Take the tZero for instance, 100 mile range, top speed of ~100 mph, 0-60 in 4 seconds; handily beating Ferraris and Porsches in an 1/8 mile.
Because as we all know, Ferraris and Porsches are designed for one thing: 1/8 mile runs. (sarcasm). There are Honda Civics out there that will beat a Ferrari in an 1/8 mile. What does it prove? Nothing. For $10,000 you could make a frickin picnic table run those speeds if you really wanted to.
The tZero is an unproducable (the linked website still says production is "expected" to start in 2002) science project. Even if you HAD the money to meet the price listed on their site, I highly doubt you could actually buy one.
Electric cars are VASTLY overrated. They ARE slow, and have crappy range because IT GOES WITH THE TECHNOLOGY. They use batteries.
Electric cars are ALWAYS going to be at a disadvantage compared to other technologies with better energy densities: Gasoline, Natural Gas, Fuel Cells, Hydrogen, Biodiesel, etc.
Trying to keep dangerous weapons off of planes is a futile effort.
More to the point: The problem on 9/11 wasn't that the terrorists had box cutters, it was our policy of giving someone with so little as a frickin box cutter whatever they wanted.
9/11 was the result of a POLICY problem.
If we had already adopted the simple policy of "Kill the motherfucker as soon as he pulls out a box cutter!" the death toll for 9/11 would have probably been less than ten non-terrorists. Post 9/11, you can bet almost any airline passenger has adopted this policy and the same mistakes are much less likely to be made.
Pick units that makes sense for what you're doing and stick with them.
Just pick one set of units and use them. Sometimes metric is better, sometimes "american" units are better.
A great example of this is temperature. Celsius is too coarse a scale to use for a room thermostat. People will get in arguments over 1 deg F, let alone 1 deg C, and it seems pretty silly to need three significant figures on something like that.
Similarly it also makes more sense to order "1 pint" instead of "500ml" of beer.
This is because imperial units were derived from everyday quantities. This makes them well suited for many non-enginnering tasks, and since most people on this planet AREN'T enginners, they don't care about how much more annoying it is to calculate blah-blah-blah in metric.
No, the whole point of this ruling is that if a state passes a law that says you have to identify yourself during the course of an ongoing investigation that law is not unconstitutional.
The whole point is that the "ongoing investigation" is nonsense. What "ongoing investigation" was this guy a part of?
THE POINT is that "part of an ongoing investigaion" and "probable cause for arrest" are two VASTLY different standards. One is trivial to abuse, the other one requires......EVIDENCE!
Now, my general concern is that the police take it as a license to start identifying people on their way out of opposition political meetings and the like, but I think that the majority opinion is worded quite clearly such that the verdict is only on identification during the course of an existing criminal investigation....
Then why don't you tell us all what criminal investiagion this guy was a suspect in?
As it was said earlier. He was just standing around and the cop decided to interrogate him. He had no good reason to suspect him of ANYTHING.
Yet for some reason this guy is supposed to provide him name to a guy who clearly can LEAGLLY harrass him and is obviously a dickhead.
Clearly none of these judges have ever stolen a cop's girlfriend before......
But guess what? You can be arrested anyway, because you're in a situation where a reasonable suspicion exists that you're involved in a crime. The fact that you didn't answer the question didn't make your situation any worse.
I'm just in awe at they way you bring conceit and lack of reading comprehension together.
THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS RULING IS THAT NOT GIVING YOUR NAME, BY ITSELF IS AN ARRESTABLE OFFENSE EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE "PROBABLE CAUSE".
The police must merely "suspect" you of something. They need no compelling evidence. This ruling is specfically about cases where you could not have been arrested otherwise, because there is not sufficient evidence.
However, I had an old Beetle and I had car stereo in it, but it was virtually unusable - the sound of the engine was just too loud to actually hear the music.
No, what that means is that the stereo was TOO QUIET. What you needed was a more powerful stereo.;)
Not that I don't like the sound of my rotary engine at 7K RPM....
yeah leave your ipod in a cradle on your dashboard while you run into the WaWa... and maybe a wallet with $400 sticking out of it. at least in the glovebox you can secure it, and it's out of sight. it's marginally more secure, but someone not knowing it is in there is the best protection short of taking it with you every time you get out of the car.
