Experimentally it was found that a 10 dB increase in sound level corresponds approximately to a perceived doubling of loudness.
The point of using bels is that it is a logrhythmic scale.
Again, from the site given:
For instance, suppose we have two loudspeakers, the first playing a sound with power P1, and another playing a louder version of the same sound with power P2, but everything else (how far away, frequency) kept the same.
The difference in decibels between the two is defined to be 10 log (P2/P1) dB
If the second produces twice as much power than the first, the difference in dB is 10 log (P2/P1) = 10 log 2 = 3 dB.
If the second had 10 times the power of the first, the difference in dB would be 10 log (P2/P1)= 10 log 10 = 10 dB.
If the second had a million times the power of the first, the difference in dB would be 10 log (P2/P1) = 10 log 1000000 = 60 dB.
So going from 40dB to 80dB is an increase of 40 dB, or 10 log x = 40, log x = 4, x = 10^4 x=10000
or doubling the apparent volumn requires ten thousand times the power. Sorry, I don't buy it.
BTW, IANAAudio Engineer, IAAArcher.
Also by the way, 197 dB is equivalent to standard air pressure at sea level... from the "useless trivia that is fun to know" department.
What happens when a few years down the road, the guy running Eolas decides he wants a new jet or yacht? Maybe he just wants to see how much he can get his net worth up to.
Not even that. We all have read that a company HAS TO MAKE A PROFIT, that is its' reason for existing. (not-for-profit companies actually have to make a profit, they just can't stack it up and keep it...)
Eolas now has a PROVEN, QUARANTEED profit generator, they will HAVE to run it against all comers - or face shareholder lawsuits.
This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/359,337, entitled "System and Method for Activity Monitoring and Reporting in a Computer Network," filed on Jul. 21, 1999 (emphasis added.)
From the patent (link 1 in posting).
Also from the patent --
United States Patent 6,631,412 Glasser , et al. October 7, 2003 (again, emphasis added).
So this was issued yesterday, the 7th? (a date that will live in infamy...)
I agree that there should be limits, but you might want to consider the context.
A parody web site was erected, and his election committee was not happy. When asked about the web site on television, his response was the source fo the quote.
Sorry, google is intended for morons, so you may have trouble - Here, get someone to read it to ya, there arn't any pictures, and I would hate for you to have trouble with all those big words.
" In April 1999, (R)TMark constructed GWBush.com, a website that at first glance appeared to be that of Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush (his website is GeorgeWBush.com). (R)TMark's first version incurred Bush's wrath, and his lawyers sent a threatening letter. The domain's owner, Zack Exley, then took down the site and attempted to sell his domain to the Bush camp. "...
"These attacks resulted in a major international news story, which was then magnified by Bush's televised response to a reporter's question about the site: "There ought to be limits to freedom," Bush said--an ominous gaffe that many still remember. "
"The Bush campaign's intimidation tactics raised the eyebrows of several constitutional lawyers, who offered to support GWBush.com in potential copyright and electoral procedure lawsuits, arguing that although there ought indeed to be "limits to freedom", restricting free speech and limiting citizens' access to the political process was not the proper place to draw the line. "
So the context is BECAUSE OF A WEB SITE HE DIDN'T LIKE 'dubya said on television that there ought to be limits to freedom - referring to freedom of speech.
Like limiting the freedom to commit murder.
Last time I looked, that was already in the law books - no "ought to be" about it.
Like limiting the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Also already on the books.
Like the freedom to libel others.
Batting 1.000 with invalid examples, arn't you.
I can see why you would post AC; I am sure if I were posting stupid shit I would want to know post AC also!
Nothing wrong with that; the stock was sky rocketing so "buy, buy, buy" *was* good advice.
Yes it *was* - BEFORE the stock started to skyrocket. After, it was not unless the analyst said what the upper price should be.
Analysts should analyze, and if they had, there would have been a bunch less "buy,buy,buy" advice.
Touting stocks with no future, and only a history of rising stock price to support a rising stock price - "it will continue going up because it has been going up" is STUPID and requires no "analysis".
Thinking back though, the only person I can recall who commented on that inevitability in time to do anything about it was Bill Gates.
