I use gcc every single day, mostly for embedded work, and I'm quite happy with the results. Maybe inside it's an unwieldy monster, but I don't have to look at that, so it doesn't bother me. I even use some the compiler extensions, as they are quite useful for my job.
The Soviets had more success doing on-ground exploration on Venus than on Mars.
Their Venera 13 survived for 127 minutes on the surface. Not really a very high return on the investment.
You can also explore on-ground on Mercury
That would also be extremely challenging for the lander, given the huge temperature differences between sunny and shady parts. Also, the Sun's gravity interference makes it hard to put a relay satellite in orbit.
A grossly disproportionate amount of their planetary science budget goes to this one destination
It's the only planet where you can actually do some exploration on the ground, plus it's reasonably close to us, and fairly interesting. Makes total sense to spend a major part of the resources on it.
Many practical applications would depend on being able to manufacture crystals that have a specific desired frequency
Not really. Once you have a precise base frequency, you can fairly easily generate other frequencies that are just as precise. The reason that watches use 32kHz is mostly tradition, a leftover relic from the days that semiconductors were still hard to make.
I know some people will find it slow and boring, but you have to remember when it came out.
I just finished watching one of those "top 100 movies ever made" list. More than half of those movies were older than "2001", but it was surely the slowest of them all.
film doesn't have discrete pixels), and in color spectrum density (film doesn't introduce any quantization noise).
Film has grain, which has similar effects as discrete pixels, except that the grains are round and spread randomly.
three different band-pass filters selected to approximately match those of the average human eye
Not really. The band pass filters are selected to cover the visible spectrum in 3, more or less, equal parts. The receptors in a human eye are not spread out evenly. We have a blue cone on one side of the spectrum, and then two overlapping yellow-green/yellow-red cones on the other side. The "red" cones also have some sensitivity for extreme blue (that's why that appears as purple).
Literally every other part of the mission depends on it.
You just need to be reasonably confident that you can make one in time for the actual launch. You don't need one sitting in the lab right now before you can start working on the other tasks.
Name one mission that doesn't require a power supply. A mission needs a power supply to be a mission. It also needs a rocket to get to where the mission needs to go. It's not an either/or proposition. You need both.
Of course, every mission needs a power supply, but very few need one that's 10kW. The size of the thing also doesn't look attractive for a rover.
Well, one of the things that needs development before we do a space colony is a long-term power supply.
Sure, but it's hardly the most difficult or pressing issue. Developing a rocket and lander so we can put heavy objects safely on the surface of the Moon/Mars is a bigger challenge. Once we get within 5 years of finishing that would be a good time to start worrying about power generation.
Also, without a rocket, a power supply is useless. A rocket without a power supply can be used for plenty of other missions.
We are nowhere near the point where we need to worry about powering a space colony, so why is NASA wasting money on this part ? Probably some senator getting a good deal.
But we are not talking about "rolling the dice." We are talking about deliberately creating a human in a machine
Deliberately creating something could involve rolling the dice. The AlphaZero chess program can play chess better than any human, and was created by starting with an empty neural net, and letting it play against itself, after only being instructed with the basic rules of the game. It was a deliberate attempt to create a strong result, but no human needed to understand the exact way it would work. The designers only fed in broad concepts, and then let the thing develop itself.
Instead of a chess machine, you could make a similar, but bigger, version that sits inside a robot head, and can control cameras and limbs, and just experiments with input/output until it figures out what works and what doesn't. Start out with an empty system, and reward/punish it for certain behavior.
The point is that the digital information contains all the information to reconstruct the original waveform, plus some inaudible noise, and minus any frequency above 22 kHz. Obviously, there will be some practical limitations, but these are small enough to be insignificant, and good technology is advanced enough to be used in even the cheapest consumer audio equipment.
The DAC doesn't "recreate the original signal". The DAC puts out Discrete STEPS (despite what the video claimed)
If you use a DAC that creates discrete steps, and feed the output through a perfect 0-22kHz lowpass filter, you get the original signal back.
Because it is impossible to create such perfect filter, a common method is to convert the 44 kHz sample rate to a much higher one, say 1 MHz. Feed that through a DAC, and then use a much simpler lowpass filter to get rid of anything above 500 kHz.
