Digital studio equipment records in and keeps audio in a format at a higher bit-depth AND sample rate. Every edit and every layer of multiple tracks is like resaving a lossy jpeg. Your final result may contain all those extra bits, but they need to be averaged out and resampled away because the detail is already lost by that point. That's why you record in 192KHz / 24-bit and then master to 44.1KHz / 16-bit. GP post is 100% correct.
No, it's in fact exactly the same as saving a lossless bitmap. You can introduce additional quantization noise if you amplify and then truncate to integer samples, and other types of distortion if you apply nonlinear transformations (say, clipping), but it is *absolutely* not the same as a jpeg. Saving a jpeg literally discards information as part of the saving process - this does not happen when saving a bitmap nor when saving a wave. Previous poster is correct that it's bit depth and not sampling rate that changes the noise floor, as given an infinite bit depth PCM allows for perfect reconstruction up to half the sampling frequency according to Nyquist's sampling theorem.
Changing the sampling rate makes it easier to build good filters and puts the quantization noise at a higher frequency, nothing more.
The noise floor they are talking about is introduced by the editing - not inherent to the recording.
Well, then he should have stated he was talking only about quantization noise or distortion. Even then, changing the sampling rate only moves this noise, it doesn't reduce it.
I code for fun. Am I putting paid programmers out of a job?
Almost certainly. Of course, you may also be creating other jobs. The more relevant question is if it is moral and/or beneficial for you to code for fun.
Are you writing a piece of software that is needed and which otherwise would likely be written by a company established to fill that need? Then yes, you're putting programmers out of a job.
Are you writing a piece of software that would otherwise not be available, thereby enabling businesses to do new things that were otherwise not possible, creating new products and markets? Then you're probably creating new jobs, albeit not necessarily programmers.
Note that these two questions are not polar opposites, and neither makes any comment on the morality of your actions.
It makes all the difference in the world. The creditors want regime change. They've just been shown they can't have it.
Even if I were to accept that is their goal (and you've given zero arguments for why it would be), why would that strengthen Greece? If they've been shown they definitively can't get what they want from Greece, that therefore ends their relationship, and they're even more likely to kick Greece to the curb rather than if they were just chasing after their money. If you're right, Greece is now in an even weaker position than I've been arguing.
You cannot conclude through any logical process that: 1) the EU is still dealing with Greece because they want to execute a regime change; 2) the EU has now been shown they can't have it; 3) therefore, the current Greek regime is in a stronger negotiating position. But (3) does not follow from (1) and (2), rather what follows is that the EU will now lose interest because they can't get what they want, and Greece will be cut loose.
There's not really much point in debating if you can't even make your chain of thought hang together consistently. Get back to me if and when you figure how to make a substantive argument.
He's more popular with the people of Greece... That's given Greece a much stronger hand.
Why do you keep bringing up how popular the Greek government is as if that matters? Why would the EU creditors care even one iota about that? The EU is under no obligation to do a deal, nor is it interested in supporting Greece at all costs, so the fact that the Greek government is popular with Greeks is irrelevant. Greece has no leverage, has not had any leverage for a long time, and won't have any leverage for a long time coming.
The Greeks may like Varoufakis, but the rest of the EU doesn't give a rat's ass what the Greeks think. At this point they probably consider all Greeks to be idiots.
Well, despite all those credentials, he clearly forgot that theory and practice are not the same. He knew what he was talking about when he talked about the debt load being way too much, but I'm disappointed that someone with so much teaching experience would be completely incapable of communicating with the rest of the EU. Doesn't matter if you're the smartest person on earth, if you can't talk to others without driving them mad then you may as well be a fool, because you won't get anything done either way.
Guess the Greeks will have to muddle along without him.
What?! Ha! Yanis Varoufakis is the most economically qualified finance minister in Europe. Probably in the world.
Can't imagine what you base that on. A finance minister who drives away his last and final source of credit isn't the most qualified in my book.
And choice? The Greeks have just given an overwhelming vote of confidence to their government in the referendum, giving an overwhelming no to accepting the creditors offer.
