Engine power controls thrust. Pitch changes the angle of attack. The lift equation depends on terms of velocity and coefficient of lift. The velocity is a complex function of thrust and drag; coefficient of lift varies linearly with angle of attach (pitch).
Trying to isolate the factors is fine for a schoolbook discussion of flying, but in real aircraft real pilots control both power and pitch to achieve the desired climb or descent at the desired airspeed. Yes, they may have rules of thumb for specific situations, like pulling the throttle back to 1700 RPM from cruise at approach speed will give the correct rate of descent for an ILS approach. What is forgotten in that process is that the aircraft also changes pitch when the thrust is reduced, changing the coefficient of lift and thus the overall lift.
And sadly for your statement, yes, indeed, both the cyclic and the collective in a helicopter do not control the throttle and thus the "engine power", it changes the pitch of the blades, either collectively (for "up/down") or during parts of the rotational cycle ("left/right" or "forward/back"). The blades do not change speed except due to the change in drag, and the pilot has to adjust the throttle to account for the decrease in the vertical component of lift as the aircraft tilts or rolls.
Quad drones, OTH, must use engine power to control lift because they do not have pitch to rely on.
Simple, inexpensive propellers rather than one or two massive, complex rotor(s)
Inexpensive enough and still sturdy enough to be safe?
An issue with using quad copters as a model is the problem of scaling up. Changing lift to create directionality and stability requires either 1) changing pitch, which makes for horribly expensive, failure-prone rotors like current helicopters have, or 2) change in rotational velocity, which means your engine has to provide enough torque to overcome inertia and change rotational speeds quickly enough to maintain control.
This is why fixed wing aircraft win. They are built with dihedral in the wings to create inherent stability, and use pitch changes to increase or decrease lift. Since they aren't kept balanced in the air by fine-tuning multiple lift sources, they can get away with relatively slow changes in lift.
And when you increase lift and size you increase drag. A vehicle capable of lifting significant weight will be spending a lot of it's motor's energy in overcoming that drag in just the rotors.
Why does his pacemaker report/record anything that isn't an emergency or suspect of one?
So that his cardiologist can monitor his condition and pacemaker response to ensure it is working properly and providing the services necessary to keep him alive and well. Its the same reason a diabetic monitors his blood sugar levels. (When on a fixed medication plan, you don't monitor to decide how much insulin to use, you monitor to know if the fixed levels are right. A blood test gives you current sugar levels and an average level (through A1C), but won't tell if you are spiking extremely high or dropping low at times.)
If all you record is the emergencies, then you miss all the times when it is marginally operational but still functioning, or when it is not providing sufficient services such that the patient self-limits his activity to stay within device limits.
And they didn't use a notch filter for blocking that
Yes, in many systems they used a trap to block the pay services like HBO -- until there became so many of them that individual traps became a logistical nightmare. Also, people learned how to defeat the traps (remove or deactivate).
That's what led to the sync-suppressed or sync-inverted scrambling systems that were applied later. Those could still be defeated with a bit more technical knowledge, however.
I thought about that when I made my response. Actually, the cable box is not a trap or combiner because it also decodes the signal and presents one output at a time. A trap or combiner would remove the unwanted or unbought signals and allow the remaining signals to pass in to whatever other device would use them, such as an ATV-capable TV or VCR. Because it includes the tuning function as well as the selection function, it isn't the answer being sought.
You could do it exactly the same way the cable companies did it for analog cable: by putting filters on the line.
How do you trap out one channel but not another, when they are both carried on the same data stream?
Now, if you wanted to argue that they should have left the basic cable tier unencrypted, I'd go along with you on that. They CAN trap "cable" vs. "internet", so they can provide service in a way that if you have cable AT ALL you get the basic tier (which everyone gets who is buying cable) in clearQAM. The excuse for not using traps for this? "We have found cases where people can watch the video even with a trap in place." Amazing. When I pointed out that it is impossible to receive a signal that isn't perfect and that nobody could coerce a TV that can't decode the clearQAM signal into showing anything, he had no answer.
They were just too goddamn cheap
The cost of keeping a trap system in place is very high, so yes, they were "too cheap" to keep paying a ton of money to do it. Not only was it a maintenance nightmare (sending a truck out every time someone wanted to turn a service on or off), it led to an inability to prosecute cable thieves. The practice called "pencil whip disconnect" (disconnecting service by simply checking the box on the dispatch form that said "disconnected" and doing nothing else) meant that there was reasonable doubt whenever a cable thief was taken to court. "We moved in and found it this way, we thought it was part of the rent."
Of course, digitally-switched traps or combiners could do it too (if they exist or could be made to exist).
The price would be outrageous. And people would do what they did with traps -- remove them. Or some smart guy learned you could drill a small hole all the way through the trap and insert a wire, and then put the trap back and nobody could see it wasn't working.
Since CableCard never really worked out,
I have two. They aren't working out? (Actually three, but one is in a cable box that doesn't have service enabled.)