I must have missed that one, but you must have missed "the markets irrational exuberance" statement by Greenspan, and Warren Buffets advice to shareholders at the annual meetings of the Berkshire/Hathaway stock, or any of the uncounted number of analysts that were flogging their own stocks and predicting gloom and doom on dot.com stocks as a reason to dump the high flying stocks and get into their offerings.
A truly "shrewd and insightful financial analyst" would have analyzed any specific company in question, discovered they had no product, or were selling the product below actual cost, or were being sustained by venture capital only, and advised against investing in that company. Lather, rinse, repeat. No dot.com bubble, no dot.com bust.
Instead, the "analysts" toed the company line, took the corporate shilling, and touted stocks with only a history of rising stock price to support a rising stock price which turned out to be a sure indicator of an overpriced, burst-able bad investment.
Do you think that NASA can track every object in San Francisco? No, of course not. Even the fedral[sic] Narcs haven't figured out how to do that yet (although they're working on it).
I read that SCO is budgeting $1M per quarter to pay the lawyers. ~$330,000.00 per month. Yup, they are being well paid.
Same time a year ago, they had $15.4M revenue and a loss of $4.5M, while this year, AFTER the $8.3M they got from Microsoft and SUN they were only at $20.1M - or to put it another way, excluding the cash infusion from Microsoft and SUN, they made only $11.8M in revenue (down $3.9M from last year when they had a $4.5M loss) AND STILL HAVE $1M PER QUARTER TO THROW AT THE LAWSUIT.
Their code is not under GPL, because although they distributed it under the GPL - They didn't put it there.
Wrong.
SCO/Caldera is claiming an "I didn't know" defense, and it doesn't hold up.
They are claiming someone took their code and put it into Linux, then GAVE it back to SCO including source code, SCO made modifications and then released it under GPL.
They are also claiming a majority of the kernel is infringing IP.
If I put your lawn furniture at the curb, and then you pile your household garbage on top of it and the trashman takes it away, you have given up your right to claim I threw away your property because you either knew or should have known your property was in jeopardy and acted to retrieve it or prosecute me BEFORE you added to the trashpile and BEFORE the garbage collectors took the pile away.
If there really are massive amounts of infringing IP as SCO/Caldera claims, then they either KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN it was there BEFORE releasing it under the GPL. If they knew it was there when it was released, then WHO PUT IT THERE becomes irrelevant.
They are no longer being held responsible for the actions of a third party, they are being held responsible for their own actions.
In fact, IBM did.
Not a fact, not proven.
Not even a very good troll. I give it a 2 out of 10 - really, you need to try harder.
No, the shareholders are not responsible (legally or financially) for the debts or actions of the company. The limit of their liability is the price they paid for the stock they own. It can go to zero - in a bankruptcy for example - but it can't go any lower than that.
Yes, the officers and board of the company ARE individually liable for the actions of the company - both to the shareholders and to the rest of the world.
Although I do think the shareholders are MORALLY responsible for the actions of their company.
There were 50,000,000 phone numbers on the list. I read in one of the articles that there were 166 million private phones in the USA, so damn close to a third of all americans with private telephones don't want to hear from these clowns.
WTF? Where did you get -1=0? You can either add 1 to both sides and get 2=0 or subtract 1 from both sides and get 0=-2 (and therefore 2=-2), but, unless you define -1 to be the same as 0, I don't understand your last step.
Can you send a file that is exactly 14400 bits long in exactly one second with a 14.4kbps modem?
No.
14400 bits = 1800 bytes. Each byte sent is prefixed with 2 start bits and is followed by 1 stop bit (8N1 additional bits are required for parity) - for a total of 11 bits sent to transport 8 bits of data. 1800 * 11 = 19800 bits, or 1.375 seconds to send the 14400 bit file. Or to put it another way, the 14.4kbps is only sending 10472 bits of the file in one second. You can't send a file that is 14400 bits in one second - a 14.4kbps modem is actually a 10.5kbps modem and should be sold as such.
My argument is with the claimed throughput, not the system of measurement. 14.4kbps with k=1024 is only 14746 bits, still not enough to send a 14400 bit file in one second after overhead.
Same with Ethernet: 10Mbps is, after overhead, around 3 MBps.