PUT THE DOCK IN THE GLOVEBOX.
Come on, it's like adding 2+2.
Some of us who like to take corners fast, believe that ANY piece of factory equipment should be anchored down.
A rest stop in the middle of nowhere is really the last place you should lose situational awareness.
*rolls eyes*
Yes, you'd have to be absolutely crazy to do something like REST at a rest stop. A total madman even.
Jeezus fucking christ people, this is America. Yes, we have crime here, but it's not so bad that you can't pull into your average rest stop and take a nap, despite media fearmongering.
Look at it this way:
You're probably at LEAST as likely to get killed by a drunk driver out on the road in a given period of time, than you are to get attacked at a rest stop.
But hey why try to prevent the 10,000 times more likely case of you falling asleep and dying behind the wheel when there's a much less likely, but more dramatic way you might die?
BEHIND A STEERING WHEEL is the "last place you should lose situational awareness."
The argument of the Supreme Court is that your name doesn't incriminate you unless there are extenuating circumstances so asking you to identify yourself doesn't violate your 5th ammendment rights.
Right, but his point is their the supreme court has just made remaining silent an arrestable offense.
The police don't even need a "plausible" enough suspicion that you've comitted a crime to arrest you on. Their "suspicion" can be absolute B.S. but now they can arrest you just for not giving your name.
The ruling is just plain stupid. If they REALLY have good cause to believe you've commited a crime, they can arrest you whether you identifiy yourself or not.
on a completely unrelated note, if this thing is stolen, you might need to worry about an RIAA lawsuit for distributing copyrighted music....
And how is that going to work exactly?
Theif: "Hello, police, I stole this multi-thousand-dollar piece of equipment, a felony, but I was hoping you'd let me go if I turned this guy in for having mp3s."
Cop: "Why don't you come down to the station and we'll talk about it....."
I didn't get the choice of screening Ms. Janet's chest. That is why people were upset.
So Janet's dancing around doing a sexually suggestive dance, and 1/2 inch from naked, but you're upset that you didn't get a chance to stop your kid from seeing her nipple?
Come on!
YOU HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO TELL WHAT THAT DANCE WAS ABOUT.
JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU?
WERE THE LYRICS "have you naked by the end of this song" NOT A GOOD ENOUGH CLUE?
If you were worried about sexual content, you should have turned it off the second you heard those words. If you weren't worried about sexual content, and are only upset because an actual nipple was televised for two seconds, then you're freakin crazy anyways.
It's absolutely justified banning public statements like "All jews should be gased" or "All blacks should be hung" or "Our race should be cleansed".
No it's not.
It amazes me how people don't understand this. Germany makes itself CLOSER to Germany under Hitler, by banning "hate speech" than if the actually let their citizens have freedom of speech and THOUGHT.
The big problems don't happen when some minority states an unpopular viewpoint, THEY HAPPEN WHEN A MAJORITY DECIDES TO SUPPRESS OTHER VIEWPOINTS. Hitler was ELECTED by the people of Germany and began doing just that.
All laws like this do is build the framework for ANOTHER Hitler to build on.
The proper thing to do is to LIMIT government power, so that no matter who get's elected, they can't become the self-appointed thought-police. That was the real problem that let the Nazis take over. Hitler could have stood on a street corner and said whatever he wanted. The problem came when he was elected to office and took over the nation. The way to prevent another Hitler-like rise to power is not to ban the specfic ideas that Hitler held, but to ensure that the mechanisms the he used to take control cannot be used again. Giving the government power to ban the discussion of certain ideas is EXACTLY WHAT GERMANY SHOULD NOT BE DOING.
By no means do I think America is perfect, but the first amendment is something that we most definately got right. It amazes me that other states will even attempt to call themselves a "democracy", when you don't even have a right to your own viewpoint on a subject.
The internet by its very nature is not, and cannot be, under any government's jurisdiction to control content. Period. Let folks say what they want to say, and you always retain the freedom to read it or ignore it
Tell that to people in China.
Government censorship of the internet is a REAL possibility and must be guarded against.
There are plenty of scumbag governments and corporations *cough*cisco*cough* who are willing and able to make this happen if "good men do nothing".