Simply not possible to do well in HD with any current provider (without DMCA violations anyway).
Interesting. One of the cable cards that isn't working out is in a Silicon Dust three receiver unit, and I have no problems recording HD content off of it. Is it done well? I don't know. It appears to be recording full bitrate signal, including captions. The files are huge for long programs.
The fact is, they already implemented it once. They can always do it again.
Unfortunately, this removes the ability to manage their channel space. When individual traps were used, channels were analog and didn't move around much, if at all. If you blocked "channel 65" to stop someone from getting free HBO, that was it.
Today channels can move around on a regular basis, putting something that will need more bandwidth on a "channel" where there is extra, combining similar services, etc. This is all managed by the boxes who are told what lives where.
Anyone who has had to rescan the system on their TV with clear-QAM knows this. Of course, now that it is almost all encrypted digital you don't scan the system with your TV anymore, so it is less visible when things change.
The installer put one on mine when I signed up for Internet-only service to block the Clear-QAM local channels.
Yes, since internet and cable are two different things, in two different frequency bands, using a trap is a good way of solving this problem. But using a trap to block just "HBO" or sports packages won't be practical today.
According to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, a 44.1 kHz sample rate can perfectly reproduce analog signals that are bandwidth limited to a range between 0 and 22.05 kHz.
Frequency is only part of it. Try getting flawless reproduction of a 1kHz 2mV P-P sine wave using a 5V 10 bit ADC no matter what your sampling frequency is.
I can quite confidently state that the very first CDs I ever bought still work 100% with no issues. So I can't understand the claim of CDs dying in 15 years.
The CD of old was produced by making dimples in an aluminum layer. It is very hard for such dimples to just disappear.
Modern CDs, for the most part, are CD-R. They are made by bleaching a photosensitive dye to create bits, using a laser. This is a chemical reaction. Excess heat, and even just time, can cause the unbleached dye to fade.
Yes, when someone is making 100,000 copies, it pays to send the ISO off to a CD foundry and have them pressed the old way. When you're backing up your computer, or making a mix-CD, only a fool uses anything but the -R version.
Old CDs are safe for a very long time. Modern ones are relatively short-lived. Learning to trust CDs based on aluminum ones and then expecting dye-based CD-R to live so long is a recipe for disaster.
You. From you I should expect ignorance all the time.
And your forte is personal insult.
If you record a sound using digital recording and storage, is pointless to make a LP using this digital source,
Unless the consumer wants to buy an LP. I'll say it again since you missed it the first time: the format used to sell the content has nothing to do with the formats used to produce it.
The format for the final product depends nothing on the source, but only on the convenience and desires of the customer. Some people liked the 8-track tape format because it was convenient. Some like 1/4" cassette. Some like vinyl. Some like CDs. Some like only SACD. Some like MP3 files. Some people are satisfied to hear the content on FM radio. The takeaway lesson from this is that people will sacrifice purity and accuracy of reproduction for convenience. To tell them that they must accept only the most pure and precise format for obtaining content is arrogant and stupid. (And CD isn't the best, by the way.)
you should use a CD to storing digital sound.
If the only concern was how to store the sound, you'd still be amazingly wrong. If you have digital sound, how you store it depends on how often you need to access it. In that equation CD always loses -- capacity is low and physical medium management is poor. It is also becoming obsolete. A DVD is marginally better. Short term storage should be on disk (fast, random-access), archiving on a digital tape (LTO, etc.) CDs are ungainly, hard to manage, and limited in size.
Is the only thing I will say to you.
I pray that is true, but will not bet even $10 on it.
if you put any digital processing in the process then it will not make sense to record an LP.
The format for sales to the consumer as nothing to do with the format used to record and process the sound.
Using your argument, if you put any digital processing in the process it will not make sense to distribute the music at all, because at a minimum, at the end of the chain from producer to consumer is the analog human ear.
What I want is to know when 3D printing will take over the time consuming pressing process and we can all make LPs at home.
Bullshit Potsy. How the fuck do you lose information in an analog medium!
Well, for vinyl records, you have a physical limitation on the ability of the stylus to follow the track, you're mixing both L and R into one physical track, and you have to apply an equalization step to deal with the response of the stylus and track width.
There is a natural limit to the level of bass in an LP based on the resonances of the system, as well. I had one pressing of "Hot Rod Lincoln" that has a very high bass level in the opening, and you could hear the bounce of the stylus trying to follow it.
For digital, when you sample above the Nyquist frequency, you lose only the frequencies above half the sampling frequency. So, with a 44.1kHz sample rate you lose above 22.05kHz, which most people cannot hear anyway. But you don't have the physical limit of the vinyl, and your dynamic range is limited only by the number of bits you digitize with. If you want better than 20kHz, go to SACD.
It clearly does not support what you were saying. You claimed we knew it was probably going to get warmer. And yet, we KNEW it was going to get colder. At least some people knew. That was the point. What we know today isn't necessarily the truth.
