Can you explain how it is you won't notice aliasing unless you record it into another format?
That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I think I'm not understanding what you intend to say. I mean, I am quite sure that if I stick a relatively large magnitude sinusoid at 39kHz on the input of a 44kHz A/D converter, you're going to notice the unvarying tone that won't go away when the audio is played back.
Very true. I guess I should say that I've usually seen aliasing compensated for by putting a lowpass filter on the analog out.
Bizarre. I wonder why. I can't imagine that would (in general) help, being that aliased signals can be folded back onto any frequency 0ffN. Maybe if they knew that the aliased signals would have existed only just above a multiple of the Nyquist frequency, but that's all I can think of.
Can anyone explain this to me? I know what aliasing is; basically it's when your top frequencies hit the Nyquist limit and kind of bounce back downward (how's that for scientific?), and I know what it sounds like. However, the last time I checked, you'd remove aliasing by cutting high frequencies out of the final analog wave with a lowpass filter. Unless something's radically changed since then, wouldn't the presumably lower-response Apple buds actually show less aliasing that the expensive ones that can better reproduce the higher (and unwanted) frequencies?
The aliasing happens when you do the analog to digital conversion; if aliasing exists in the digital recording, it's going to exist irrespective of what kind device is attached to the D/A converter on output.
Also, the effects of aliasing won't be heard exclusively at the higher frequencies; the way aliasing works is that frequencies above the Nyquist frequency get "folded" about the Nyquist frequency. For example, if an aliased frequency at fN+c is sampled (fN being the Nyquist frequency), it will get folded back to fN-c.
Example: You're sampling at 44kHz (aka, CD audio), resulting in fN of 22kHz. For some reason, power leaked into the D/A at 39kHz. Aliasing occurs, and the power gets "folded" back onto 44kHz-39kHz=5kHz. You'll hear that whether you have buds or the OMGZORAWESOME $400 earphones, more than likely. Of course, if it leaked in at 22.1kHz, it'd be folded back onto 21.9kHz, so maybe you would.
Personally, my interpretation is, "That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means." (this being directed at the article author, not at you.)
Root kits have been available on Linux for at least ten years. I started seeing them in common use in late 1999 or early 2000.
The only thing that's "new" is that the stuff is making its way down the food chain. Things that used to be found only among the "elite", are now commonly found among the script kiddies. Yawn.
What they really should be worried about is what those elite guys are cooking up now, not what they cooked up 5-6 years ago.
Digital is not necessarily better, but it does have the potential to be.
One of the nice things about an all-digital transmission path is that there will be less A/D and D/A conversions than in a path that has more analog stages.
A/D and D/A converters unavoidably add noise (called quantization noise). This can be lessened by using better AD/DA converters. That, of course, costs more money. If you're going to end up as digital at some point in the process anyway (like as in HDTV), it's technically (if minimally) better and more importantly, much cheaper to do the AD and DA conversions fewer times.
I don't know why, I only see a few American TEM operators, (...)
You really don't know why? You said it yourself:
I known many Ph. D. can operate TEM, but those companies can't afford to pay 80k per year for a TEM operator, the salary of a TEM operator is about 40k to 50k per year, never goes up.
It's economics 101. Supply and demand. If demand is more than supply, price needs to go up. If it doesn't, you get supply shortages. If supply is more than demand, price needs to go down. If it doesn't, you have oversupply.
Demand is clearly higher than supply, but you yourself said it: price never goes up. As predicted by the basic theory of supply and demand in economics 101, there are shortages.
Come on people, it's not fucking rocket science. This is stuff a middle schooler can grasp.
So, do the calculation for your estimate of terminal velocity. They're not looking for an exact answer;)
Either way, you still end up having to deal with one hell of a lot less floors (in your velocity's case, roughly 31 floors or less, as opposed to 100).
If you can eliminate 70%-85% of the search space without ever dropping the marble, you might as well.
You can't really know with just two marbles unless you get lucky and nail it on the first try. Each time you drop the marble, it's going to be stressed by the impact, and as you approach the height at which it would break from one drop, you've accumulated damage from previous drops.
In such a case, the marble will likely break before the perfect height due to the accumulated damage.
