Any healthy person who earns enough to save a significant amount, can invest that money in a way that provides an income indefinitely after normal retirement age. Such a person cannot be politically controlled into delaying retirement.
So you think you can keep the treatment entirely under control of the government, so that the government can withhold other goodies if you opt for a long life? Think again.
Your thinking is correct to an extent. In fact, without compensation, frequencies near the Nyquist limit do suffer amplitude falloff.
Keep in mind that when we're talking about conversion, we're talking about a strictly bandlimited signal. A 23,999 Hz signal can't be turned on and off abruptly because that generates out-of-band harmonics. That inability to quickly change a narrowband fixed frequency signal also means that it's going to be around ffor a large number of samples, and a sample rate of 2.001 samples per cycle will do quite well in establishing amplitude. In effect, it's analogous to the Heisenberg principle, although the underlying phenomena aren't the same.
The simple reasoning, which has already been presented in this discussion, is not completely convincing. If you really want to know why it's true, you have to become familiar with Fourier analysis and the proofs and other math behind it. It's not a trivial undertaking, and if you're not up to the task you're better off just believing what signal processing experts say. Sorry, some things just aren't easy.
In extraordinary circumstances extreme frequency audio - either high or low frequency - can cause nonlinearities which result in altered perception of normally audible sound. Also, inaudible soundwaves can change effective thresholds, so that a sound that is normally too quiet to be heard might be barely perceptible.
Some of these conditions involve very high intensity sound, risking hearing damage.
Actually, phonograph records have the mono (or stereo sum) channel encoded side-to-side. This can be verified by examining the disk with a magnifier. A stereo signal has each channel on its own side of the groove. The difference results in up-down motion.
The highest frequency a human can hear varies greatly with individual and age. Up until I was about 30 years old, I could routinely hear "ultrasonic" burglar alarm systems, sometimes painfully. These systems operate close to 30 kHz. I've spoken to others with the same ability.
At 30 IPS low frequency response of analog tape starts failing. This is a mechanical problem having to do with the portion of a wavelength on the tape which is over the head.
A good analog tape machine reduces wow and flutter and hiss, it does not eliminate them. They are due to mechanical limitations of machining, wear, and the limits of the electronics and the recording medium. You write: "Wow and flutter and hiss are consumer perceptions based on inferior formats like the cassette tape and vinyl records. To the contrary: they are all measurable quantities that correlate to audible defects. Hiss, in particular, is inherent to all audio systems and can never be eliminated.
Tape passing over a head is subject to a phenomenon called scrape-flutter, caused by stiction of the tape to the head and the elasticity of the tape. It cannot be avoided as long as the tape contacts the head, which is necessary for good high frequency response.
The fact that you have to refer to a properly aligned Studer multitrack shows that the analog tape operation is finicky; something that cannot be relied upon by design (and something which is inherently good in a digital system.)
Furthermore, mechanical-analog equipment wears, and as it wears performance changes. Tape heads wear until the gap becomes visibly defective, long before which frequency response degrades and distortion increases. Capstans, pinch rollers, and tape guides wear.
The audio degradations of digital are much smaller and the wear problems are much reduced.
I find it hard to believe that the system could provide enough gas to keep it inflated for a long time in the presence of even micron-sized holes. I'd be more likely to believe that it would maintain structural integrity if they used a plastic that became stiff when struck by ultraviolet light, or became stiff as a plasticizer outgassed.
Laser beams can be arbitrarily expanded, cheaply and easily. The disadvantages of laser space communication are elsewhere, including blockage by clouds.
Nothing ever gets better when it's forced on people. The best schools in the world are in Finland, where a voucher system forces public schools to compete with private schools.
Obama is demonstrably a racist. Consider the Cambridge police incident, and his bias against George Zimmerman. Look at his political appointments, where ideological extremism is the only consideration which overrides race.
When you take funding from town and city to the state, control goes with the funding. To a large extent, this has already occurred at the federal level, which is having an inappropriate, disproportional, and disastrous effect on education. Higher level control means fewer lobbyists needed to affect policies and contracts, more union power, more concentrated corruption and a greater risk that some popular wingnut will implement a braindead education policy over a large region. It means that the individual parent who wants to fix problems at the local school has to go to the state capital and speak to someone who doesn't care, and who can't be shamed by your neighbors if his behavior is egregious.
In the early 1970s the private ownership of gold was legalized under the Ford presidency. The price bounced around $75/oz. Now the dollar price is 20 times higher and the population has doubled, so a comparably sized multinational would deal with 40 times as much money measured in dollars. That takes your "low-end 6 figure salary" to "7 or 8 figures" without changing value.
Putting aside the quaint concept of communism meaning that people live in communes, communism is just extreme, or pure, socialism. There are no differences in the underlying philosophy; and the practice of socialism is just a question of how much communism is being implemented.
American "right wing" encompasses conservatives and libertarians.
Conservatives tend toward religion, and the Constitution because it's good and has worked well. Conservatives generally support corporations, but don't support giving them immunity from law. Conservatives oppose socially active government activities. Do not confuse confuse conservative with status quo; there are principlies involved.