The whole point of freedom of speech is so that one isn't persecuted for UNPOPULAR ideas.
This stuff just makes me sick. It's never going to be illegal to say "I like pretty flowers." The whole reason we have freedom of speech it to protect ideas that others disagree with.
The government has no business regulating people's thoughts.
This type of law is a great example of the "harm principle" not being applied. I should be able to hate you. That's my right. What I shouldn't be able to do is gas a bunch of jews. That's infringing on the rights of others.
Laws like this are the first step towards yet another totalitarian, nazi-like regieme. First you put the goverment in charge of what is and is not acceptible public discourse. Next, the government abuses that power in ways you never imagined.
Good, good, a well-phrased counter-example is always helpful.
That post wasn't worthy of being treated seriously.
If I say "Off the top of my head...there's no such thing as gravity" it is sufficient to say I'm full of crap. It's common knowledge, and a well-reasoned argument wasn't made in the first place.
Heck there wasn't even an example given.
Semi-anonymous people on the internet who want to be taken seriously need to say a little more than "off the top of my head...."
Just for the record, Microsoft produced an antivirus program back in the DOS 6.2/Win 3.1 days. I, and many other people, wondered why they stopped when they released Win95.
Just for the record, that program was a total joke. It took something like 6 bytes of assembly code for a virus to disable it.
It was about as useful as a paper mache bullet-proof vest.
Seriously, I did my own independent test of MSAV, NAV, and F-PROT back in the day on a collection of 300 viruses. Both NAV and F-PROT found all but about ten. MSAV found ONLY ten (approximately).
That program was probably the most worthless Microsoft program I've ever seen.
I'm not sure whether I hope they get it right this time, or they mess up just as bad as last time. Maybe if they screw it up bad enough users will decide the Windows is "unfixable" since they already HAVE a virus scanner installed, and move on.
You signal/noise ratio WILL NEVER be limited in practice by the 112db of your cd.
Argh. Why are people modding this guy up when he doesn't know what he's talking about? I tried to point this out already, but here's the math to prove it.
You will NEVER get 112dB of dynamic range from a cd, let alone a 112 dB noise floor.
A CD is 16 bits. We'll use unsigned math for simplicity:
The range of values that can be stored with 16 bits is: 0-65535
The formula to convert intesity to decibels is:
dB = 20 log10 (V2/V1)
In this case:
dB = 20 log10 (65535/1) = 96.3 dB
SEE! THE TOTAL POSSIBLE DYNAMIC RANGE WITH 16 BITS IS 96 dB!
In a war, you generally want to aviod making unnecessary noise. It can get you killed.
You could also use a camera with a fixed focal length to do a retinal scan, and include a white LED for a response test so it won't work if they're dead.
Or you could just use a password through the normal user interface of the device. No lenses to keep clean, etc, etc.
Biometrics are great for situations where a person does NOT want to be identified (finger prints at a crime scene), but I keep seeing them offered as a solution in places where they just don't make sense.
I understand your point, but I think sometimes the cost of computerizing something can be more than the benefit.
You WONT get 120db out of any high powered home stereo. 130 NO CHANCE IN HELL. ....So STFU
Wow! Way to be belligerent without having a fucking clue what you're talking about!
So make your math: If you are 2m from your speakers, you need 5kW sinus output of your amp to listen to your "quality"-musik.
Hello! Mcfly! Most of us don't listen to our music in an anechoic chamber!
95db/m*W (95 is a real upperlimit, only reachable by transmissionline boxes or other stuff)
This is total bullshit. 95 dB is most definately not a fundamental limit. Here's a link to a speaker with a 97 dBm @ 1 W, 1m efficiency for example. If you look around at professional PA speakers, you'll find plenty of them that beat your silly limit. There are tweeters and horns out there that do better than 100 dBm @ 1 W 1 m.
Look at the "Max. calculated SPL" field of the linked datasheet. See that? 128dB That's for one speaker. Add another speaker and there's your 130dB.
FYI, the SPL record for car audio is at over 170 dB at this point. Yes, that will kill you.
You signal/noise ratio WILL NEVER be limited in practice by the 112db of your cd.
