In a country with free press, that makes sense. If you don't prewrite stories, you get scooped by your competition. The Chinese have no such problems, they have complete control of the flow of information and could have published the news at their leisure.
Yes, there's always an exception. Records with strict stereo separation are hard to play on mono equipment, and most recording studios will try and make sure their records sound reasonable on the broadest range of playback equipment.
I have. Interestingly, the elements in an array are usually full-range loudspeaker cabinets (ignoring subwoofers for the moment). Again, it is physically impossible to take a recording that has two sopranoes on the same track, and seprarating that track into two individual voices. If you think otherwise, provide an example. JFGI isn't going to cut it.
Size isn't everything. The manufacturing process for two electronic gadgets could well be more resource-intensive than that for a CD with its jewel box.
you need different ranges assigned to different speakers that can give out that frequencies. but, there has to be more of the same speakers assigned to a particular frequency range - lets say, you got a certain size of tweeter. if there are 4 of this, and you divide a small incremental range of high frequency sound to four of these in small increments, you'll have, say, seperated two sopranos' (each soprano will have differences in their frequencies, even if minute and hardly identifiable by human ear) voices to two tweeters of the SAME kind, but while playing these two sopranos' voices, each of their voices will come from the different tweeters. this will increase the distinctiveness of each sound. here, the quality of the tweeters matter VERY much.
Nonsense. No audio system works like that. 1. you can't separate two voices or two instruments like this, because each voice produces a range of frequencies that mostly overlaps. They'll sound different because their harmonic spectrum (the relative volume of each harmonic) differs a bit, but there is no filter that can separate them. 2. A loudspeaker box usually contains a few drivers of different sizes, because the driver size needs to be matched more or less to the frequency. A 12" bass driver is too heavy to produce 10 kHz, conversely a 1" tweeter can't move enough air to produce convincing bass. The challenge is to use no more drivers than necessary, because dividing the frequency spectrum like this introduces all kinds of problems. The holy grail of loudspeaker design is the point source: a single point that can produce the entire spectrum.
The only reason loudspeaker arrays are used, is volume. Multiple parallel drivers can produce more volume than a single driver. There are some interesting side effects to arrays. The dispersion pattern changes a bit, which can be beneficial if done right. But 'a sound stage that encompasses you'? No. That's due to the surfeit of power which sets up reverberations in the hall. You get the same effect cranking up your non-array home stereo.
Stereo, for example, was invented to create more space for sounds in a recording.
No, it wasn't. Stereo is used to recreate the spatial component of music: when you record a number of instruments sitting at different positions in the studio, you should be able to hear where those instruments are. That has nothing to do with 'too many waveforms...cramped together on the same output'. In fact, in a stereo recording, most of the information will be played back by both speakers. It is possible to make a recording where the left and right channels have nothing in common, but you'll find that those sound very unnatural, so these recordings are (thankfully) rare. It's like having half the musicians on the far left of the stage, and the other half on the far right, with nobody in the center.
Apples and oranges. Surface vessels have lifeboats, for submarines there's the rescue vessels you mention, but until now, astronauts who stranded in space were SOL. NASA said in the past that should this happen, they'd take the next available shuttle and reassemble it as quickly as possible, but they recognized that this would probably be too late. With the Shuttle failure rate being what it is, having a second one on standby IMO isn't responding to hysteria, it's prudent. You'll notice submarines don't have a 1% failure rate. Also, it's not as if they're wasting resources. The standby shuttle will simply become the next mission.
The IOC controls olympics.com and currently redirects this to the Beijing site. If I wanted to know more about the games and needed to guess an URL, olympics.com comes to me easier than . In other words, they don't need Chicago2016.com for any purpose other than to control all domain names possibly associated with the Olympic Games.
If falling over is a hazard, why not fit the bike with more gears? Surely the weight of a derailleur and 2 extra gears is insignificant, top speed being bounded by drag rather than weight.
Reviews: how not to write them
on
Plane Simple Truth
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Starting your review with a convoluted first paragraph chock-full of double negatives and irrelevant references is a Bad Idea. I had to read it three times before I figured out which book was being reviewed and what the reviewer thought of it.
The review also takes whatever this book says as gospel. How do we know that this book is any more correct than the studies it tries to debunk?
'A few hundred feet' is highly optimistic, I suspect. And if you get to that depth with a missile, there's not much chance of soil from that depth getting to the surface (and even less that the original depth of the debris can be identified). Percussive science has its uses, but this isn't it. To get soil samples from deeper than a few meters, you need a drilling rig that's larger than can be launched by current rockets.