Not the choice I was referring to, but indeed, that they have, and I wish them good luck with the drachma. Hopefully they'll be able to devalue themselves back to stability.
And class warfare? That's what the creditors were attempting by making the poor pay, whilst insisting on keeping tax concessions for the rich. That's both stupid and evil.
Oh stop with that nonsense, please. I'll repeat myself: if the Greek government doesn't want to reform they don't have to - they're a sovereign state, after all - but in that case they shouldn't expect any support from the EU.
And fuck your low-brow paranoid class warfare. Iceland doesn't use the Euro, so it's a completely different situation: they can devalue their way out of debt and crisis, at significant pain to their import businesses but sparing their local economy. Greece could have done the same if they hadn't been set on hitching themselves to a set of economies far better off than their own. They didn't know what they were doing then, they still don't now what they were doing now, and the Greece people are suffering for it. I'd blame them for electing idiots, but it seems they didn't have much choice.
And the failed austerity programme was forced upon them by the ECB and the IMF.
Demonstrably false. If Greece had wanted to they could have said no, but then no one would have loaned the money and we'd have gone through what we're going through today 5 years ago instead. The conditions the ECB and IMF attached to their money may have been poorly thought out, but no one forced Greece to take it.
Oh, you want money with no strings attached? Well, I want a pony.
No, you indeed are not. The world's a nicer place to live in when we stop posturing, however, and instead show a little consideration for our fellow man.
Ignore the people who like to complain about everything, but on the other hand please don't drive your tank past the WW2 veterans home.
I've yet to see anyone - except on tiny turboprops - forced to tag and check their godforsaken, obviously bigger than the fucking demonstrative cubic area display, entire motherfucking overhead compartment consuming suitcase.
Funny, I see it happen all the time with regional jets. By the time they hit the last boarding group it's assumed the overheads are full, and they'll often start tagging every single roll-on for gate check-in. Maybe you're just not flying enough?
As for intercontinental jumbos, no surprise they don't do it there because there's usually plenty of space on those.
This has been the pattern of every regulatory agency on earth. Everyone on the inside wins, everyone in the real world loses.
I don't understand you, nor the huge number of people who share this opinion, so help me: why do you see the world in black and white?
Do you honestly believe that regulation has never benefited society? The labor standards introduced after the great depression, the anti-monopoly laws after the 1800s, the consumer protection laws spread throughout, the FDA after who-knows what (cfr. poison milk in China a few years ago), the list goes on.
Yes, regulatory agencies are prone to capture, inefficient, bureaucratic, and a general pain in the ass. Don't ignore the good they do, however.
The fact that they have some of the most favorable corporate tax laws allowing them to shield billions from US taxes by setting up a nexus there I'm sure has nothing to do with it.
You're absolutely right, it has nothing to do with it. You don't need to set up a datacenter in Ireland to take advantage of the tax laws there - one accountant is probably enough.
The Irish datacenter is to keep data in the EU, as required by EU law, and out of the grubby paws of the NSA. I wholeheartedly approve.
No, that is two-phase power, and I know what I'm talking about because I have the textbook that covers it. If you have two 120 V lines (or legs, as you call them), the only way you'd get 240 V between them is if they're out of phase, which is by definition a two-phase system. Put them in phase and the voltage difference is zero, and you get nothing whatsoever out of them.
By your logic Europe has 380 V service because they get 240 V off of a single line.
I'll give you a point for knowing that connecting between a line and neutral vs between two lines gives you a different voltage, but you need to go reread the section on terminology and why it works that way.
Screw DC wiring, I'd much prefer high-power AC in the US. I've got the same model (but different power rating) electric grill both in Europe and in the US, and you can tell the difference between a standard wall socket on US 110V 15/20A vs EU 220V/16A when you're trying to grill a dozen things at once. And if you need it, you can then get 2-phase 380V power - bad for the utility bill but great for a high-power induction range.
Trying to get that kind of power out of a DC circuit on home wiring is gonna be like trying to suck an elephant through a straw. I guess the upside is that you won't have to heat your house, however, as you can just rely on the waste heat from the cable losses.
They are both possible and actual outcomes of unregulated taxis.
