that agrees with me? I argue with them to make it clearly visible to everyone else, how stupid those people's positions are.
First of all you're assuming that everyone writes the same cluttered non-local 1980s C code as what you have pasted.
I have pasted a kind of code that is usually found in system libraries that you all love so much.
They don't. Most of us who do systems level code are more than capable of using modern idomatic C++
"Idiomatic" (this is how it is spelled) means "Full of copy-paste from cookbooks" when applied to programming language use.
that fits the usecase model of Visual Assist / VS / Source Insight tooling. If you need to refactor code, there is simply no alternative to using a featured IDE toolset (if you care about productivity)
Most of the programmer's work is not messing with working code, it's writing new code that uses existing interface and incremental implementation of new functionality in existing project. Those kinds of work benefit from clean and clearly documented interfaces.
Apart from interleaved comments in the source code, most source level documentation is no longer than a quick sentence or two (if you're lucky) above the function definition. And guess what... you need the goto symbol functionality for that too.
Comments in the code are for people who modify that code -- they describe how things are implemented. At best, some useful interface documentation is included near definitions of functions and methods, however in a large project it's unmanageable, and distracting for the user who tries to understand how things are supposed to be used.
Or.. Just a thought.. he could be simply navigating code he wrote 2 years ago in order to find and fix a bug.
If a single bug is spread across interfaces, you have a fundamental problem of excessively tightly coupled code, and for every bug you know and are trying to fix there are many that you don't know about. In other words, it's shit code.
Are you incapable of enumerating thousands of valid usecases where your blanket assumptions fail?
I am incapable of thinking about "use cases" when my work is to make sure that the code always works as specified. People who operate on "use cases" are one level above those who single-step through everything they wrote in the attempt to understand how it actually works.
And *YOU'RE* the one complaining about "if it compiles ship it" culture (which is actually unrelated to using IDEs and tools). How ironic.
When I (or any decent programmer) write code, I make an assumption that it WILL be compiled and shipped once I write it, so I better have to do it right at once, and avoid all kinds of guesswork.
Then, of course, I compile, run, look through it, give it to others for review and verification, and by the time it reaches QA, everyone involved has a good idea why it is correct. After that, occasionally, something still goes wrong, and everyone learns where his (and my) reasoning was faulty. Somehow, the usual development cycle ends up going faster than with thousands of Shakespeare monkeys drowning in a sea of bugs.
Venture capital is exactly that - capital. It's some for of asset piled up through other activities.
And that capital is mostly taken from clients who in their turn invest money they borrowed on margin on stocks they bought from other borrowed money that they [maybe] already paid off by selling part of those stocks. It's not one fat guy surrounded with bags with dollar signs on them.
Take Solyndra, for example. Hundreds of millions up in smoke (even worse, since so much of it was our tax dollars).
Government also borrows its money. Then part of that is paid back from taxes. Then it borrows more. Why do you think, national debt is growing?
But guys like Bezos (or Buffet, etc) don't go into debt to fund the start of a new company.
This is exactly what they do. Their money are in stocks that they believe, are liquid. They don't sell those stocks, they just borrow money for their new companies, and guarantee the loan by liquidity of stocks they own.
At least, I hope you're not using cash advances on a credit card to invest in stocks!
It's BETTER to have a verbatim text substring search that can be accessed without complex exercises in English Language abuse.
When a text editor (or search engine) will correctly understand any English phrase by processing it according to generally accepted syntax and semantics, it would make sense to have an optional "describe the question" mode. Otherwise it's pointless tricks and guesswork that exclude whole categories of results, for no reason but to support stupid people's stupid habits.
Slashdot Mirror
Why Forbes is attacking some webcomic's exaggerated and tongue in cheek interpretation of Tesla while trying to present it as some kind of established opinion?
The problem is not with quality of Kinect, it's with the choice of the input method that involves people in baggy clothes flailing arms around while performing surgery.
No one in his right mind will voluntarily sift through all idiocy that comes to USPTO and watch for everything that tries to lay claim on his (or known to him) work that was published long ago, and never went anywhere near patents. It's usually not until the patent is granted and its proud owner is sending threatening letters, that anyone can become aware of the mistake that patent examiners made, and even then the people who are being threatened may have no way to convince the originator of the prior art to step forward when it means suing the patent holder.
If you can not or will not understand what Madison was saying, that's not my problem.
I understand it perfectly, and this has absolutely nothing to do with Second Amendment, as "being armed" is mentioned as a fact of life, not a necessary condition for any purpose. Madison believes that existence of State governments and their democratic nature are supposed to be sufficient for the States to be able to fight off the Federal government if it ended up being oppressive. "Militia" was supposed to be only useful if it was controlled by trustworthy State governments.