As far as higher harmonics: if you can't hear a pure sine at 30 kHz, you cannot hear the harmonics of a 15 kHz fundamental either.
Virgin plastic doesn't use Cd, Hg, or Pb for catalyzing or production of plastic.,
Yes it does. Hg is used as a catalyst in chlorine production, and ends up in PVC. Pb is used as a stabilizer, and Cd is used to create yellow and red pigments.
How are you going to tell the difference between that 20 kHz wave and a slightly-under 22 kHz wave that pulses?
Well, you can't. But the problem is that you are no longer staying under half the sample frequency.
Pulsing a wave is a form of AM modulation. Suppose you take a 22 kHz sine wave, and you AM modulate that with a 1 kHz sine wave to get your "pulsed 22 kHz wave". The resultant output is a waveform that is the sum of a 22-1 = 21 kHz sine and a 22+1 = 23 kHz sine.
If you would record this on a CD, you would first filter away everything about 22 kHz, which would be the 23 kHz part. What's left is a continuous sine wave at 21 kHz, which can be sampled and reconstructed perfectly.
The same applies to any other kind of pulsing or modulation. You're always going to end up with higher frequencies.
Now, if you start with a 20 kHz sine, and modulate it with 1 kHz, you could put it on a CD, and reconstruct it perfectly.
Oh no, this is utterly wrong. You can clearly hear the difference between sine, square, and saw waves very easily at any audible range
In order to hear the difference between sine and square at 22 kHz, your hearing needs to go up to 66 kHz. Unlikely that even you have that kind of hearing. It's even unlikely that a typical audio system can reproduce that.
Slashdot Mirror
I use gcc every single day, mostly for embedded work, and I'm quite happy with the results. Maybe inside it's an unwieldy monster, but I don't have to look at that, so it doesn't bother me. I even use some the compiler extensions, as they are quite useful for my job.
Why don't you stick to one release that works ?
The Soviets had more success doing on-ground exploration on Venus than on Mars.
Their Venera 13 survived for 127 minutes on the surface. Not really a very high return on the investment.
You can also explore on-ground on Mercury
That would also be extremely challenging for the lander, given the huge temperature differences between sunny and shady parts. Also, the Sun's gravity interference makes it hard to put a relay satellite in orbit.
A grossly disproportionate amount of their planetary science budget goes to this one destination
It's the only planet where you can actually do some exploration on the ground, plus it's reasonably close to us, and fairly interesting. Makes total sense to spend a major part of the resources on it.
Many practical applications would depend on being able to manufacture crystals that have a specific desired frequency
Not really. Once you have a precise base frequency, you can fairly easily generate other frequencies that are just as precise. The reason that watches use 32kHz is mostly tradition, a leftover relic from the days that semiconductors were still hard to make.
I know some people will find it slow and boring, but you have to remember when it came out.
I just finished watching one of those "top 100 movies ever made" list. More than half of those movies were older than "2001", but it was surely the slowest of them all.
film doesn't have discrete pixels), and in color spectrum density (film doesn't introduce any quantization noise).
Film has grain, which has similar effects as discrete pixels, except that the grains are round and spread randomly.
three different band-pass filters selected to approximately match those of the average human eye
Not really. The band pass filters are selected to cover the visible spectrum in 3, more or less, equal parts. The receptors in a human eye are not spread out evenly. We have a blue cone on one side of the spectrum, and then two overlapping yellow-green/yellow-red cones on the other side. The "red" cones also have some sensitivity for extreme blue (that's why that appears as purple).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Literally every other part of the mission depends on it.
You just need to be reasonably confident that you can make one in time for the actual launch. You don't need one sitting in the lab right now before you can start working on the other tasks.
Name one mission that doesn't require a power supply. A mission needs a power supply to be a mission. It also needs a rocket to get to where the mission needs to go. It's not an either/or proposition. You need both.
Of course, every mission needs a power supply, but very few need one that's 10kW. The size of the thing also doesn't look attractive for a rover.
Well, one of the things that needs development before we do a space colony is a long-term power supply.
Sure, but it's hardly the most difficult or pressing issue. Developing a rocket and lander so we can put heavy objects safely on the surface of the Moon/Mars is a bigger challenge. Once we get within 5 years of finishing that would be a good time to start worrying about power generation.