It's worth pointing out that they're outcomes due to a lack of very different kinds of regulation. 500 taxis vying for the same fare is a result of not limiting their number, whereas 30 in an 8-person van is a result of not enforcing safety and quality standards. You could scrap the limits while still enforcing quality standards, which would put more taxis on the road without endangering people. Enforcing standards would also help somewhat with the overcrowding, as not everyone would be able to just suddenly become a taxi - gotta make sure you're up to spec, and such.
I can start building a system outside their control here and now?
Because that would be a very concrete and definite violation of the social contract, much more clearly so than the nebulous accusations made against government and corporations earlier in this thread, and it's therefore in my best interest to stop you.
You can't expect to declare the contract invalid and not abide by it but still get the benefits, i.e. the basic protections of living in that society, among many others. That's parasitism.
Right, because there are so many places to move without a social contract. Yes, Somalians have a social contract with local warlords.
Didn't say that. If you want a place without social contract, you'll either have to find somewhere empty or conquer somewhere occupied, all by yourself.
Oh, sorry, you're only an armchair libertarian, and you want someone to just give you such a space? Hah! Well, I want a pony.
No one owes you an easy choice in this matter. If you set yourself outside of society, don't expect them to lift a finger for you.
The "social contract" is an outrageous fantasy, that someone else can trade your freedoms on your behalf before you were even born.
Someone else did not, as you're always free to end the contract and leave the society. I'm betting you don't want to, however, as despite it's flaws that contract is pretty good.
Why? Is life any more valuable than freedom of action? On what basis? If life is always more valuable, why have people ever given their life, say to fight for freedom?
And who decided which right outweighs which? If you leave it to individuals, you're stuck with the same contradiction again.
Then you should review its definition. Whether you believe in them or not, they can't be taken away from you.
Just because it's written in a book doesn't make it reality. Yes you can define the concept of inalienable rights as an abstract, but doesn't mean any actually exist.
Or, to phrase it differently, can you show that the right to life is inalienable? It clearly isn't for anything not considered a person, so what makes us different?
Servers are a little different of course, but even here people are frequently running VMs these days so they have a full Linux environment to themselves; the big exception I can think of is ultra-cheap shared web hosting, and there the capabilities available to users are limited.
Research number crunchers are another exception. The ones I've used in the past tend to be a shared resource with multiple people running jobs on them at the same time. Yes, it would be nice if you could have your own custom install with exactly the libraries you want, etc.., but then it would be hell for anyone else who then tries to run your software and replicate your work outside of your exact environment.
The owner of the room is, therefore, responsible because he did not provide proper training or had too many people in the room.
Why is the owner responsible for providing training, but the speaker not responsible for the consequences of an action he knows will lead to injuries, possibly death? An action that can only be mischievous or malicious in intent, despite it in theory being a right?
To be clear, I'm talking about someone yelling fire when there isn't actually a fire.
Actually, the article by Dominic Holden about "apodments" that Reifman links to is quite interesting: discusses tiny ~250 ft apartments, the few valid problems they have, and the nimbyism against them that's gotten way out of proportion. Long, but worth a read.
Society does not have the right to protect itself from dangerous individuals. Individuals have the right to this. In order to achieve these goals, individuals have empowered their government to protect their right to life and property.
Any scenario in which society is defending itself against an individual A can probably be reduced to one where society is the agent of one individual B defending themselves against A, I'll give you that. This is not always clear-cut, however: it may be a question of a contradiction between A and B's rights, for instance in the commonly-cited example of yelling fire in a theater. If you view things as it being purely about the individual, how do you resolve this kind of conflict? Why is A's right to free speech less important than B's right to life? You probably can't get them to agree, but if it's all down to the individual, then society has no right to step in and resolve the discussion for them.
But, more importantly, I don't think it makes sense to define things so narrowly. Society can be reduced to its individuals because in the end it's solely composed of and defined by a collection individuals. But in a similar vein, a person is only composed of cells, so why do we speak about the rights of a person and not of individual cells? What's so special about the particular level of organization that corresponds to one individual human? Society - Human - Cell - Chemical... each is an ordered cooperative of lower elements, so what makes human the unique one that deserves rights above all others?