Re:I had an interview with Google a few weeks ago
on
Want To Work At Google?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
1st question: Start on the 14th floor. If it breaks, start with the second marble on the 1st floor and increase until it breaks. If it doesn't, go to the 14+13th floor, then 14+13+12th, etc. That gives you a maximum of 14 attempts. Of course, Google would be wrong about that. You don't have to test above the floor at which terminal velocity can be reached.
Do some back of the envelope calculations, take into account that the terminal velocity of a marble-sized hailstone is 45 ft/s, and you'll estimate that terminal velocity occurs within 15 floors.
Drop it at 7, and do a linear search on either side of that depending on whether it breaks or not. That yields less than 14.
But it's not a petty failure of one of its officers 30 years ago. It's a continuing failure and exercise in dishonesty over 28 years by one of its officers that lasted until it was exposed by a third party.
The situation would probably be different if she had come clean on her own at any point -- probably a reprimand, maybe she would have been offered the opportunity to retire with honor, etc. But you can't accept an officer who has perpetuated a lie for 28 years and only cleared the air when caught at it.
meh, since this question is repeated ad nauseum, so I'll just repeat my answer.
It's soley about her lying 28 years ago. It's that she had 28 years to correct the record and chose not to do so; in other words, she was continuously lying for 28 years.
You can't have someone in a position of public trust lying for 28 years. It's just not acceptable.
It might have been different if she had come clean on her own, but she didn't. She perpetuated the lie.
Of course there isn't a statute of limitations on this sort of thing. The issue isn't as much that she lied 28 years ago, it's that she had 28 years of opportunities to come clean, and instead perpetuated the lie over that 28 years.
It's not just one incident of lying. It's 28 years of continuous lying.
(as before in my post above, the below refers to the USA)
No, it's a right.
When you create something (for example, you comment), you inherently gain the copyright to it, because it's a right. No, when you create something, you inherently gain copyright to it because the statute is written that way. It wasn't ALWAYS written that way. It used to be that you used to have to do things to get a copyright; iirc, prior to 1956, a copyright on a work didn't exist until the copyright office granted you a registration on the work.
If copyright were merely a privilege, it could be stripped away. It can't: it lasts for at the least the duration of the creator's life. Actually, it can be stripped away. Go read Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has the power to provide for copyright, but it is an optional power, not mandatory.
And again, the term wasn't always what it is today. Prior to 1976, the term was 28 years, with a creator exercisable option to extend an additional 28 years. That's not life.
Congress could at any time repeal all copyright law, and no court challenged based on a right to copyright would change that.
Copyright is, in fact, a right, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't. Again, a plain reading of the Constitution refutes this. Go read it sometime.
Why the hell should the consumers get any right to content I create? Why the hell should YOU get any right to the content you create?
In the USA, copyright is a social contract which is intended to promote content creation -- by providing a profit motive -- so that the rest of us can then beneficially consume it. In short, in the USA, copyright exists at the pleasure of the people. If at any time the costs associated with copyright outweigh the benefits derived from it, it is the people's right to abolish it altogether.
In the USA, anyway, copyright is a privilege, its poor choice of name notwithstanding.
You're inference by stating "In cases where there it is known that there is only one variable, correlation does imply causation" was that global warming (as that is the subject discussed) was the result of one variable. There was no inference. There was only a statement of fact: In cases where it is known that there is only one variable, correlation does imply causation.
By then going on an saying that "And scientists have conducted experiments in which they have ensured that the only variable is the amount of CO2 in the experiment" you are saying that this one variable you are discussing is CO2. You then state "and we know from these experiments that systems with greenhouses retain more heat than systems without" Again, mere statement of fact: Scientists have conducted experiments in which the only variable was CO2. CO2 was found to increase the heat retained by the system.
Interpretation: Because CO2 was the only variable in these experiments, and because correlation implies causation in cases with only one variable, then CO2 causes such a system to retain more heat.
"Greenhouses" is an error on my part; I meant "CO2". It is a minor error that does not significantly change the meaning of my statement provided you're thinking with the head atop your neck.
Methinks the parent got it right. Green house gases go up and temperature goes up, that's a correlation. The causation argument is something that can be debated by all. Methinks that you would be wrong. In cases where there it is known that there is only one variable, correlation does imply causation. This is why scientists have to carefully design their experiments, allowing only one variable in the system. And scientists have conducted experiments in which they have ensured that the only variable is the amount of CO2 in the experiment, and we know from these experiments that systems with greenhouses retain more heat than systems without.