Libertarians reject the propriety of a ruling class and are more suspicious of corporations. Libertarians oppose any government activity that can be performed privately without excessive grief.
In the American Revolution and WWII, Americans fought for the principles currently supported by most of the right, i.e. in opposition to oppressive government. I am less clear about WWI, which seems to me more of a general clusterfuck.
Spending at all levels of government for education is 0.9 trillion dollars. Coincidentally, the expenditure for defense is also 0.9 trillion dollars. The 5% shift you propose is negligible and would do more harm than good - to both institutions. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
That you think 5% would amount to a 100X change shows that you are within the education establishment's reality distortion field.
Are you aware that there is currently a family in the US that is fighting extradition to Germany for the (German) crime of home-schooling their own children? And that the Obama administration wants to force them out of the US?
I think you misunderstood the NYT article, which has much less content than you imply. The first graph shows income caused by level of education; and others show the tendency of individuals in families at a given income level to remain at that level in their own lives. Nothing directly about "a higher class neighborhood."
Kids learn a lot from their parents, even if it isn't explicitly taught. That includes the attitudes that lead to a successful career.
The whole funding argument is a vicious lie. Requirements for grade school learning are a lit classroom, chalk and a chalkboard, paper and pencils, and a teacher who knows the material. History and geography have a lot of content, but that can be read from a book, so the teacher doesn't really have to know the details. English, math, and science don't have a lot of detail pre-college. 3/4 of the general population ought to be able to teach grade-schoolers without additional training, and that implies a pretty low salary.
A dedicated student can learn even with poor teachers and disruptive classrooms. I started learning electronics at age 12, using library books: nothing to do with school.
If everybody acts to ensure that their own children are fit to face the world, then everybody will be fit to face the world: problem solved.
When people insist that one system be set up to treat everybody, and that each person must contribute to and live off that system, the system generates perverse incentives: it is to each person's advantage to contribute as little as possible, and to take as much as possible. More aggressive people will form pressure groups claiming special needs for a bigger share, others will bribe the minders to look the other way when they steal.
Here's something for you to read about: Starnesville.
Interesting test. Part of the difficulty current graduates would face is that some things are functionally obsolete: few people care what bushels and rods are.
FWIW, some of the answers are incomplete. Missing in parts of speech are conjunctions, adverbs, exclamations (interjections), articles, and prepositions.
Your point is taken. Education used to be more rigorous. Our loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Any healthy person who earns enough to save a significant amount, can invest that money in a way that provides an income indefinitely after normal retirement age. Such a person cannot be politically controlled into delaying retirement.
So you think you can keep the treatment entirely under control of the government, so that the government can withhold other goodies if you opt for a long life? Think again.
You have no idea what good food is.
Your thinking is correct to an extent. In fact, without compensation, frequencies near the Nyquist limit do suffer amplitude falloff.
Keep in mind that when we're talking about conversion, we're talking about a strictly bandlimited signal. A 23,999 Hz signal can't be turned on and off abruptly because that generates out-of-band harmonics. That inability to quickly change a narrowband fixed frequency signal also means that it's going to be around ffor a large number of samples, and a sample rate of 2.001 samples per cycle will do quite well in establishing amplitude. In effect, it's analogous to the Heisenberg principle, although the underlying phenomena aren't the same.
The simple reasoning, which has already been presented in this discussion, is not completely convincing. If you really want to know why it's true, you have to become familiar with Fourier analysis and the proofs and other math behind it. It's not a trivial undertaking, and if you're not up to the task you're better off just believing what signal processing experts say. Sorry, some things just aren't easy.
In extraordinary circumstances extreme frequency audio - either high or low frequency - can cause nonlinearities which result in altered perception of normally audible sound. Also, inaudible soundwaves can change effective thresholds, so that a sound that is normally too quiet to be heard might be barely perceptible.
Some of these conditions involve very high intensity sound, risking hearing damage.
Actually, phonograph records have the mono (or stereo sum) channel encoded side-to-side. This can be verified by examining the disk with a magnifier. A stereo signal has each channel on its own side of the groove. The difference results in up-down motion.
The highest frequency a human can hear varies greatly with individual and age. Up until I was about 30 years old, I could routinely hear "ultrasonic" burglar alarm systems, sometimes painfully. These systems operate close to 30 kHz. I've spoken to others with the same ability.
At 30 IPS low frequency response of analog tape starts failing. This is a mechanical problem having to do with the portion of a wavelength on the tape which is over the head.
A good analog tape machine reduces wow and flutter and hiss, it does not eliminate them. They are due to mechanical limitations of machining, wear, and the limits of the electronics and the recording medium. You write: "Wow and flutter and hiss are consumer perceptions based on inferior formats like the cassette tape and vinyl records. To the contrary: they are all measurable quantities that correlate to audible defects. Hiss, in particular, is inherent to all audio systems and can never be eliminated.