Selling a monitor and claiming a 18" diagonal measurement is deceptive when part of that is covered by the case, the scan can not reach edge to edge, etc. The CRT IS 18", but it is not all usable or viewable. Selling a 14.4kbps modem is deceptive as not all the bits are conveying the intended data from one point to another, part of the stream of 14400 bits is required for overhead and is not available.
If I had a house to sell that measured 40'x50' around the outside of the house, I could NOT claim (40'*50'=) 2000 square feet. Part of that is taken up with walls, stairways, the furnace and water heater, etc. In other words, it is nonusable space (required overhead) and MUST BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TOTAL.
Now, I agree that the system of measure is confusing, but, in my opinion, probably not deceptive. HOWEVER, I do think that advertising the UNFORMATED size, when an unformatted disk is generally useless IS deceptive. (yes, I know of several instances where unformatted disks are useful on a system - it just is not the general case...)
"Remember those college students that just ran an indexing web page listing all of the songs on their fellow students' shared folders? They didn't share the files themselves,... "
I remember that they DID have infringing material on their computer, and that they WERE sharing that material.
Because they settled out of court, we will never know if the indexing or the sharing (or both) were illegal - that was never addresed in court.
Slashdot Mirror
Vegetarians eat Vegetables, Humanitarians frighten me.
'Vegetarian' is an old indian word meaning "bad hunter"!
The article is also wrong on this point - he says that a 10 dB difference sounds to human ears like a doubling of the level. That's just wrong.
... from the "useless trivia that is fun to know" department.
From this site
Experimentally it was found that a 10 dB increase in sound level corresponds approximately to a perceived doubling of loudness.
The point of using bels is that it is a logrhythmic scale.
Again, from the site given:
For instance, suppose we have two loudspeakers, the first playing a sound with power P1, and another playing a louder version of the same sound with power P2, but everything else (how far away, frequency) kept the same.
The difference in decibels between the two is defined to be 10 log (P2/P1) dB
If the second produces twice as much power than the first, the difference in dB is 10 log (P2/P1) = 10 log 2 = 3 dB.
If the second had 10 times the power of the first, the difference in dB would be
10 log (P2/P1)= 10 log 10 = 10 dB.
If the second had a million times the power of the first, the difference in dB would be
10 log (P2/P1) = 10 log 1000000 = 60 dB.
So going from 40dB to 80dB is an increase of 40 dB, or
10 log x = 40,
log x = 4,
x = 10^4
x=10000
or doubling the apparent volumn requires ten thousand times the power. Sorry, I don't buy it.
BTW, IANAAudio Engineer, IAAArcher.
Also by the way, 197 dB is equivalent to standard air pressure at sea level
That is what I get for doing my own thinking again!
Actually, I seem to remeber something about a stockprice, but didn't actually stop to verify the ownership of the company.
me culpa, me maxima culpa.
Or for you 73373 |-|4X0R5, my bad.
What happens when a few years down the road, the guy running Eolas decides he wants a new jet or yacht? Maybe he just wants to see how much he can get his net worth up to.
Not even that. We all have read that a company HAS TO MAKE A PROFIT, that is its' reason for existing. (not-for-profit companies actually have to make a profit, they just can't stack it up and keep it...)
Eolas now has a PROVEN, QUARANTEED profit generator, they will HAVE to run it against all comers - or face shareholder lawsuits.
This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/359,337, entitled "System and Method for Activity Monitoring and Reporting in a Computer Network," filed on Jul. 21, 1999 (emphasis added.)
From the patent (link 1 in posting).
Also from the patent --
United States Patent 6,631,412
Glasser , et al. October 7, 2003 (again, emphasis added).
So this was issued yesterday, the 7th? (a date that will live in infamy...)
Just changed the sig to include a link. Thanks for the suggestion!
I like your sig...
I agree that there should be limits, but you might want to consider the context.
A parody web site was erected, and his election committee was not happy. When asked about the web site on television, his response was the source fo the quote.
More information see here, here, and here.
Google for it, dick breath.
...
Sorry, google is intended for morons, so you may have trouble - Here, get someone to read it to ya, there arn't any pictures, and I would hate for you to have trouble with all those big words.