In short, there is no debate on the general effect of greenhouse gases. (ie, that they trap more light as heat) It may be debatable as to the extent, however.
Professionals without a university degree will often have to be better, smarter, and work harder to get to the same place as someone with a university degree. This tends to follow an exponential curve -- the higher you're reaching, the harder it gets per step.
If you are better, smarter and harder working, this will not be a problem for you. But often, the person with the degree will bump up against a ceiling s/he can't push through that quite frankly an individual with a university degree of the appropriate level will sail right through.
I've worked in industry without a degree. I've done the whole six-figure-no-degree thing. After a few years of it, I'd saved up a bunch of money, went back to school in Fall 2002... and I'm currently about 6 months away from completing my masters degree in ECE.
Here's really the trick: How far does your ambition extend? Will you be happy being a network engineer forever? Or will you want to move up and out towards the CTO/CIO position? Most established companies will be very hesitant to consider you for a position like that if you don't have a university degree -- you'd have to be a total ninja. Hell, even with just a bachelors, they'll often have to think long and hard about putting your name into the hat.
If you're happy with your career peaking at mid-level to upper-mid-level/lower-upper-level network engineering (this being about where you start to crack six figures USD), AND you are smarter and harder working than your average Joe, then by all means, jump right in. If you have higher ambitions, either expect to kill yourself clawing up the ladder only to find a near impenetrable ceiling, or expect to have a degree -- preferably a graduate one -- at some point in your career.
Now, aside from the purely career advice, allow me to tell you a little secret about a university degree: If you do it right, it makes you smarter. I was always smart. But working on my undergraduate computer engineering degree and my master's in ECE has made me smarter. I know that out of high school, (at least in the US) a lot of stuff they teach in math is useless to you -- but that all changes when you get to mid-level and above calculus, probability theory, and fourier (and related) transforms. All of the sudden, math becomes eminently useful. I was far and away the best tech guy out of 40 in my company -- and we had a STRONG industry reputation for top notch technicians -- but all this math has made me far and away better than the guy I used to be.
I would recommend that if -- and only if -- you can be happy going to university, then you should do so. You will be smarter for it. If you can't be happy doing it, you'll probably just flunk out and even if you don't, you probably won't get the value out of it that I have. In that case, just go get a job. If you're smart and don't take on too much debt, you'll have another window to go to university in a few years if you change your mind.
Another good reason to avoid lowballing the new hires and regularly checking how the salaries compare to compensation elsewhere.
If a hiring manager doesn't see it that way, that's fine with me. It saves us both time. It's not like I disagree with you. But it's not like that helps the poster in any capacity.
No kidding. They were getting a 25-30% discount the whole time he was there. I guess they thought that making a lowball offer was a good idea at the time since it looked like a big enough raise to the hire to lure him from his last job. You act like you think that the next hiring manager is going to look at it that way.
They won't. The only thing the hiring manager is going to be thinking about when considering the high turnover rate is what kind of negative impact it's going to have on the year end bonus if/when the hire leaves after 4 months.
Slashdot Mirror
The market resoundingly rejected that idea when Intel tried to hoist IA64 on it.
Can you explain how it is you won't notice aliasing unless you record it into another format?
That really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I think I'm not understanding what you intend to say. I mean, I am quite sure that if I stick a relatively large magnitude sinusoid at 39kHz on the input of a 44kHz A/D converter, you're going to notice the unvarying tone that won't go away when the audio is played back.
Meh, 0ffN should be 0 less than f less than fN. Damnable less than signs.
Bizarre. I wonder why. I can't imagine that would (in general) help, being that aliased signals can be folded back onto any frequency 0ffN. Maybe if they knew that the aliased signals would have existed only just above a multiple of the Nyquist frequency, but that's all I can think of.
The aliasing happens when you do the analog to digital conversion; if aliasing exists in the digital recording, it's going to exist irrespective of what kind device is attached to the D/A converter on output.