Maybe Zuck anticipated a fight no matter where he bought property and that property is worth fighting for.
The fight is not over the 700 acres that he actually bought*. It is over 8 acres that he did NOT buy, but wants to own so that he can have one huge private place all to himself without having to allow anyone else an easement to get to the property they own.
I am high, but if I were him, I would buy a small plot of land in the middle of it
Is 700 acres not large enough to do that?
I would manipulate the lava flows so they cut off access to anyone who didn't have a helicopter to get there.
Is it not an even douche-baggier thing to do to dump lava onto someone else's property to keep them off of it, than to buy up every piece of surrounding property and try to prevent their access by blocking the easements that are required to prevent just such a thing?
* although the article reference this time does talk about a great deal of displeasure from the locals about a wall he built along one side of that land.
I notice that the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" has over-extended their reach into opinions on climate science, I just dismiss their standing on the matter. They are not climate scientists.
We really didn't understand what was going to happen with the climate in the 1960s. We knew it was probably going to get warmer,
Really? Warmer huh? The TRUTH is that in the 60's and 70's we though it was going to get COLDER. We THOUGHT we understood the system then, just like we think we understand it today. You might want to refresh yourself on what the facts are.
There's much more opportunity for nukes to actually get used nowadays,
I think having an actual crisis with an armed, nuclear nation (USSR) just 90 miles from our own borders (Cuba) where we were conducting an actual military operation is a lot closer to a crisis than just "India has a nuke and might be stupid enough to use it, wow!".
The first five nuclear powers had a lot to lose in a nuclear exchange,
The question is what happens when this chain of involvement leads to each side having a nuclear-armed power.
You mean like in the Korean conflict, where the US and China exchanged multiple rounds of nuclear missiles, decimating a large part of the Chinese and US landscape and making much of the south Pacific region uninhabitable?
Or the Vietnam War, where a similar round of nuclear cataclysm made Australia, New Zealand, the Phillipines, and Hawaii into vast wastelands of radioactive fallout?
Or the Malvinas, I mean Falklands, where Great Britain lobbed a couple of gigaton nukes into Argentina to get them to back off?
Human life is a bit less certain.
It is a great shame that the alleged capability of that species to build tools and adapt to their environment will simply cease to exist because OMG DJT.
Really? We are now in more danger of all-out nuclear war than during Cuban Missile Crisis?
The position of the clock was not changed during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
He didn't say they did. He asked if we are really in more danger now than during the crisis when Russia was actually putting live nuclear missiles a very short distance off our shores.
From the Bulletin's timeline page, we were 7 minutes away in 1960 (before the crisis), and 12 minutes away in 1963 (after). Today, we are supposedly 2.5 minutes away. The clock is set to indicate that we are in much more danger of an all-out nuclear war today than when Russia was putting nukes on an island run by a dictator in Russia's pocket that was just a couple of minutes (90 miles) from the US, and the US was conducting a naval blockade of that island.
I remember the tension back then, the concern that it would turn into war. It was a major issue and a very very major danger that Cuba or Russia would continue and 1962 would end in hostilities.
In addition, the clock was not changed in April of 1961 when the failed invasion of the Bay of Pigs happened, which was a major impetus for the later missile crisis.
Having the clock one third of the distance today than during that time of active political hostility and military action is just pathetic, and is an irrational demonstration of a political hatred, not a scientific fact. The clock's position is not one of serious analysis of threat, it's based on "OMG DJT and we hates The Donald...". Just one factor that is being ignored in this "analysis" is that the proposed Secretary of State has worked with and knows the Russian leadership, so he understands them better than HRC ever could. But because he actually knows them he's a bad choice, as if we should select someone who has read books and briefing papers about the Russians but never spoken to them personally.
It is propaganda promoting fear and hatred, and if it were a conservative organization doing it towards the previous President there would be a public outcry of "racism".
The excuse from their FAQ page is nonsense. "We didn't know it was happening, so we didn't change the clock"? Head in the sand. And they ignored the Bay of Pigs which was more than a year prior to the missile crisis. They can't claim they didn't know that happened.
It is one thing to analyze risk in solid, scientific, quantifiable terms, and another thing altogether to analyze risk as "OMG DJT!".
The "atomic scientists" are expressing their political opinions, and now they're including "climate change" in that metric. I could point out that none of them are climate scientists, which is one of the standard methods of discounting any disagreement about the consensus from other scientists who aren't "climate scientists". If not being a climate scientist means you have nothing of value to add to the debate about climate science, then that applies both ways.
He is buying the island on the open market from willing sellers.
From the source article:
The Facebook CEO now says he is "reconsidering"a set of lawsuits that he recently filed to compel hundreds of Hawaiians to sell him small plots of land they own that lie within his 700-acre beachfront property on the island of Kauai.
Which part of "compel" means "willing" to you? Is armed robbery not robbery because the original owners of the money were "willing donors" after being compelled at gunpoint?