Right, replace a wasteful solution with an even more wasteful one. Running a 500W power supply to supply maybe 20 W on average, dumping another 20W into resistors plus the internal losses of the power supply. It also won't take up less space than the wall warts you replace, plus it requires active cooling (another component to go wrong in the long term, and drive you crazy with noise in the meantime).
Also, you hardly ever need to charge all your gadgets at once, making your concerns a bit unlikely. And if you overload the USB on a computer, you get a message and the offending port is cut off, instead of smoking the power supply. If you need more power, get a powered hub.
half of the high-end EVs that are either already on the market or coming out in the next year or two?
An $100k car isn't an option for the average family. Less so when it's a 2-seater sportscar. Tesla has optimized for speed and range at the expense of interior volume, for a family car that compromise works the other way. The other 4 you mention are at the prototype stage, i.e. mostly vaporware.
if they'd chosen the Discworld version of teleportation: two objects have to be teleported simultaneously in opposite directions, and the weight difference determines the exit speed of the lighter object.
There's no need for conspiracy theories at this point. Electric cars are constrained by real-world problems enough as it is. Batteries are space-inefficient and don't provide enough power to make a fast car that has a decent range.
From 1982 to about 1990, the Group C prototypes ran with regulations that basically allowed any engine as long as the fuel consumption didn't exceed ~60 l/100 km. Then the FIA fucked up and changed the rules to mandate F1-style engines, ending the series' popularity. There were a few races that ended in drama as the leading competitor ran out of fuel, but on the whole it was rather successful, with wildly disparate cars running very close races. You saw 7-litre naturally aspirated V12s, 5-litre turbocharged V8s, 3-litre turbocharged flat-6s and Wankel engines. It'd be interesting to see a revival of this idea. More interesting than a fuel cell-only class, I'd wager.
When asked to describe the process she says "To pattern the cell we spray on something like nail polish and then inkjet print a kind of nail polish remover which lets us etch certain parts of the wafer. This creates a metallisation pattern so we can deposit aluminium on the back surface of the solar cell and create our metal contacts to both the P and N-type silicon simultaneously using a very cheap, low temperature pizza oven! And hey presto we've created a simple, low-cost solar cell without having to use expensive high tech equipment or high temperature processes!"
Slashdot Mirror
In a country with free press, that makes sense. If you don't prewrite stories, you get scooped by your competition. The Chinese have no such problems, they have complete control of the flow of information and could have published the news at their leisure.
Yes, there's always an exception. Records with strict stereo separation are hard to play on mono equipment, and most recording studios will try and make sure their records sound reasonable on the broadest range of playback equipment.
I have. Interestingly, the elements in an array are usually full-range loudspeaker cabinets (ignoring subwoofers for the moment). Again, it is physically impossible to take a recording that has two sopranoes on the same track, and seprarating that track into two individual voices. If you think otherwise, provide an example. JFGI isn't going to cut it.
Care to provide proof? What you suggest is impossible.
Size isn't everything. The manufacturing process for two electronic gadgets could well be more resource-intensive than that for a CD with its jewel box.
you need different ranges assigned to different speakers that can give out that frequencies. but, there has to be more of the same speakers assigned to a particular frequency range - lets say, you got a certain size of tweeter. if there are 4 of this, and you divide a small incremental range of high frequency sound to four of these in small increments, you'll have, say, seperated two sopranos' (each soprano will have differences in their frequencies, even if minute and hardly identifiable by human ear) voices to two tweeters of the SAME kind, but while playing these two sopranos' voices, each of their voices will come from the different tweeters. this will increase the distinctiveness of each sound. here, the quality of the tweeters matter VERY much.
Nonsense. No audio system works like that.
1. you can't separate two voices or two instruments like this, because each voice produces a range of frequencies that mostly overlaps. They'll sound different because their harmonic spectrum (the relative volume of each harmonic) differs a bit, but there is no filter that can separate them.
2. A loudspeaker box usually contains a few drivers of different sizes, because the driver size needs to be matched more or less to the frequency. A 12" bass driver is too heavy to produce 10 kHz, conversely a 1" tweeter can't move enough air to produce convincing bass. The challenge is to use no more drivers than necessary, because dividing the frequency spectrum like this introduces all kinds of problems. The holy grail of loudspeaker design is the point source: a single point that can produce the entire spectrum.
The only reason loudspeaker arrays are used, is volume. Multiple parallel drivers can produce more volume than a single driver.
There are some interesting side effects to arrays. The dispersion pattern changes a bit, which can be beneficial if done right. But 'a sound stage that encompasses you'? No. That's due to the surfeit of power which sets up reverberations in the hall. You get the same effect cranking up your non-array home stereo.
Stereo, for example, was invented to create more space for sounds in a recording.