Why State governments are supposed to be more trustworthy than the Federal one (after all, both are democratically elected, and States were supposed to be more powerful), or what should happen if State governments will oppress people with their power, is never explained. Better yet, Madison was proven wrong by Civil War, when Federal government, supported by the North, crushed the South and deprived it of at least two democratically made decisions -- to preserve slavery and to form the Confederacy. And everyone is glad that this happened because one of those decisions was the worst decision made in the whole history of US, and the other was just stupid.
And if one person published something, then five years later someone else patented it, the latter will still be able to successfully threaten the former (and whoever else used his work) because it would take a huge, costly lawsuit to prove that prior art is actually prior art. There is no "complain to USPTO, get patent invalidated" process, everything has to go through the courts, no matter how obvious.
The problem is the fourier transform the ear does is with a very narrow window, and a combination of nonlinear and hysteresis effects make preresponse perceptible even when its fundamental frequency is outside the usual audio band.
This sounds like some serious stretching of the possibilities, considering that cochlea is an array of independent mechanical band-pass filters (thus not only narrow window for its fourier transform but also possibly inconsistent window per frequency) placed after a mechanical transmission line and a just as mechanical low-pass filter. No aliasing but plenty of things that have to be compensated or ignored in post-processing that happens in our brain -- both not exactly in favor of this hypothesis.
How about something really mundane -- a combination of loudspeakers' crossover filters and physically different high/low loudspeakers drivers producng inconsistent delay on lower and higher frequencies? This is a common problem and a pain to compensate, so loudspeakers' phase responses are anything but linear. Low frequencies simply reach the air (and the listener) later, creating the impression of distorted high-frequency "pre-ringing" on wide-band signal because higher frequencies arrived earlier, even if there was no distortion in the signal. Delaying high frequencies compensates this effect if it is present, and creates regular echo if it is not. Since delays are not compensated perfectly, you still have distortion (attributed to "phase variation" that shouldn't be perceivable at frequencies this high).
In general, of course, DAC may have to oversample to apply its own filters, but this is confined to DAC itself, signal comes in as 48kHz digital and comes out as analog.
foot pedals
That, and possibly eye tracking while surgeon is looking at the screen.
But that makes too much sense. Better use NEW MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY!!!
and some times you get more then 1 answer.
And, better yet, all of them are wrong, though grammatically correct.
Except prior art is always ignored unless brought up in some massive lawsuit, and "patent MAD" prevents such lawsuits from happening.
He said that they explicitly stated so in "other documents", he didn't say in "the Constitution".
And I just as explicitly said that NOWHERE any of those people made such a ridiculous claim. Limiting things to the text of Constitution is your strawman -- I don't think it even qualifies as a strawman because you are not even attacking it.
the other documents that he refers to are called the Federlist Papers. These are the arguments that the men who wrote the Constitution made in favor of their adoption. The men who wrote the document knew far more about their intent than anyone else.
Where exactly in Federalist Papers, or anywhere else, is a statement about Second Amendment having a putpose to enable a future revolution?
Not that Second Amendment is important.
Not that militia is necessary (probably the only somewhat related thing one can find in Federalist Papers).
Not that future revolution may happen.
Not that people must be vigilant to keep government from acting against their collective interests, and this may end in violent, armed revolution.
I mean, specifically a claim that Second Amendment was included in Constitution to enable people in the future to overthrow a government.
A bit trollish, but you're probably right.
Look at this and learn. This is how astroturfers' "responses" to themselves look like.
Digital sampling / playback at any frequency can have the side effect introducing signals at playback that were inaudible in the original. A high frequency (>20KHz) signal that is sampled can look identical to a lower frequency signal. At playback you hear the lower alias of the original. So an orignal at about 45Hz will be aliased back right into the very audible 1KHz band with the standard 44.1 KHz sampling.
And this is why you filter before you digitize. What all recording equipment already does.
pre-ringing
Really? In an uncompressed audio? And the solution not only involves upsampling as a part of the process but requires the signal to stay upsampled?
My eyes are rolling at 15krpm.
Congress has a great deal of attraction for people filled with avarice and ambition (love of money and love of power).
Ambition is not about power, it's about achievement. In your poisonous culture power is the only form of achievement that is valued, but that's why I see it as poisonous.
You can but you shouldn't.
The founding fathers also explicitly stated in other documents that one of the primary reasons for the second amendment was to keep the government in check.
No. At no point anyone involved with writing Constitution or Bill of Rights in particular, made any comments about reasons and purposes of the Second Amendment. There were plenty of statements about violent revolutions being necessary in the future, but nothing about government having an obligation to enable them by providing legal protecting of future armed dissenters.