To put it differently, I don't believe in inalienable rights, for the same reason that I don't believe in absolutes. I think the set of rights the US has is a very good one, but I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to call them the truth, the best, or the everlasting.
Same argument applies to any of the examples we're discussing.
While a society may not have natural rights in as far as its interactions with individuals, individuals most certainly have obligations towards the society that they live in, which is effectively the same thing. For instance, society has the "right" to protect itself from dangerous individuals, be they external or internal, which is why we mandate vaccines, lock up criminals, go to war, etc. Society has the right to demand that its members contribute, which usually takes the form of taxes. Society has the right to decide who becomes a member, which is why not every person on this planet is automatically an American citizen. I'm sure you can come up with other examples.
These are all rights that you as an individual grant society when you chose to join it, as they are essential to running a society. Don't grant these rights, and you won't be a member long.
I have rights, society doesn't. Society is built to protect the rights of the individuals.
That's really only the view of American society. Societies worldwide have a wide spectrum of views on this, finding their own balance between the individual and the group.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's in fact exactly the same as saving a lossless bitmap. You can introduce additional quantization noise if you amplify and then truncate to integer samples, and other types of distortion if you apply nonlinear transformations (say, clipping), but it is *absolutely* not the same as a jpeg. Saving a jpeg literally discards information as part of the saving process - this does not happen when saving a bitmap nor when saving a wave. Previous poster is correct that it's bit depth and not sampling rate that changes the noise floor, as given an infinite bit depth PCM allows for perfect reconstruction up to half the sampling frequency according to Nyquist's sampling theorem.
Changing the sampling rate makes it easier to build good filters and puts the quantization noise at a higher frequency, nothing more.
Well, then he should have stated he was talking only about quantization noise or distortion. Even then, changing the sampling rate only moves this noise, it doesn't reduce it.
Almost certainly. Of course, you may also be creating other jobs. The more relevant question is if it is moral and/or beneficial for you to code for fun.
Are you writing a piece of software that is needed and which otherwise would likely be written by a company established to fill that need? Then yes, you're putting programmers out of a job.
Are you writing a piece of software that would otherwise not be available, thereby enabling businesses to do new things that were otherwise not possible, creating new products and markets? Then you're probably creating new jobs, albeit not necessarily programmers.
Note that these two questions are not polar opposites, and neither makes any comment on the morality of your actions.
Not based on what I hear from other Belgians...
Even if I were to accept that is their goal (and you've given zero arguments for why it would be), why would that strengthen Greece? If they've been shown they definitively can't get what they want from Greece, that therefore ends their relationship, and they're even more likely to kick Greece to the curb rather than if they were just chasing after their money. If you're right, Greece is now in an even weaker position than I've been arguing.
You cannot conclude through any logical process that: 1) the EU is still dealing with Greece because they want to execute a regime change; 2) the EU has now been shown they can't have it; 3) therefore, the current Greek regime is in a stronger negotiating position. But (3) does not follow from (1) and (2), rather what follows is that the EU will now lose interest because they can't get what they want, and Greece will be cut loose.
There's not really much point in debating if you can't even make your chain of thought hang together consistently. Get back to me if and when you figure how to make a substantive argument.
Why do you keep bringing up how popular the Greek government is as if that matters? Why would the EU creditors care even one iota about that? The EU is under no obligation to do a deal, nor is it interested in supporting Greece at all costs, so the fact that the Greek government is popular with Greeks is irrelevant. Greece has no leverage, has not had any leverage for a long time, and won't have any leverage for a long time coming.
The Greeks may like Varoufakis, but the rest of the EU doesn't give a rat's ass what the Greeks think. At this point they probably consider all Greeks to be idiots.
Well, despite all those credentials, he clearly forgot that theory and practice are not the same. He knew what he was talking about when he talked about the debt load being way too much, but I'm disappointed that someone with so much teaching experience would be completely incapable of communicating with the rest of the EU. Doesn't matter if you're the smartest person on earth, if you can't talk to others without driving them mad then you may as well be a fool, because you won't get anything done either way.