Also, the effects of aliasing won't be heard exclusively at the higher frequencies; the way aliasing works is that frequencies above the Nyquist frequency get "folded" about the Nyquist frequency. For example, if an aliased frequency at fN+c is sampled (fN being the Nyquist frequency), it will get folded back to fN-c.
Example: You're sampling at 44kHz (aka, CD audio), resulting in fN of 22kHz. For some reason, power leaked into the D/A at 39kHz. Aliasing occurs, and the power gets "folded" back onto 44kHz-39kHz=5kHz. You'll hear that whether you have buds or the OMGZORAWESOME $400 earphones, more than likely. Of course, if it leaked in at 22.1kHz, it'd be folded back onto 21.9kHz, so maybe you would.
Personally, my interpretation is, "That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means." (this being directed at the article author, not at you.)
Root kits have been available on Linux for at least ten years. I started seeing them in common use in late 1999 or early 2000.
The only thing that's "new" is that the stuff is making its way down the food chain. Things that used to be found only among the "elite", are now commonly found among the script kiddies. Yawn.
What they really should be worried about is what those elite guys are cooking up now, not what they cooked up 5-6 years ago.
Digital is not necessarily better, but it does have the potential to be.
One of the nice things about an all-digital transmission path is that there will be less A/D and D/A conversions than in a path that has more analog stages.
A/D and D/A converters unavoidably add noise (called quantization noise). This can be lessened by using better AD/DA converters. That, of course, costs more money. If you're going to end up as digital at some point in the process anyway (like as in HDTV), it's technically (if minimally) better and more importantly, much cheaper to do the AD and DA conversions fewer times.
http://www.monoprice.com/home/index.asp
I've never purchased through them, but someone recommended them, and after seeing the prices, I bookmarked em.
Quite sure. Economics is definitely not rocket science.
You really don't know why? You said it yourself:
It's economics 101. Supply and demand. If demand is more than supply, price needs to go up. If it doesn't, you get supply shortages. If supply is more than demand, price needs to go down. If it doesn't, you have oversupply.
Demand is clearly higher than supply, but you yourself said it: price never goes up. As predicted by the basic theory of supply and demand in economics 101, there are shortages.
Come on people, it's not fucking rocket science. This is stuff a middle schooler can grasp.
So, do the calculation for your estimate of terminal velocity. They're not looking for an exact answer ;)
Either way, you still end up having to deal with one hell of a lot less floors (in your velocity's case, roughly 31 floors or less, as opposed to 100).
If you can eliminate 70%-85% of the search space without ever dropping the marble, you might as well.
Also, here's the other fun thing:
You can't really know with just two marbles unless you get lucky and nail it on the first try. Each time you drop the marble, it's going to be stressed by the impact, and as you approach the height at which it would break from one drop, you've accumulated damage from previous drops.
In such a case, the marble will likely break before the perfect height due to the accumulated damage.
Do some back of the envelope calculations, take into account that the terminal velocity of a marble-sized hailstone is 45 ft/s, and you'll estimate that terminal velocity occurs within 15 floors.
Drop it at 7, and do a linear search on either side of that depending on whether it breaks or not. That yields less than 14.
Everyone, huh. I'll take that bet, what do you want to wager?
But it's not a petty failure of one of its officers 30 years ago. It's a continuing failure and exercise in dishonesty over 28 years by one of its officers that lasted until it was exposed by a third party.
The situation would probably be different if she had come clean on her own at any point -- probably a reprimand, maybe she would have been offered the opportunity to retire with honor, etc. But you can't accept an officer who has perpetuated a lie for 28 years and only cleared the air when caught at it.
meh, since this question is repeated ad nauseum, so I'll just repeat my answer.
It's soley about her lying 28 years ago. It's that she had 28 years to correct the record and chose not to do so; in other words, she was continuously lying for 28 years.
You can't have someone in a position of public trust lying for 28 years. It's just not acceptable.
It might have been different if she had come clean on her own, but she didn't. She perpetuated the lie.
That's the problem.
Of course there isn't a statute of limitations on this sort of thing. The issue isn't as much that she lied 28 years ago, it's that she had 28 years of opportunities to come clean, and instead perpetuated the lie over that 28 years.
It's not just one incident of lying. It's 28 years of continuous lying.