SNR on a CD is nowhere near 112 dB.
It's around 90-something dB, due to quantitization noise. It isn't even POSSIBLE to linearly encode 112 dB of dynamic range using only 16 bits. Try the math.
Yes, theoretically you only need 2xBW (bandwidth), but anyone who actually works on this shit will tell you that they want more.
I think it's worth pointing out that the requirements for RECORDING and PLAYBACK are different.
In a recording studio 32bit, 192KHz, is great because the ANALOG filter that must used to stop out of band signals can be easily implemented, and the extra bits give you room to do all sorts of DSP.
On the playback side of things, you only need 24 bit, 44Khz. You don't need a "brickwall" filter on the output because you can upsample and filter the 44KHz stream before it hits your crappy analog output filter.
(You might run your output D/A at 192KHz, but the SOURCE media does not need to be at that sampling rate.)
Why do people assume that the people who designed CDDA were stupid? No amplifier/speaker/room combination at any price is accurate enough to resolve the resolution of CD audio. The air current around your ears is louder than the CD noise floor, and the human ear is not equipped to hear a 20khz tone.
I mostly agree with you, but I feel the need to point out that your "air current" description is way off. As someone who often likes his music LOUD, I feel compelled to point out the the usable dynamic range of the human ear is MUCH more that the ninety-something dB provided by CDs.
An expensive, high-powered stereo can hit 120-130 dB. This leaves you with 30dB of noise.
24-bit audio give you more like 140 dB of dynamic range, which allows your playback system to have a range much more in line with the actual capabilities of the human ear.
96KHz, on the other hand, only really makes sense on the RECORDING side of things, where and analog filter must be used that will block all frequencies above the sampling rate.
Also, it's worth pointing out that doing any sort of DSP on an audio signal in going to make you want even more bits of A/D so that the "rounding errors" that result stay down in the noise.
Slashdot Mirror
Take the tZero for instance, 100 mile range, top speed of ~100 mph, 0-60 in 4 seconds; handily beating Ferraris and Porsches in an 1/8 mile.
Because as we all know, Ferraris and Porsches are designed for one thing: 1/8 mile runs. (sarcasm). There are Honda Civics out there that will beat a Ferrari in an 1/8 mile. What does it prove? Nothing. For $10,000 you could make a frickin picnic table run those speeds if you really wanted to.
The tZero is an unproducable (the linked website still says production is "expected" to start in 2002) science project. Even if you HAD the money to meet the price listed on their site, I highly doubt you could actually buy one.
Electric cars are VASTLY overrated. They ARE slow, and have crappy range because IT GOES WITH THE TECHNOLOGY. They use batteries.
Electric cars are ALWAYS going to be at a disadvantage compared to other technologies with better energy densities: Gasoline, Natural Gas, Fuel Cells, Hydrogen, Biodiesel, etc.
Trying to keep dangerous weapons off of planes is a futile effort.
More to the point:
The problem on 9/11 wasn't that the terrorists had box cutters, it was our policy of giving someone with so little as a frickin box cutter whatever they wanted.
9/11 was the result of a POLICY problem.
If we had already adopted the simple policy of "Kill the motherfucker as soon as he pulls out a box cutter!" the death toll for 9/11 would have probably been less than ten non-terrorists. Post 9/11, you can bet almost any airline passenger has adopted this policy and the same mistakes are much less likely to be made.
Pick units that makes sense for what you're doing and stick with them.
Just pick one set of units and use them. Sometimes metric is better, sometimes "american" units are better.
A great example of this is temperature. Celsius is too coarse a scale to use for a room thermostat. People will get in arguments over 1 deg F, let alone 1 deg C, and it seems pretty silly to need three significant figures on something like that.
Similarly it also makes more sense to order "1 pint" instead of "500ml" of beer.
This is because imperial units were derived from everyday quantities. This makes them well suited for many non-enginnering tasks, and since most people on this planet AREN'T enginners, they don't care about how much more annoying it is to calculate blah-blah-blah in metric.
That's not true, though. You are not legally required by statute to give your name unless a reasonable suspicion already exists.
"Reasonable suspicion" is NOT the same thing as "probable cause".
I'm reasonably suspicious that my neighbors are selling drugs, but I sure as hell don't have enough evidence to give the police "probable cause".