" In April 1999, (R)TMark constructed GWBush.com, a website that at first glance appeared to be that of Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush (his website is GeorgeWBush.com). (R)TMark's first version incurred Bush's wrath, and his lawyers sent a threatening letter. The domain's owner, Zack Exley, then took down the site and attempted to sell his domain to the Bush camp. "
"These attacks resulted in a major international news story, which was then magnified by Bush's televised response to a reporter's question about the site: "There ought to be limits to freedom," Bush said--an ominous gaffe that many still remember. "
"The Bush campaign's intimidation tactics raised the eyebrows of several constitutional lawyers, who offered to support GWBush.com in potential copyright and electoral procedure lawsuits, arguing that although there ought indeed to be "limits to freedom", restricting free speech and limiting citizens' access to the political process was not the proper place to draw the line. "
So the context is BECAUSE OF A WEB SITE HE DIDN'T LIKE 'dubya said on television that there ought to be limits to freedom - referring to freedom of speech.
Like limiting the freedom to commit murder.
Last time I looked, that was already in the law books - no "ought to be" about it.
Like limiting the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Also already on the books.
Like the freedom to libel others.
Batting 1.000 with invalid examples, arn't you.
I can see why you would post AC; I am sure if I were posting stupid shit I would want to know post AC also!
-1, Made Me Spew Mountain Dew Out My Nose
(damn, wish I had mod points...)
+1, FUNNY
(damn, wish I had mod points...)
Slow to load (slashdot effect) and I SO wanted to read about the homosexual necrophiliac mallard duck...
Nothing wrong with that; the stock was sky rocketing so "buy, buy, buy" *was* good advice.
Yes it *was* - BEFORE the stock started to skyrocket. After, it was not unless the analyst said what the upper price should be.
Analysts should analyze, and if they had, there would have been a bunch less "buy,buy,buy" advice.
Touting stocks with no future, and only a history of rising stock price to support a rising stock price - "it will continue going up because it has been going up" is STUPID and requires no "analysis".
Thinking back though, the only person I can recall who commented on that inevitability in time to do anything about it was Bill Gates.
I must have missed that one, but you must have missed "the markets irrational exuberance" statement by Greenspan, and Warren Buffets advice to shareholders at the annual meetings of the Berkshire/Hathaway stock, or any of the uncounted number of analysts that were flogging their own stocks and predicting gloom and doom on dot.com stocks as a reason to dump the high flying stocks and get into their offerings.
A truly "shrewd and insightful financial analyst" would have analyzed any specific company in question, discovered they had no product, or were selling the product below actual cost, or were being sustained by venture capital only, and advised against investing in that company. Lather, rinse, repeat. No dot.com bubble, no dot.com bust.
Instead, the "analysts" toed the company line, took the corporate shilling, and touted stocks with only a history of rising stock price to support a rising stock price which turned out to be a sure indicator of an overpriced, burst-able bad investment.
So much for "analysts".
Do you think that NASA can track every object in San Francisco? No, of course not. Even the fedral[sic] Narcs haven't figured out how to do that yet (although they're working on it).
I know! I know! Lets use RFID chips!
Naw, spending money on this wouldn't be vast, it would only be half-vast! :)
I read that SCO is budgeting $1M per quarter to pay the lawyers. ~$330,000.00 per month. Yup, they are being well paid.
Same time a year ago, they had $15.4M revenue and a loss of $4.5M, while this year, AFTER the $8.3M they got from Microsoft and SUN they were only at $20.1M - or to put it another way, excluding the cash infusion from Microsoft and SUN, they made only $11.8M in revenue (down $3.9M from last year when they had a $4.5M loss) AND STILL HAVE $1M PER QUARTER TO THROW AT THE LAWSUIT.
Their code is not under GPL, because although they distributed it under the GPL - They didn't put it there.
Wrong.
SCO/Caldera is claiming an "I didn't know" defense, and it doesn't hold up.
They are claiming someone took their code and put it into Linux, then GAVE it back to SCO including source code, SCO made modifications and then released it under GPL.
They are also claiming a majority of the kernel is infringing IP.