What is he supposed to do otherwise, do a complete genealogy work up on everyone who ever had a title and personally ask their prodigy if they would like to make a claim of ownership?
How about he accepts the fact that he bought 700 acres with an 8 acre part in the middle that he did NOT buy, and that he has no more claim to that land than anyone else, and has no right to tell anyone, either directly or through a court, "either step up and claim it or I get it by default"?
Buying 700 acres and then taking the part you didn't buy through legal action is sleazy.
Or are you claiming that he didn't know there was this 8 acre part of land he didn't actually buy?
And yes, I find the legal process of serving notice of lawsuits via publishing them in tiny print in the classified ad section of a newspaper just as sleazy. There's a local free weekly that makes a lot of money from carrying those ads, and if you don't happen to pick one up every week and look through it, you may miss the fact that you are being sued.
"Chicken in every pot" is older than I am. "Everyone should be afford to own a home" is at least as old.
Both are relatively recent, especially when you are claiming "centuries".
You have no sense of history.
'A chicken in every pot' was a 40's or 50's concept. "Everyone owns a house" is an 80's or so concept, supported by the CRA and other legislation dealing with banks and loan practices.
During the mortgage bubble, mortgage companies sprang up that would issue a mortgage and immediately sell it to someone.
Of course they would. They have to have the money to loan if they are going to make loans. If all their money is tied up in existing loans, what money do they loan out?
This means that banks were deliberately buying bad loans of their own free will.
Right. Because the CRA didn't exist.
They weren't picky about who they issued mortgages to,
Right. As an obvious consequence of the CRA and legal atmosphere of the times. To claim that banks were loaning so they could foreclose is just ridiculous. Foreclosures are one of the most expensive ways of making money. It's much cheaper to make good loans at a reasonable rate and get all your money plus interest back without having to go through all the legal hassle of a foreclosure and hope you can resell the property.
I don't really care to acquire and read a book when it's pushed on the grounds that what I saw with my own eyes is false.
GM isn't a bank. What you saw with your own eyes was exactly in line with CRA requirements that the banks were being saddled with. But you have to know that the CRA and other regulations exist before you would know that.
I guess you have a memory issue. Look back up where it was suggested you might accept a slightly lower margin and how you replied.
I know exactly how I replied and it has nothing to do with a minimum wage changing from $9.99/hr to $10/hr. The 'reduced margin' refers to profit margin not a 'reduced margin' increase in minimum wage.
I guess you have a reading comprehension issue, or a bug up a part of your anatomy.
In other words, kids are just like they've been for centuries.
No, not really. It's been relatively recent that "chicken in every pot" and "everyone should be able to afford a house" has taken over.
There were no banking regulations enforcing bad loans.
You are completely ignorant of the purpose and the result of the Community Reinvestment Act and all following legislation regarding it, then. The CRA was federal law that brought strict federal oversite to banks and who and how they made loans. It is the CRA and similar legislation that "community activists" used as bludgeons to force banks into essentially removing financial considerations in approving loans.
Remember the term "redlining"? It was the term used against banks who didn't approve enough loans in certain parts of the community. You know, like a low income part of town where there was a high percentage of people who really couldn't afford a home loan so they were being turned down. But the CRA and federal regulators prohibited such statistical anomalies, and that's how the legislation was enforced. Nobody looked at the individual loans that were approved or turned down to see why, it was a percentage game. The percentage of previously ineligible borrowers didn't change, but the percentage of loans had to go up. (And this is exactly the same way that Title IX "violations" are determined. If you don't have the same percentage of boys and girls playing sports in your high school, you are in violation. It doesn't matter if the girls don't want to play sports. It doesn't matter if you have to cancel boys sports to make the numbers balance, just as long as the numbers balance.)
Why do you ignore the fact that a loan officer who was presented with an application from someone who had little or no down payment, no steady income, and little prospect for future income was pressured into approving the loan to keep the feds off the bank's back? Do you REALLY think that banks wanted ARMs where they got almost no return on the money and every likelyhood that when the balloon came due they would be stuck with a foreclosure? If you do, then you really don't understand why banks make loans in the first place.
There were lots of banks that thought that a mortgage that was certain to be defaulted on was an asset,
Oh, don't be stupid. Banks didn't want loans that they knew would go into default. It costs a lot of money to clean every one of those loans up. They LOSE money on those loans. They only reason they BECAME an asset was because they were forced to make those loans and because that money was tied up in the loan they couldn't make other, better loans. They had to sell the bad loans. It's an OBVIOUS result of making bad loans. Everybody but Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd knew this, and I suspect that they knew but didn't care. Remember, Frank is the fellow who claimed there was no problem in FNMA well after everyone with a brain saw how the market was collapsing, and Bush wanted to put regulations in place to limit the impact.
You might want to read up on the situation. "Architects of Ruin" by Peter Schweizer covers it pretty well. If you really want to know what happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Engine power controls thrust. Pitch changes the angle of attack. The lift equation depends on terms of velocity and coefficient of lift. The velocity is a complex function of thrust and drag; coefficient of lift varies linearly with angle of attach (pitch).