I'm also reasonably suspicious that you didn't RTFA.
No, the whole point of this ruling is that if a state passes a law that says you have to identify yourself during the course of an ongoing investigation that law is not unconstitutional.
The whole point is that the "ongoing investigation" is nonsense. What "ongoing investigation" was this guy a part of?
THE POINT is that "part of an ongoing investigaion" and "probable cause for arrest" are two VASTLY different standards. One is trivial to abuse, the other one requires......EVIDENCE!
Now, my general concern is that the police take it as a license to start identifying people on their way out of opposition political meetings and the like, but I think that the majority opinion is worded quite clearly such that the verdict is only on identification during the course of an existing criminal investigation....
Then why don't you tell us all what criminal investiagion this guy was a suspect in?
As it was said earlier. He was just standing around and the cop decided to interrogate him. He had no good reason to suspect him of ANYTHING.
Yet for some reason this guy is supposed to provide him name to a guy who clearly can LEAGLLY harrass him and is obviously a dickhead.
Clearly none of these judges have ever stolen a cop's girlfriend before......
But guess what? You can be arrested anyway, because you're in a situation where a reasonable suspicion exists that you're involved in a crime. The fact that you didn't answer the question didn't make your situation any worse.
I'm just in awe at they way you bring conceit and lack of reading comprehension together.
THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS RULING IS THAT NOT GIVING YOUR NAME, BY ITSELF IS AN ARRESTABLE OFFENSE EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE "PROBABLE CAUSE".
The police must merely "suspect" you of something. They need no compelling evidence. This ruling is specfically about cases where you could not have been arrested otherwise, because there is not sufficient evidence.
Try using some basic common sense.
However, I had an old Beetle and I had car stereo in it, but it was virtually unusable - the sound of the engine was just too loud to actually hear the music.
;)
No, what that means is that the stereo was TOO QUIET. What you needed was a more powerful stereo.
Not that I don't like the sound of my rotary engine at 7K RPM....
yeah leave your ipod in a cradle on your dashboard while you run into the WaWa... and maybe a wallet with $400 sticking out of it. at least in the glovebox you can secure it, and it's out of sight. it's marginally more secure, but someone not knowing it is in there is the best protection short of taking it with you every time you get out of the car.
PUT THE DOCK IN THE GLOVEBOX.
Come on, it's like adding 2+2.
Some of us who like to take corners fast, believe that ANY piece of factory equipment should be anchored down.
A rest stop in the middle of nowhere is really the last place you should lose situational awareness.
*rolls eyes*
Yes, you'd have to be absolutely crazy to do something like REST at a rest stop. A total madman even.
Jeezus fucking christ people, this is America. Yes, we have crime here, but it's not so bad that you can't pull into your average rest stop and take a nap, despite media fearmongering.
Look at it this way:
You're probably at LEAST as likely to get killed by a drunk driver out on the road in a given period of time, than you are to get attacked at a rest stop.
But hey why try to prevent the 10,000 times more likely case of you falling asleep and dying behind the wheel when there's a much less likely, but more dramatic way you might die?
BEHIND A STEERING WHEEL is the "last place you should lose situational awareness."
The argument of the Supreme Court is that your name doesn't incriminate you unless there are extenuating circumstances so asking you to identify yourself doesn't violate your 5th ammendment rights.
Right, but his point is their the supreme court has just made remaining silent an arrestable offense.
The police don't even need a "plausible" enough suspicion that you've comitted a crime to arrest you on. Their "suspicion" can be absolute B.S. but now they can arrest you just for not giving your name.
The ruling is just plain stupid. If they REALLY have good cause to believe you've commited a crime, they can arrest you whether you identifiy yourself or not.
on a completely unrelated note, if this thing is stolen, you might need to worry about an RIAA lawsuit for distributing copyrighted music....
And how is that going to work exactly?
Theif: "Hello, police, I stole this multi-thousand-dollar piece of equipment, a felony, but I was hoping you'd let me go if I turned this guy in for having mp3s."
Cop: "Why don't you come down to the station and we'll talk about it....."
I didn't get the choice of screening Ms. Janet's chest. That is why people were upset.