Guess the Greeks will have to muddle along without him.
Can't imagine what you base that on. A finance minister who drives away his last and final source of credit isn't the most qualified in my book.
Not the choice I was referring to, but indeed, that they have, and I wish them good luck with the drachma. Hopefully they'll be able to devalue themselves back to stability.
Oh stop with that nonsense, please. I'll repeat myself: if the Greek government doesn't want to reform they don't have to - they're a sovereign state, after all - but in that case they shouldn't expect any support from the EU.
And fuck your low-brow paranoid class warfare. Iceland doesn't use the Euro, so it's a completely different situation: they can devalue their way out of debt and crisis, at significant pain to their import businesses but sparing their local economy. Greece could have done the same if they hadn't been set on hitching themselves to a set of economies far better off than their own. They didn't know what they were doing then, they still don't now what they were doing now, and the Greece people are suffering for it. I'd blame them for electing idiots, but it seems they didn't have much choice.
Demonstrably false. If Greece had wanted to they could have said no, but then no one would have loaned the money and we'd have gone through what we're going through today 5 years ago instead. The conditions the ECB and IMF attached to their money may have been poorly thought out, but no one forced Greece to take it.
Oh, you want money with no strings attached? Well, I want a pony.
No, you indeed are not. The world's a nicer place to live in when we stop posturing, however, and instead show a little consideration for our fellow man.
Ignore the people who like to complain about everything, but on the other hand please don't drive your tank past the WW2 veterans home.
Funny, I see it happen all the time with regional jets. By the time they hit the last boarding group it's assumed the overheads are full, and they'll often start tagging every single roll-on for gate check-in. Maybe you're just not flying enough?
As for intercontinental jumbos, no surprise they don't do it there because there's usually plenty of space on those.
I don't understand you, nor the huge number of people who share this opinion, so help me: why do you see the world in black and white?
Do you honestly believe that regulation has never benefited society? The labor standards introduced after the great depression, the anti-monopoly laws after the 1800s, the consumer protection laws spread throughout, the FDA after who-knows what (cfr. poison milk in China a few years ago), the list goes on.
Yes, regulatory agencies are prone to capture, inefficient, bureaucratic, and a general pain in the ass. Don't ignore the good they do, however.
You're absolutely right, it has nothing to do with it. You don't need to set up a datacenter in Ireland to take advantage of the tax laws there - one accountant is probably enough.
The Irish datacenter is to keep data in the EU, as required by EU law, and out of the grubby paws of the NSA. I wholeheartedly approve.
No, that is two-phase power, and I know what I'm talking about because I have the textbook that covers it. If you have two 120 V lines (or legs, as you call them), the only way you'd get 240 V between them is if they're out of phase, which is by definition a two-phase system. Put them in phase and the voltage difference is zero, and you get nothing whatsoever out of them.
By your logic Europe has 380 V service because they get 240 V off of a single line.
I'll give you a point for knowing that connecting between a line and neutral vs between two lines gives you a different voltage, but you need to go reread the section on terminology and why it works that way.
Screw DC wiring, I'd much prefer high-power AC in the US. I've got the same model (but different power rating) electric grill both in Europe and in the US, and you can tell the difference between a standard wall socket on US 110V 15/20A vs EU 220V/16A when you're trying to grill a dozen things at once. And if you need it, you can then get 2-phase 380V power - bad for the utility bill but great for a high-power induction range.
Trying to get that kind of power out of a DC circuit on home wiring is gonna be like trying to suck an elephant through a straw. I guess the upside is that you won't have to heat your house, however, as you can just rely on the waste heat from the cable losses.
It's worth pointing out that they're outcomes due to a lack of very different kinds of regulation. 500 taxis vying for the same fare is a result of not limiting their number, whereas 30 in an 8-person van is a result of not enforcing safety and quality standards. You could scrap the limits while still enforcing quality standards, which would put more taxis on the road without endangering people. Enforcing standards would also help somewhat with the overcrowding, as not everyone would be able to just suddenly become a taxi - gotta make sure you're up to spec, and such.