Trying to isolate the factors is fine for a schoolbook discussion of flying, but in real aircraft real pilots control both power and pitch to achieve the desired climb or descent at the desired airspeed. Yes, they may have rules of thumb for specific situations, like pulling the throttle back to 1700 RPM from cruise at approach speed will give the correct rate of descent for an ILS approach. What is forgotten in that process is that the aircraft also changes pitch when the thrust is reduced, changing the coefficient of lift and thus the overall lift.
And sadly for your statement, yes, indeed, both the cyclic and the collective in a helicopter do not control the throttle and thus the "engine power", it changes the pitch of the blades, either collectively (for "up/down") or during parts of the rotational cycle ("left/right" or "forward/back"). The blades do not change speed except due to the change in drag, and the pilot has to adjust the throttle to account for the decrease in the vertical component of lift as the aircraft tilts or rolls.
Quad drones, OTH, must use engine power to control lift because they do not have pitch to rely on.
Simple, inexpensive propellers rather than one or two massive, complex rotor(s)
Inexpensive enough and still sturdy enough to be safe?
An issue with using quad copters as a model is the problem of scaling up. Changing lift to create directionality and stability requires either 1) changing pitch, which makes for horribly expensive, failure-prone rotors like current helicopters have, or 2) change in rotational velocity, which means your engine has to provide enough torque to overcome inertia and change rotational speeds quickly enough to maintain control.
This is why fixed wing aircraft win. They are built with dihedral in the wings to create inherent stability, and use pitch changes to increase or decrease lift. Since they aren't kept balanced in the air by fine-tuning multiple lift sources, they can get away with relatively slow changes in lift.
And when you increase lift and size you increase drag. A vehicle capable of lifting significant weight will be spending a lot of it's motor's energy in overcoming that drag in just the rotors.
Why does his pacemaker report/record anything that isn't an emergency or suspect of one?
So that his cardiologist can monitor his condition and pacemaker response to ensure it is working properly and providing the services necessary to keep him alive and well. Its the same reason a diabetic monitors his blood sugar levels. (When on a fixed medication plan, you don't monitor to decide how much insulin to use, you monitor to know if the fixed levels are right. A blood test gives you current sugar levels and an average level (through A1C), but won't tell if you are spiking extremely high or dropping low at times.)
If all you record is the emergencies, then you miss all the times when it is marginally operational but still functioning, or when it is not providing sufficient services such that the patient self-limits his activity to stay within device limits.
the argument that an elevated heart rate right before a fire started is evidence of arson. My heart rate would be elevated too if I saw/smelled smoke.
How exactly do you smell the smoke from a fire before the fire has started? ESP?
And they didn't use a notch filter for blocking that
Yes, in many systems they used a trap to block the pay services like HBO -- until there became so many of them that individual traps became a logistical nightmare. Also, people learned how to defeat the traps (remove or deactivate).
That's what led to the sync-suppressed or sync-inverted scrambling systems that were applied later. Those could still be defeated with a bit more technical knowledge, however.
They do exist. They are called cable boxes.
I thought about that when I made my response. Actually, the cable box is not a trap or combiner because it also decodes the signal and presents one output at a time. A trap or combiner would remove the unwanted or unbought signals and allow the remaining signals to pass in to whatever other device would use them, such as an ATV-capable TV or VCR. Because it includes the tuning function as well as the selection function, it isn't the answer being sought.
You could do it exactly the same way the cable companies did it for analog cable: by putting filters on the line.
How do you trap out one channel but not another, when they are both carried on the same data stream?
Now, if you wanted to argue that they should have left the basic cable tier unencrypted, I'd go along with you on that. They CAN trap "cable" vs. "internet", so they can provide service in a way that if you have cable AT ALL you get the basic tier (which everyone gets who is buying cable) in clearQAM. The excuse for not using traps for this? "We have found cases where people can watch the video even with a trap in place." Amazing. When I pointed out that it is impossible to receive a signal that isn't perfect and that nobody could coerce a TV that can't decode the clearQAM signal into showing anything, he had no answer.
They were just too goddamn cheap
The cost of keeping a trap system in place is very high, so yes, they were "too cheap" to keep paying a ton of money to do it. Not only was it a maintenance nightmare (sending a truck out every time someone wanted to turn a service on or off), it led to an inability to prosecute cable thieves. The practice called "pencil whip disconnect" (disconnecting service by simply checking the box on the dispatch form that said "disconnected" and doing nothing else) meant that there was reasonable doubt whenever a cable thief was taken to court. "We moved in and found it this way, we thought it was part of the rent."
Of course, digitally-switched traps or combiners could do it too (if they exist or could be made to exist).
The price would be outrageous. And people would do what they did with traps -- remove them. Or some smart guy learned you could drill a small hole all the way through the trap and insert a wire, and then put the trap back and nobody could see it wasn't working.