Also, without a rocket, a power supply is useless. A rocket without a power supply can be used for plenty of other missions.
We are nowhere near the point where we need to worry about powering a space colony, so why is NASA wasting money on this part ? Probably some senator getting a good deal.
But we are not talking about "rolling the dice." We are talking about deliberately creating a human in a machine
Deliberately creating something could involve rolling the dice. The AlphaZero chess program can play chess better than any human, and was created by starting with an empty neural net, and letting it play against itself, after only being instructed with the basic rules of the game. It was a deliberate attempt to create a strong result, but no human needed to understand the exact way it would work. The designers only fed in broad concepts, and then let the thing develop itself.
Instead of a chess machine, you could make a similar, but bigger, version that sits inside a robot head, and can control cameras and limbs, and just experiments with input/output until it figures out what works and what doesn't. Start out with an empty system, and reward/punish it for certain behavior.
If you can't effectively call out someone's idiocy without mentioning their their race or gender
The CoC doesn't allow you to make anybody feel uncomfortable. Calling out someone's idiocy is therefore not an option, period.
If he had just left without saying anything, people would be made uncomfortable, which the CoC does not allow.
If these are the minimum standards, why even bother writing them down ?
When they want more rights, they'll ask for it.
one is a light switch the other a dimmer
A dimmer is just a switch that goes on/off very quickly. There's no fundamental difference, just an arbitrary value mapping.
DeepMind's wavenet voices are probably already good enough to fool most people, especially those that don't suspect anything.
https://cloud.google.com/text-...
That perfect copy is in theory only.
The point is that the digital information contains all the information to reconstruct the original waveform, plus some inaudible noise, and minus any frequency above 22 kHz. Obviously, there will be some practical limitations, but these are small enough to be insignificant, and good technology is advanced enough to be used in even the cheapest consumer audio equipment.
RoHS was only introduced in 2006. It also only applies to electrical equipment.
The DAC doesn't "recreate the original signal". The DAC puts out Discrete STEPS (despite what the video claimed)
If you use a DAC that creates discrete steps, and feed the output through a perfect 0-22kHz lowpass filter, you get the original signal back.
Because it is impossible to create such perfect filter, a common method is to convert the 44 kHz sample rate to a much higher one, say 1 MHz. Feed that through a DAC, and then use a much simpler lowpass filter to get rid of anything above 500 kHz.
As far as higher harmonics: if you can't hear a pure sine at 30 kHz, you cannot hear the harmonics of a 15 kHz fundamental either.
A 44.1khz sampling frequency can accurate represent the shape of the sound waves up to 5.5125Khz
Nope. It can accurately represent any waveform, as long as all frequency components are less than 22.05 kHz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Virgin plastic doesn't use Cd, Hg, or Pb for catalyzing or production of plastic.,
Yes it does. Hg is used as a catalyst in chlorine production, and ends up in PVC. Pb is used as a stabilizer, and Cd is used to create yellow and red pigments.
How are you going to tell the difference between that 20 kHz wave and a slightly-under 22 kHz wave that pulses?
Well, you can't. But the problem is that you are no longer staying under half the sample frequency.
Pulsing a wave is a form of AM modulation. Suppose you take a 22 kHz sine wave, and you AM modulate that with a 1 kHz sine wave to get your "pulsed 22 kHz wave". The resultant output is a waveform that is the sum of a 22-1 = 21 kHz sine and a 22+1 = 23 kHz sine.
If you would record this on a CD, you would first filter away everything about 22 kHz, which would be the 23 kHz part. What's left is a continuous sine wave at 21 kHz, which can be sampled and reconstructed perfectly.
The same applies to any other kind of pulsing or modulation. You're always going to end up with higher frequencies.
Now, if you start with a 20 kHz sine, and modulate it with 1 kHz, you could put it on a CD, and reconstruct it perfectly.
Oh no, this is utterly wrong. You can clearly hear the difference between sine, square, and saw waves very easily at any audible range
In order to hear the difference between sine and square at 22 kHz, your hearing needs to go up to 66 kHz. Unlikely that even you have that kind of hearing. It's even unlikely that a typical audio system can reproduce that.