Now you're just tilting at windmills. Get back to me when you grow up and can actually stay on topic in a discussion.
Because that would be a very concrete and definite violation of the social contract, much more clearly so than the nebulous accusations made against government and corporations earlier in this thread, and it's therefore in my best interest to stop you.
You can't expect to declare the contract invalid and not abide by it but still get the benefits, i.e. the basic protections of living in that society, among many others. That's parasitism.
Didn't say that. If you want a place without social contract, you'll either have to find somewhere empty or conquer somewhere occupied, all by yourself.
Oh, sorry, you're only an armchair libertarian, and you want someone to just give you such a space? Hah! Well, I want a pony.
No one owes you an easy choice in this matter. If you set yourself outside of society, don't expect them to lift a finger for you.
Someone else did not, as you're always free to end the contract and leave the society. I'm betting you don't want to, however, as despite it's flaws that contract is pretty good.
Why? Is life any more valuable than freedom of action? On what basis? If life is always more valuable, why have people ever given their life, say to fight for freedom?
And who decided which right outweighs which? If you leave it to individuals, you're stuck with the same contradiction again.
Just because it's written in a book doesn't make it reality. Yes you can define the concept of inalienable rights as an abstract, but doesn't mean any actually exist.
Or, to phrase it differently, can you show that the right to life is inalienable? It clearly isn't for anything not considered a person, so what makes us different?
Research number crunchers are another exception. The ones I've used in the past tend to be a shared resource with multiple people running jobs on them at the same time. Yes, it would be nice if you could have your own custom install with exactly the libraries you want, etc.., but then it would be hell for anyone else who then tries to run your software and replicate your work outside of your exact environment.
Why is the owner responsible for providing training, but the speaker not responsible for the consequences of an action he knows will lead to injuries, possibly death? An action that can only be mischievous or malicious in intent, despite it in theory being a right?
To be clear, I'm talking about someone yelling fire when there isn't actually a fire.
Actually, the article by Dominic Holden about "apodments" that Reifman links to is quite interesting: discusses tiny ~250 ft apartments, the few valid problems they have, and the nimbyism against them that's gotten way out of proportion. Long, but worth a read.
http://www.thestranger.com/sea...
So, let's discuss the first example...
Any scenario in which society is defending itself against an individual A can probably be reduced to one where society is the agent of one individual B defending themselves against A, I'll give you that. This is not always clear-cut, however: it may be a question of a contradiction between A and B's rights, for instance in the commonly-cited example of yelling fire in a theater. If you view things as it being purely about the individual, how do you resolve this kind of conflict? Why is A's right to free speech less important than B's right to life? You probably can't get them to agree, but if it's all down to the individual, then society has no right to step in and resolve the discussion for them.
But, more importantly, I don't think it makes sense to define things so narrowly. Society can be reduced to its individuals because in the end it's solely composed of and defined by a collection individuals. But in a similar vein, a person is only composed of cells, so why do we speak about the rights of a person and not of individual cells? What's so special about the particular level of organization that corresponds to one individual human? Society - Human - Cell - Chemical... each is an ordered cooperative of lower elements, so what makes human the unique one that deserves rights above all others?
To put it differently, I don't believe in inalienable rights, for the same reason that I don't believe in absolutes. I think the set of rights the US has is a very good one, but I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to call them the truth, the best, or the everlasting.
Same argument applies to any of the examples we're discussing.
While a society may not have natural rights in as far as its interactions with individuals, individuals most certainly have obligations towards the society that they live in, which is effectively the same thing. For instance, society has the "right" to protect itself from dangerous individuals, be they external or internal, which is why we mandate vaccines, lock up criminals, go to war, etc. Society has the right to demand that its members contribute, which usually takes the form of taxes. Society has the right to decide who becomes a member, which is why not every person on this planet is automatically an American citizen. I'm sure you can come up with other examples.
These are all rights that you as an individual grant society when you chose to join it, as they are essential to running a society. Don't grant these rights, and you won't be a member long.
That's really only the view of American society. Societies worldwide have a wide spectrum of views on this, finding their own balance between the individual and the group.