Since CableCard never really worked out,
I have two. They aren't working out? (Actually three, but one is in a cable box that doesn't have service enabled.)
Simply not possible to do well in HD with any current provider (without DMCA violations anyway).
Interesting. One of the cable cards that isn't working out is in a Silicon Dust three receiver unit, and I have no problems recording HD content off of it. Is it done well? I don't know. It appears to be recording full bitrate signal, including captions. The files are huge for long programs.
The fact is, they already implemented it once. They can always do it again.
Unfortunately, this removes the ability to manage their channel space. When individual traps were used, channels were analog and didn't move around much, if at all. If you blocked "channel 65" to stop someone from getting free HBO, that was it.
Today channels can move around on a regular basis, putting something that will need more bandwidth on a "channel" where there is extra, combining similar services, etc. This is all managed by the boxes who are told what lives where.
Anyone who has had to rescan the system on their TV with clear-QAM knows this. Of course, now that it is almost all encrypted digital you don't scan the system with your TV anymore, so it is less visible when things change.
The installer put one on mine when I signed up for Internet-only service to block the Clear-QAM local channels.
Yes, since internet and cable are two different things, in two different frequency bands, using a trap is a good way of solving this problem. But using a trap to block just "HBO" or sports packages won't be practical today.
According to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, a 44.1 kHz sample rate can perfectly reproduce analog signals that are bandwidth limited to a range between 0 and 22.05 kHz.
Frequency is only part of it. Try getting flawless reproduction of a 1kHz 2mV P-P sine wave using a 5V 10 bit ADC no matter what your sampling frequency is.
I can quite confidently state that the very first CDs I ever bought still work 100% with no issues. So I can't understand the claim of CDs dying in 15 years.
The CD of old was produced by making dimples in an aluminum layer. It is very hard for such dimples to just disappear.
Modern CDs, for the most part, are CD-R. They are made by bleaching a photosensitive dye to create bits, using a laser. This is a chemical reaction. Excess heat, and even just time, can cause the unbleached dye to fade.
Yes, when someone is making 100,000 copies, it pays to send the ISO off to a CD foundry and have them pressed the old way. When you're backing up your computer, or making a mix-CD, only a fool uses anything but the -R version.
Old CDs are safe for a very long time. Modern ones are relatively short-lived. Learning to trust CDs based on aluminum ones and then expecting dye-based CD-R to live so long is a recipe for disaster.
You. From you I should expect ignorance all the time.
And your forte is personal insult.
If you record a sound using digital recording and storage, is pointless to make a LP using this digital source,
Unless the consumer wants to buy an LP. I'll say it again since you missed it the first time: the format used to sell the content has nothing to do with the formats used to produce it.
The format for the final product depends nothing on the source, but only on the convenience and desires of the customer. Some people liked the 8-track tape format because it was convenient. Some like 1/4" cassette. Some like vinyl. Some like CDs. Some like only SACD. Some like MP3 files. Some people are satisfied to hear the content on FM radio. The takeaway lesson from this is that people will sacrifice purity and accuracy of reproduction for convenience. To tell them that they must accept only the most pure and precise format for obtaining content is arrogant and stupid. (And CD isn't the best, by the way.)
you should use a CD to storing digital sound.
If the only concern was how to store the sound, you'd still be amazingly wrong. If you have digital sound, how you store it depends on how often you need to access it. In that equation CD always loses -- capacity is low and physical medium management is poor. It is also becoming obsolete. A DVD is marginally better. Short term storage should be on disk (fast, random-access), archiving on a digital tape (LTO, etc.) CDs are ungainly, hard to manage, and limited in size.
Is the only thing I will say to you.
I pray that is true, but will not bet even $10 on it.
if you put any digital processing in the process then it will not make sense to record an LP.
The format for sales to the consumer as nothing to do with the format used to record and process the sound.
Using your argument, if you put any digital processing in the process it will not make sense to distribute the music at all, because at a minimum, at the end of the chain from producer to consumer is the analog human ear.
What I want is to know when 3D printing will take over the time consuming pressing process and we can all make LPs at home.
Bullshit Potsy. How the fuck do you lose information in an analog medium!
Well, for vinyl records, you have a physical limitation on the ability of the stylus to follow the track, you're mixing both L and R into one physical track, and you have to apply an equalization step to deal with the response of the stylus and track width.
There is a natural limit to the level of bass in an LP based on the resonances of the system, as well. I had one pressing of "Hot Rod Lincoln" that has a very high bass level in the opening, and you could hear the bounce of the stylus trying to follow it.
For digital, when you sample above the Nyquist frequency, you lose only the frequencies above half the sampling frequency. So, with a 44.1kHz sample rate you lose above 22.05kHz, which most people cannot hear anyway. But you don't have the physical limit of the vinyl, and your dynamic range is limited only by the number of bits you digitize with. If you want better than 20kHz, go to SACD.
It supports what I was saying.