If I put your lawn furniture at the curb, and then you pile your household garbage on top of it and the trashman takes it away, you have given up your right to claim I threw away your property because you either knew or should have known your property was in jeopardy and acted to retrieve it or prosecute me BEFORE you added to the trashpile and BEFORE the garbage collectors took the pile away.
If there really are massive amounts of infringing IP as SCO/Caldera claims, then they either KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN it was there BEFORE releasing it under the GPL. If they knew it was there when it was released, then WHO PUT IT THERE becomes irrelevant.
They are no longer being held responsible for the actions of a third party, they are being held responsible for their own actions.
In fact, IBM did.
Not a fact, not proven.
Not even a very good troll. I give it a 2 out of 10 - really, you need to try harder.
No, the shareholders are not responsible (legally or financially) for the debts or actions of the company. The limit of their liability is the price they paid for the stock they own. It can go to zero - in a bankruptcy for example - but it can't go any lower than that.
Yes, the officers and board of the company ARE individually liable for the actions of the company - both to the shareholders and to the rest of the world.
Although I do think the shareholders are MORALLY responsible for the actions of their company.
IANAL, either.
One minor correction - that adds to your point...
50,000,000 people signed up for the no-call list
There were 50,000,000 phone numbers on the list. I read in one of the articles that there were 166 million private phones in the USA, so damn close to a third of all americans with private telephones don't want to hear from these clowns.
PS. Plese don't feed the trolls...
1^2=1;
yes...
(-1)^2=1;
OK...
1^2=(-1)^2;
yeah... substituting from above 1=1
1=-1;
I see where you got it, even if it is wrong...
1=0.
WTF? Where did you get -1=0? You can either add 1 to both sides and get 2=0 or subtract 1 from both sides and get 0=-2 (and therefore 2=-2), but, unless you define -1 to be the same as 0, I don't understand your last step.
I got the point on the first reading, then went back to find more.
I really wonder how many got it without prompting?
I was to "msot" before I got it.
When I say I don't want to be solicited I mean that I don't want to be solicited.
+1, INSIGHTFUL (sorry, no mod points!)
Good examples!
Except...
Can you send a file that is exactly 14400 bits long in exactly one second with a 14.4kbps modem?
No.
14400 bits = 1800 bytes. Each byte sent is prefixed with 2 start bits and is followed by 1 stop bit (8N1 additional bits are required for parity) - for a total of 11 bits sent to transport 8 bits of data. 1800 * 11 = 19800 bits, or 1.375 seconds to send the 14400 bit file. Or to put it another way, the 14.4kbps is only sending 10472 bits of the file in one second. You can't send a file that is 14400 bits in one second - a 14.4kbps modem is actually a 10.5kbps modem and should be sold as such.
My argument is with the claimed throughput, not the system of measurement. 14.4kbps with k=1024 is only 14746 bits, still not enough to send a 14400 bit file in one second after overhead.
Same with Ethernet: 10Mbps is, after overhead, around 3 MBps.
Selling a monitor and claiming a 18" diagonal measurement is deceptive when part of that is covered by the case, the scan can not reach edge to edge, etc. The CRT IS 18", but it is not all usable or viewable. Selling a 14.4kbps modem is deceptive as not all the bits are conveying the intended data from one point to another, part of the stream of 14400 bits is required for overhead and is not available.
If I had a house to sell that measured 40'x50' around the outside of the house, I could NOT claim (40'*50'=) 2000 square feet. Part of that is taken up with walls, stairways, the furnace and water heater, etc. In other words, it is nonusable space (required overhead) and MUST BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TOTAL.
Now, I agree that the system of measure is confusing, but, in my opinion, probably not deceptive. HOWEVER, I do think that advertising the UNFORMATED size, when an unformatted disk is generally useless IS deceptive. (yes, I know of several instances where unformatted disks are useful on a system - it just is not the general case...)
"Remember those college students that just ran an indexing web page listing all of the songs on their fellow students' shared folders? They didn't share the files themselves,... "
I remember that they DID have infringing material on their computer, and that they WERE sharing that material.
Because they settled out of court, we will never know if the indexing or the sharing (or both) were illegal - that was never addresed in court.
I think you're stretching the definition of the word 'simple'.
My new sig!! Thanks!