When you create something (for example, you comment), you inherently gain the copyright to it, because it's a right. No, when you create something, you inherently gain copyright to it because the statute is written that way. It wasn't ALWAYS written that way. It used to be that you used to have to do things to get a copyright; iirc, prior to 1956, a copyright on a work didn't exist until the copyright office granted you a registration on the work. If copyright were merely a privilege, it could be stripped away. It can't: it lasts for at the least the duration of the creator's life. Actually, it can be stripped away. Go read Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress has the power to provide for copyright, but it is an optional power, not mandatory.
And again, the term wasn't always what it is today. Prior to 1976, the term was 28 years, with a creator exercisable option to extend an additional 28 years. That's not life.
Congress could at any time repeal all copyright law, and no court challenged based on a right to copyright would change that. Copyright is, in fact, a right, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't. Again, a plain reading of the Constitution refutes this. Go read it sometime.
In the USA, copyright is a social contract which is intended to promote content creation -- by providing a profit motive -- so that the rest of us can then beneficially consume it. In short, in the USA, copyright exists at the pleasure of the people. If at any time the costs associated with copyright outweigh the benefits derived from it, it is the people's right to abolish it altogether.
In the USA, anyway, copyright is a privilege, its poor choice of name notwithstanding.
Interpretation: Because CO2 was the only variable in these experiments, and because correlation implies causation in cases with only one variable, then CO2 causes such a system to retain more heat.
"Greenhouses" is an error on my part; I meant "CO2". It is a minor error that does not significantly change the meaning of my statement provided you're thinking with the head atop your neck.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all, and if you had read what I said with your brain engaged, you'd know that.
In short, there is no debate on the general effect of greenhouse gases. (ie, that they trap more light as heat) It may be debatable as to the extent, however.
Professionals without a university degree will often have to be better, smarter, and work harder to get to the same place as someone with a university degree. This tends to follow an exponential curve -- the higher you're reaching, the harder it gets per step.
If you are better, smarter and harder working, this will not be a problem for you. But often, the person with the degree will bump up against a ceiling s/he can't push through that quite frankly an individual with a university degree of the appropriate level will sail right through.
I've worked in industry without a degree. I've done the whole six-figure-no-degree thing. After a few years of it, I'd saved up a bunch of money, went back to school in Fall 2002... and I'm currently about 6 months away from completing my masters degree in ECE.
Here's really the trick: How far does your ambition extend? Will you be happy being a network engineer forever? Or will you want to move up and out towards the CTO/CIO position? Most established companies will be very hesitant to consider you for a position like that if you don't have a university degree -- you'd have to be a total ninja. Hell, even with just a bachelors, they'll often have to think long and hard about putting your name into the hat.
If you're happy with your career peaking at mid-level to upper-mid-level/lower-upper-level network engineering (this being about where you start to crack six figures USD), AND you are smarter and harder working than your average Joe, then by all means, jump right in. If you have higher ambitions, either expect to kill yourself clawing up the ladder only to find a near impenetrable ceiling, or expect to have a degree -- preferably a graduate one -- at some point in your career.
Now, aside from the purely career advice, allow me to tell you a little secret about a university degree: If you do it right, it makes you smarter. I was always smart. But working on my undergraduate computer engineering degree and my master's in ECE has made me smarter. I know that out of high school, (at least in the US) a lot of stuff they teach in math is useless to you -- but that all changes when you get to mid-level and above calculus, probability theory, and fourier (and related) transforms. All of the sudden, math becomes eminently useful. I was far and away the best tech guy out of 40 in my company -- and we had a STRONG industry reputation for top notch technicians -- but all this math has made me far and away better than the guy I used to be.
I would recommend that if -- and only if -- you can be happy going to university, then you should do so. You will be smarter for it. If you can't be happy doing it, you'll probably just flunk out and even if you don't, you probably won't get the value out of it that I have. In that case, just go get a job. If you're smart and don't take on too much debt, you'll have another window to go to university in a few years if you change your mind.
If a hiring manager doesn't see it that way, that's fine with me. It saves us both time. It's not like I disagree with you. But it's not like that helps the poster in any capacity.
They won't. The only thing the hiring manager is going to be thinking about when considering the high turnover rate is what kind of negative impact it's going to have on the year end bonus if/when the hire leaves after 4 months.