It clearly does not support what you were saying. You claimed we knew it was probably going to get warmer. And yet, we KNEW it was going to get colder. At least some people knew. That was the point. What we know today isn't necessarily the truth.
Maybe Zuck anticipated a fight no matter where he bought property and that property is worth fighting for.
The fight is not over the 700 acres that he actually bought*. It is over 8 acres that he did NOT buy, but wants to own so that he can have one huge private place all to himself without having to allow anyone else an easement to get to the property they own.
I am high, but if I were him, I would buy a small plot of land in the middle of it
Is 700 acres not large enough to do that?
I would manipulate the lava flows so they cut off access to anyone who didn't have a helicopter to get there.
Is it not an even douche-baggier thing to do to dump lava onto someone else's property to keep them off of it, than to buy up every piece of surrounding property and try to prevent their access by blocking the easements that are required to prevent just such a thing?
* although the article reference this time does talk about a great deal of displeasure from the locals about a wall he built along one side of that land.
In case you didn't notice,
I notice that the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" has over-extended their reach into opinions on climate science, I just dismiss their standing on the matter. They are not climate scientists.
We really didn't understand what was going to happen with the climate in the 1960s. We knew it was probably going to get warmer,
Really? Warmer huh? The TRUTH is that in the 60's and 70's we though it was going to get COLDER. We THOUGHT we understood the system then, just like we think we understand it today. You might want to refresh yourself on what the facts are.
There's much more opportunity for nukes to actually get used nowadays,
I think having an actual crisis with an armed, nuclear nation (USSR) just 90 miles from our own borders (Cuba) where we were conducting an actual military operation is a lot closer to a crisis than just "India has a nuke and might be stupid enough to use it, wow!".
The first five nuclear powers had a lot to lose in a nuclear exchange,
Everyone has a lot to lose in a nuclear exchange.
The question is what happens when this chain of involvement leads to each side having a nuclear-armed power.
You mean like in the Korean conflict, where the US and China exchanged multiple rounds of nuclear missiles, decimating a large part of the Chinese and US landscape and making much of the south Pacific region uninhabitable?
Or the Vietnam War, where a similar round of nuclear cataclysm made Australia, New Zealand, the Phillipines, and Hawaii into vast wastelands of radioactive fallout?
Or the Malvinas, I mean Falklands, where Great Britain lobbed a couple of gigaton nukes into Argentina to get them to back off?
Human life is a bit less certain.
It is a great shame that the alleged capability of that species to build tools and adapt to their environment will simply cease to exist because OMG DJT.
Really? We are now in more danger of all-out nuclear war than during Cuban Missile Crisis?
The position of the clock was not changed during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
He didn't say they did. He asked if we are really in more danger now than during the crisis when Russia was actually putting live nuclear missiles a very short distance off our shores.
From the Bulletin's timeline page, we were 7 minutes away in 1960 (before the crisis), and 12 minutes away in 1963 (after). Today, we are supposedly 2.5 minutes away. The clock is set to indicate that we are in much more danger of an all-out nuclear war today than when Russia was putting nukes on an island run by a dictator in Russia's pocket that was just a couple of minutes (90 miles) from the US, and the US was conducting a naval blockade of that island.
I remember the tension back then, the concern that it would turn into war. It was a major issue and a very very major danger that Cuba or Russia would continue and 1962 would end in hostilities.
In addition, the clock was not changed in April of 1961 when the failed invasion of the Bay of Pigs happened, which was a major impetus for the later missile crisis.
Having the clock one third of the distance today than during that time of active political hostility and military action is just pathetic, and is an irrational demonstration of a political hatred, not a scientific fact. The clock's position is not one of serious analysis of threat, it's based on "OMG DJT and we hates The Donald...". Just one factor that is being ignored in this "analysis" is that the proposed Secretary of State has worked with and knows the Russian leadership, so he understands them better than HRC ever could. But because he actually knows them he's a bad choice, as if we should select someone who has read books and briefing papers about the Russians but never spoken to them personally.
It is propaganda promoting fear and hatred, and if it were a conservative organization doing it towards the previous President there would be a public outcry of "racism".
The excuse from their FAQ page is nonsense. "We didn't know it was happening, so we didn't change the clock"? Head in the sand. And they ignored the Bay of Pigs which was more than a year prior to the missile crisis. They can't claim they didn't know that happened.
It is possible to analyze risk
It is one thing to analyze risk in solid, scientific, quantifiable terms, and another thing altogether to analyze risk as "OMG DJT!".
The "atomic scientists" are expressing their political opinions, and now they're including "climate change" in that metric. I could point out that none of them are climate scientists, which is one of the standard methods of discounting any disagreement about the consensus from other scientists who aren't "climate scientists". If not being a climate scientist means you have nothing of value to add to the debate about climate science, then that applies both ways.
He is buying the island on the open market from willing sellers.
From the source article:
Which part of "compel" means "willing" to you? Is armed robbery not robbery because the original owners of the money were "willing donors" after being compelled at gunpoint?