So Janet's dancing around doing a sexually suggestive dance, and 1/2 inch from naked, but you're upset that you didn't get a chance to stop your kid from seeing her nipple?
Come on!
YOU HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO TELL WHAT THAT DANCE WAS ABOUT.
JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU?
WERE THE LYRICS "have you naked by the end of this song" NOT A GOOD ENOUGH CLUE?
If you were worried about sexual content, you should have turned it off the second you heard those words. If you weren't worried about sexual content, and are only upset because an actual nipple was televised for two seconds, then you're freakin crazy anyways.
It's absolutely justified banning public statements like "All jews should be gased" or "All blacks should be hung" or "Our race should be cleansed".
No it's not.
It amazes me how people don't understand this. Germany makes itself CLOSER to Germany under Hitler, by banning "hate speech" than if the actually let their citizens have freedom of speech and THOUGHT.
The big problems don't happen when some minority states an unpopular viewpoint, THEY HAPPEN WHEN A MAJORITY DECIDES TO SUPPRESS OTHER VIEWPOINTS. Hitler was ELECTED by the people of Germany and began doing just that.
All laws like this do is build the framework for ANOTHER Hitler to build on.
The proper thing to do is to LIMIT government power, so that no matter who get's elected, they can't become the self-appointed thought-police. That was the real problem that let the Nazis take over. Hitler could have stood on a street corner and said whatever he wanted. The problem came when he was elected to office and took over the nation. The way to prevent another Hitler-like rise to power is not to ban the specfic ideas that Hitler held, but to ensure that the mechanisms the he used to take control cannot be used again. Giving the government power to ban the discussion of certain ideas is EXACTLY WHAT GERMANY SHOULD NOT BE DOING.
By no means do I think America is perfect, but the first amendment is something that we most definately got right. It amazes me that other states will even attempt to call themselves a "democracy", when you don't even have a right to your own viewpoint on a subject.
The internet by its very nature is not, and cannot be, under any government's jurisdiction to control content. Period. Let folks say what they want to say, and you always retain the freedom to read it or ignore it
Tell that to people in China.
Government censorship of the internet is a REAL possibility and must be guarded against.
There are plenty of scumbag governments and corporations *cough*cisco*cough* who are willing and able to make this happen if "good men do nothing".
(see subject)
This kind of shit just amazes me.
The whole point of freedom of speech is so that one isn't persecuted for UNPOPULAR ideas.
This stuff just makes me sick. It's never going to be illegal to say "I like pretty flowers." The whole reason we have freedom of speech it to protect ideas that others disagree with.
The government has no business regulating people's thoughts.
This type of law is a great example of the "harm principle" not being applied. I should be able to hate you. That's my right. What I shouldn't be able to do is gas a bunch of jews. That's infringing on the rights of others.
Laws like this are the first step towards yet another totalitarian, nazi-like regieme. First you put the goverment in charge of what is and is not acceptible public discourse. Next, the government abuses that power in ways you never imagined.
Good, good, a well-phrased counter-example is always helpful.
That post wasn't worthy of being treated seriously.
If I say "Off the top of my head...there's no such thing as gravity" it is sufficient to say I'm full of crap. It's common knowledge, and a well-reasoned argument wasn't made in the first place.
Heck there wasn't even an example given.
Semi-anonymous people on the internet who want to be taken seriously need to say a little more than "off the top of my head...."
Just for the record, Microsoft produced an antivirus program back in the DOS 6.2/Win 3.1 days. I, and many other people, wondered why they stopped when they released Win95.
Just for the record, that program was a total joke. It took something like 6 bytes of assembly code for a virus to disable it.
It was about as useful as a paper mache bullet-proof vest.
Seriously, I did my own independent test of MSAV, NAV, and F-PROT back in the day on a collection of 300 viruses. Both NAV and F-PROT found all but about ten. MSAV found ONLY ten (approximately).
That program was probably the most worthless Microsoft program I've ever seen.
I'm not sure whether I hope they get it right this time, or they mess up just as bad as last time. Maybe if they screw it up bad enough users will decide the Windows is "unfixable" since they already HAVE a virus scanner installed, and move on.
Does it run gcc?
Yep, and there's an Xserver for it too.