Tape passing over a head is subject to a phenomenon called scrape-flutter, caused by stiction of the tape to the head and the elasticity of the tape. It cannot be avoided as long as the tape contacts the head, which is necessary for good high frequency response.
The fact that you have to refer to a properly aligned Studer multitrack shows that the analog tape operation is finicky; something that cannot be relied upon by design (and something which is inherently good in a digital system.)
Furthermore, mechanical-analog equipment wears, and as it wears performance changes. Tape heads wear until the gap becomes visibly defective, long before which frequency response degrades and distortion increases. Capstans, pinch rollers, and tape guides wear.
The audio degradations of digital are much smaller and the wear problems are much reduced.
I find it hard to believe that the system could provide enough gas to keep it inflated for a long time in the presence of even micron-sized holes. I'd be more likely to believe that it would maintain structural integrity if they used a plastic that became stiff when struck by ultraviolet light, or became stiff as a plasticizer outgassed.
Laser beams can be arbitrarily expanded, cheaply and easily. The disadvantages of laser space communication are elsewhere, including blockage by clouds.
I'm waiting for Linux XP, which will never die.
See any problem here?
Obama is demonstrably a racist. Consider the Cambridge police incident, and his bias against George Zimmerman. Look at his political appointments, where ideological extremism is the only consideration which overrides race.
When you take funding from town and city to the state, control goes with the funding. To a large extent, this has already occurred at the federal level, which is having an inappropriate, disproportional, and disastrous effect on education. Higher level control means fewer lobbyists needed to affect policies and contracts, more union power, more concentrated corruption and a greater risk that some popular wingnut will implement a braindead education policy over a large region. It means that the individual parent who wants to fix problems at the local school has to go to the state capital and speak to someone who doesn't care, and who can't be shamed by your neighbors if his behavior is egregious.
In the early 1970s the private ownership of gold was legalized under the Ford presidency. The price bounced around $75/oz. Now the dollar price is 20 times higher and the population has doubled, so a comparably sized multinational would deal with 40 times as much money measured in dollars. That takes your "low-end 6 figure salary" to "7 or 8 figures" without changing value.
Putting aside the quaint concept of communism meaning that people live in communes, communism is just extreme, or pure, socialism. There are no differences in the underlying philosophy; and the practice of socialism is just a question of how much communism is being implemented.
American "right wing" encompasses conservatives and libertarians.
Conservatives tend toward religion, and the Constitution because it's good and has worked well. Conservatives generally support corporations, but don't support giving them immunity from law. Conservatives oppose socially active government activities. Do not confuse confuse conservative with status quo; there are principlies involved.
Libertarians reject the propriety of a ruling class and are more suspicious of corporations. Libertarians oppose any government activity that can be performed privately without excessive grief.
In the American Revolution and WWII, Americans fought for the principles currently supported by most of the right, i.e. in opposition to oppressive government. I am less clear about WWI, which seems to me more of a general clusterfuck.
Spending at all levels of government for education is 0.9 trillion dollars. Coincidentally, the expenditure for defense is also 0.9 trillion dollars. The 5% shift you propose is negligible and would do more harm than good - to both institutions. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
That you think 5% would amount to a 100X change shows that you are within the education establishment's reality distortion field.
Are you aware that there is currently a family in the US that is fighting extradition to Germany for the (German) crime of home-schooling their own children? And that the Obama administration wants to force them out of the US?
I should be free to shoot thieves with government jobs. Care to suggest realistic options?
I think you misunderstood the NYT article, which has much less content than you imply. The first graph shows income caused by level of education; and others show the tendency of individuals in families at a given income level to remain at that level in their own lives. Nothing directly about "a higher class neighborhood."
Kids learn a lot from their parents, even if it isn't explicitly taught. That includes the attitudes that lead to a successful career.
The whole funding argument is a vicious lie. Requirements for grade school learning are a lit classroom, chalk and a chalkboard, paper and pencils, and a teacher who knows the material. History and geography have a lot of content, but that can be read from a book, so the teacher doesn't really have to know the details. English, math, and science don't have a lot of detail pre-college. 3/4 of the general population ought to be able to teach grade-schoolers without additional training, and that implies a pretty low salary.
A dedicated student can learn even with poor teachers and disruptive classrooms. I started learning electronics at age 12, using library books: nothing to do with school.
You are exactly wrong.
If everybody acts to ensure that their own children are fit to face the world, then everybody will be fit to face the world: problem solved.
When people insist that one system be set up to treat everybody, and that each person must contribute to and live off that system, the system generates perverse incentives: it is to each person's advantage to contribute as little as possible, and to take as much as possible. More aggressive people will form pressure groups claiming special needs for a bigger share, others will bribe the minders to look the other way when they steal.
Here's something for you to read about: Starnesville.
Interesting test. Part of the difficulty current graduates would face is that some things are functionally obsolete: few people care what bushels and rods are.
FWIW, some of the answers are incomplete. Missing in parts of speech are conjunctions, adverbs, exclamations (interjections), articles, and prepositions.
Your point is taken. Education used to be more rigorous. Our loss.