What is he supposed to do otherwise, do a complete genealogy work up on everyone who ever had a title and personally ask their prodigy if they would like to make a claim of ownership?
How about he accepts the fact that he bought 700 acres with an 8 acre part in the middle that he did NOT buy, and that he has no more claim to that land than anyone else, and has no right to tell anyone, either directly or through a court, "either step up and claim it or I get it by default"?
Buying 700 acres and then taking the part you didn't buy through legal action is sleazy.
Or are you claiming that he didn't know there was this 8 acre part of land he didn't actually buy?
And yes, I find the legal process of serving notice of lawsuits via publishing them in tiny print in the classified ad section of a newspaper just as sleazy. There's a local free weekly that makes a lot of money from carrying those ads, and if you don't happen to pick one up every week and look through it, you may miss the fact that you are being sued.
"Chicken in every pot" is older than I am. "Everyone should be afford to own a home" is at least as old.
Both are relatively recent, especially when you are claiming "centuries".
You have no sense of history.
'A chicken in every pot' was a 40's or 50's concept. "Everyone owns a house" is an 80's or so concept, supported by the CRA and other legislation dealing with banks and loan practices.
During the mortgage bubble, mortgage companies sprang up that would issue a mortgage and immediately sell it to someone.
Of course they would. They have to have the money to loan if they are going to make loans. If all their money is tied up in existing loans, what money do they loan out?
This means that banks were deliberately buying bad loans of their own free will.
Right. Because the CRA didn't exist.
They weren't picky about who they issued mortgages to,
Right. As an obvious consequence of the CRA and legal atmosphere of the times. To claim that banks were loaning so they could foreclose is just ridiculous. Foreclosures are one of the most expensive ways of making money. It's much cheaper to make good loans at a reasonable rate and get all your money plus interest back without having to go through all the legal hassle of a foreclosure and hope you can resell the property.
I don't really care to acquire and read a book when it's pushed on the grounds that what I saw with my own eyes is false.
GM isn't a bank. What you saw with your own eyes was exactly in line with CRA requirements that the banks were being saddled with. But you have to know that the CRA and other regulations exist before you would know that.
I guess you have a memory issue. Look back up where it was suggested you might accept a slightly lower margin and how you replied.
I know exactly how I replied and it has nothing to do with a minimum wage changing from $9.99/hr to $10/hr. The 'reduced margin' refers to profit margin not a 'reduced margin' increase in minimum wage.
I guess you have a reading comprehension issue, or a bug up a part of your anatomy.
In other words, kids are just like they've been for centuries.
No, not really. It's been relatively recent that "chicken in every pot" and "everyone should be able to afford a house" has taken over.
There were no banking regulations enforcing bad loans.
You are completely ignorant of the purpose and the result of the Community Reinvestment Act and all following legislation regarding it, then. The CRA was federal law that brought strict federal oversite to banks and who and how they made loans. It is the CRA and similar legislation that "community activists" used as bludgeons to force banks into essentially removing financial considerations in approving loans.
Remember the term "redlining"? It was the term used against banks who didn't approve enough loans in certain parts of the community. You know, like a low income part of town where there was a high percentage of people who really couldn't afford a home loan so they were being turned down. But the CRA and federal regulators prohibited such statistical anomalies, and that's how the legislation was enforced. Nobody looked at the individual loans that were approved or turned down to see why, it was a percentage game. The percentage of previously ineligible borrowers didn't change, but the percentage of loans had to go up. (And this is exactly the same way that Title IX "violations" are determined. If you don't have the same percentage of boys and girls playing sports in your high school, you are in violation. It doesn't matter if the girls don't want to play sports. It doesn't matter if you have to cancel boys sports to make the numbers balance, just as long as the numbers balance.)
Why do you ignore the fact that a loan officer who was presented with an application from someone who had little or no down payment, no steady income, and little prospect for future income was pressured into approving the loan to keep the feds off the bank's back? Do you REALLY think that banks wanted ARMs where they got almost no return on the money and every likelyhood that when the balloon came due they would be stuck with a foreclosure? If you do, then you really don't understand why banks make loans in the first place.
There were lots of banks that thought that a mortgage that was certain to be defaulted on was an asset,
Oh, don't be stupid. Banks didn't want loans that they knew would go into default. It costs a lot of money to clean every one of those loans up. They LOSE money on those loans. They only reason they BECAME an asset was because they were forced to make those loans and because that money was tied up in the loan they couldn't make other, better loans. They had to sell the bad loans. It's an OBVIOUS result of making bad loans. Everybody but Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd knew this, and I suspect that they knew but didn't care. Remember, Frank is the fellow who claimed there was no problem in FNMA well after everyone with a brain saw how the market was collapsing, and Bush wanted to put regulations in place to limit the impact.
You might want to read up on the situation. "Architects of Ruin" by Peter Schweizer covers it pretty well. If you really want to know what happened.