You signal/noise ratio WILL NEVER be limited in practice by the 112db of your cd.
Argh. Why are people modding this guy up when he doesn't know what he's talking about? I tried to point this out already, but here's the math to prove it.
You will NEVER get 112dB of dynamic range from a cd, let alone a 112 dB noise floor.
A CD is 16 bits. We'll use unsigned math for simplicity:
The range of values that can be stored with 16 bits is: 0-65535
The formula to convert intesity to decibels is:
dB = 20 log10 (V2/V1)
In this case:
dB = 20 log10 (65535/1) = 96.3 dB
SEE! THE TOTAL POSSIBLE DYNAMIC RANGE WITH 16 BITS IS 96 dB!
I was thinking something more like voiceprint.
In a war, you generally want to aviod making unnecessary noise. It can get you killed.
You could also use a camera with a fixed focal length to do a retinal scan, and include a white LED for a response test so it won't work if they're dead.
Or you could just use a password through the normal user interface of the device. No lenses to keep clean, etc, etc.
Biometrics are great for situations where a person does NOT want to be identified (finger prints at a crime scene), but I keep seeing them offered as a solution in places where they just don't make sense.
I understand your point, but I think sometimes the cost of computerizing something can be more than the benefit.
You WONT get 120db out of any high powered home stereo. 130 NO CHANCE IN HELL.
....So STFU
Wow! Way to be belligerent without having a fucking clue what you're talking about!
So make your math: If you are 2m from your speakers, you need 5kW sinus output of your amp to listen to your "quality"-musik.
Hello! Mcfly! Most of us don't listen to our music in an anechoic chamber!
95db/m*W (95 is a real upperlimit, only reachable by transmissionline boxes or other stuff)
This is total bullshit. 95 dB is most definately not a fundamental limit. Here's a link to a speaker with a 97 dBm @ 1 W, 1m efficiency for example. If you look around at professional PA speakers, you'll find plenty of them that beat your silly limit. There are tweeters and horns out there that do better than 100 dBm @ 1 W 1 m.
Look at the "Max. calculated SPL" field of the linked datasheet. See that? 128dB That's for one speaker. Add another speaker and there's your 130dB.
FYI, the SPL record for car audio is at over 170 dB at this point. Yes, that will kill you.
You signal/noise ratio WILL NEVER be limited in practice by the 112db of your cd.
SNR on a CD is nowhere near 112 dB.
It's around 90-something dB, due to quantitization noise. It isn't even POSSIBLE to linearly encode 112 dB of dynamic range using only 16 bits. Try the math.
Yes, theoretically you only need 2xBW (bandwidth), but anyone who actually works on this shit will tell you that they want more.
I think it's worth pointing out that the requirements for RECORDING and PLAYBACK are different.
In a recording studio 32bit, 192KHz, is great because the ANALOG filter that must used to stop out of band signals can be easily implemented, and the extra bits give you room to do all sorts of DSP.
On the playback side of things, you only need 24 bit, 44Khz. You don't need a "brickwall" filter on the output because you can upsample and filter the 44KHz stream before it hits your crappy analog output filter.
(You might run your output D/A at 192KHz, but the SOURCE media does not need to be at that sampling rate.)
Why do people assume that the people who designed CDDA were stupid? No amplifier/speaker/room combination at any price is accurate enough to resolve the resolution of CD audio. The air current around your ears is louder than the CD noise floor, and the human ear is not equipped to hear a 20khz tone.
I mostly agree with you, but I feel the need to point out that your "air current" description is way off. As someone who often likes his music LOUD, I feel compelled to point out the the usable dynamic range of the human ear is MUCH more that the ninety-something dB provided by CDs.
An expensive, high-powered stereo can hit 120-130 dB. This leaves you with 30dB of noise.
24-bit audio give you more like 140 dB of dynamic range, which allows your playback system to have a range much more in line with the actual capabilities of the human ear.
96KHz, on the other hand, only really makes sense on the RECORDING side of things, where and analog filter must be used that will block all frequencies above the sampling rate.
Also, it's worth pointing out that doing any sort of DSP on an audio signal in going to make you want even more bits of A/D so that the "rounding errors" that result stay down in the noise.