There is a difference between products made for your fellow neighbors and products made for rich foreigners that are looking for a cheap way to do some complex work. And then, there are "services" that are supposed to work as a part of company's operations torn out of the rest of the body.
And their US operation is the longest-running joke within the whole industry.
Do the needful
There is no need to make fun of a perfectly valid expression in the Indian dialect of English. I am sure, some American-isms sound just as bad for British ears.
The rest, of course, describesl a very typical problem with outsourced software development, and applies to more than just one country.
'monkey work'
Leave. Now.
You are trying new arguments now.
I am not "trying" anything.
You will only succeed in boring the recepient into not responding and thinking you are some kind of zealot/lunatic.
I do not argue with stupid people to convince them -- what use can I possibly have for an idiot that agrees with me? I argue with them to make it clearly visible to everyone else, how stupid those people's positions are.
First of all you're assuming that everyone writes the same cluttered non-local 1980s C code as what you have pasted.
I have pasted a kind of code that is usually found in system libraries that you all love so much.
They don't. Most of us who do systems level code are more than capable of using modern idomatic C++
"Idiomatic" (this is how it is spelled) means "Full of copy-paste from cookbooks" when applied to programming language use.
that fits the usecase model of Visual Assist / VS / Source Insight tooling. If you need to refactor code, there is simply no alternative to using a featured IDE toolset (if you care about productivity)
Most of the programmer's work is not messing with working code, it's writing new code that uses existing interface and incremental implementation of new functionality in existing project. Those kinds of work benefit from clean and clearly documented interfaces.
Apart from interleaved comments in the source code, most source level documentation is no longer than a quick sentence or two (if you're lucky) above the function definition. And guess what... you need the goto symbol functionality for that too.
Comments in the code are for people who modify that code -- they describe how things are implemented. At best, some useful interface documentation is included near definitions of functions and methods, however in a large project it's unmanageable, and distracting for the user who tries to understand how things are supposed to be used.
Or.. Just a thought.. he could be simply navigating code he wrote 2 years ago in order to find and fix a bug.
If a single bug is spread across interfaces, you have a fundamental problem of excessively tightly coupled code, and for every bug you know and are trying to fix there are many that you don't know about. In other words, it's shit code.
Are you incapable of enumerating thousands of valid usecases where your blanket assumptions fail?
I am incapable of thinking about "use cases" when my work is to make sure that the code always works as specified. People who operate on "use cases" are one level above those who single-step through everything they wrote in the attempt to understand how it actually works.
And *YOU'RE* the one complaining about "if it compiles ship it" culture (which is actually unrelated to using IDEs and tools). How ironic.
When I (or any decent programmer) write code, I make an assumption that it WILL be compiled and shipped once I write it, so I better have to do it right at once, and avoid all kinds of guesswork.
Then, of course, I compile, run, look through it, give it to others for review and verification, and by the time it reaches QA, everyone involved has a good idea why it is correct. After that, occasionally, something still goes wrong, and everyone learns where his (and my) reasoning was faulty. Somehow, the usual development cycle ends up going faster than with thousands of Shakespeare monkeys drowning in a sea of bugs.
Venture capital is exactly that - capital. It's some for of asset piled up through other activities.
And that capital is mostly taken from clients who in their turn invest money they borrowed on margin on stocks they bought from other borrowed money that they [maybe] already paid off by selling part of those stocks. It's not one fat guy surrounded with bags with dollar signs on them.
Take Solyndra, for example. Hundreds of millions up in smoke (even worse, since so much of it was our tax dollars).
Government also borrows its money. Then part of that is paid back from taxes. Then it borrows more. Why do you think, national debt is growing?
But guys like Bezos (or Buffet, etc) don't go into debt to fund the start of a new company.
This is exactly what they do. Their money are in stocks that they believe, are liquid. They don't sell those stocks, they just borrow money for their new companies, and guarantee the loan by liquidity of stocks they own.
At least, I hope you're not using cash advances on a credit card to invest in stocks!
Have you noticed the difference between interest rates on credit cards and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_funds_rate ?
It's BETTER to have a verbatim text substring search that can be accessed without complex exercises in English Language abuse.
When a text editor (or search engine) will correctly understand any English phrase by processing it according to generally accepted syntax and semantics, it would make sense to have an optional "describe the question" mode. Otherwise it's pointless tricks and guesswork that exclude whole categories of results, for no reason but to support stupid people's stupid habits.
Then you should better get un-used to that idea. You don't type "Where did I mention Brad?" into a text editor's search box.
No, that only works when someone starts watching in the middle of stream.