No, it wasn't. Stereo is used to recreate the spatial component of music: when you record a number of instruments sitting at different positions in the studio, you should be able to hear where those instruments are. That has nothing to do with 'too many waveforms ...cramped together on the same output'.
In fact, in a stereo recording, most of the information will be played back by both speakers.
It is possible to make a recording where the left and right channels have nothing in common, but you'll find that those sound very unnatural, so these recordings are (thankfully) rare. It's like having half the musicians on the far left of the stage, and the other half on the far right, with nobody in the center.
Apples and oranges. Surface vessels have lifeboats, for submarines there's the rescue vessels you mention, but until now, astronauts who stranded in space were SOL. NASA said in the past that should this happen, they'd take the next available shuttle and reassemble it as quickly as possible, but they recognized that this would probably be too late. With the Shuttle failure rate being what it is, having a second one on standby IMO isn't responding to hysteria, it's prudent. You'll notice submarines don't have a 1% failure rate.
Also, it's not as if they're wasting resources. The standby shuttle will simply become the next mission.
The IOC controls olympics.com and currently redirects this to the Beijing site. If I wanted to know more about the games and needed to guess an URL, olympics.com comes to me easier than .
In other words, they don't need Chicago2016.com for any purpose other than to control all domain names possibly associated with the Olympic Games.
If falling over is a hazard, why not fit the bike with more gears? Surely the weight of a derailleur and 2 extra gears is insignificant, top speed being bounded by drag rather than weight.
Starting your review with a convoluted first paragraph chock-full of double negatives and irrelevant references is a Bad Idea. I had to read it three times before I figured out which book was being reviewed and what the reviewer thought of it.
The review also takes whatever this book says as gospel. How do we know that this book is any more correct than the studies it tries to debunk?
instead of bloggy blather, you can go to the source.
'A few hundred feet' is highly optimistic, I suspect. And if you get to that depth with a missile, there's not much chance of soil from that depth getting to the surface (and even less that the original depth of the debris can be identified). Percussive science has its uses, but this isn't it.
To get soil samples from deeper than a few meters, you need a drilling rig that's larger than can be launched by current rockets.
So go to your Preferences page, and set modifiers for the various categories.
And if you object, they'll come in again.
no one hijacked the word.
What else would you call using a word that means X and subvert it to Y instead?
If you meant stoned, why not say that in the first place? Stop hijacking random words!
but does it also prevent tabs from hogging resources (e.g. in Firefox, where an applet loading in one tab can lock the entire application).
Right, replace a wasteful solution with an even more wasteful one. Running a 500W power supply to supply maybe 20 W on average, dumping another 20W into resistors plus the internal losses of the power supply. It also won't take up less space than the wall warts you replace, plus it requires active cooling (another component to go wrong in the long term, and drive you crazy with noise in the meantime).
Also, you hardly ever need to charge all your gadgets at once, making your concerns a bit unlikely. And if you overload the USB on a computer, you get a message and the offending port is cut off, instead of smoking the power supply. If you need more power, get a powered hub.
half of the high-end EVs that are either already on the market or coming out in the next year or two?
An $100k car isn't an option for the average family. Less so when it's a 2-seater sportscar. Tesla has optimized for speed and range at the expense of interior volume, for a family car that compromise works the other way. The other 4 you mention are at the prototype stage, i.e. mostly vaporware.
if they'd chosen the Discworld version of teleportation: two objects have to be teleported simultaneously in opposite directions, and the weight difference determines the exit speed of the lighter object.
There's no need for conspiracy theories at this point. Electric cars are constrained by real-world problems enough as it is. Batteries are space-inefficient and don't provide enough power to make a fast car that has a decent range.
From 1982 to about 1990, the Group C prototypes ran with regulations that basically allowed any engine as long as the fuel consumption didn't exceed ~60 l/100 km. Then the FIA fucked up and changed the rules to mandate F1-style engines, ending the series' popularity.
There were a few races that ended in drama as the leading competitor ran out of fuel, but on the whole it was rather successful, with wildly disparate cars running very close races. You saw 7-litre naturally aspirated V12s, 5-litre turbocharged V8s, 3-litre turbocharged flat-6s and Wankel engines.
It'd be interesting to see a revival of this idea. More interesting than a fuel cell-only class, I'd wager.
When asked to describe the process she says "To pattern the cell we spray on something like nail polish and then inkjet print a kind of nail polish remover which lets us etch certain parts of the wafer. This creates a metallisation pattern so we can deposit aluminium on the back surface of the solar cell and create our metal contacts to both the P and N-type silicon simultaneously using a very cheap, low temperature pizza oven! And hey presto we've created a simple, low-cost solar cell without having to use expensive high tech equipment or high temperature processes!"
(from here)
Aaaaaughhhhhh!
Condescend much?