Incidentally, no it's not. Both arterial and veinal blood is red (i.e. reflects predominantly red light), it just appears to be a different color when the reflected light passes through the filter of the skin. You're welcome to open a vein and find out;).
I can, of course, still appreciate your metaphor. But it, alas, belongs in the same category as "two-edged sword".
When a track is mastered to a CD, it is sampled. This sampling process uses an algorithm to decide what frequencies are being played simotaenously and then decides which one the human ear has a harder time hearing. The frequency with the least chance of being heard (such as a high hat played over a strong bass line) will be squared out.
You're confusing compression and sampling. For sampling, I suggest you look at the Nyquist frequency. Human ears cannot hear past 20 KHz, and even that is diminished during the earliest parts of youth. Since CDs record at 44 KHz, they do in fact sample all the data. Sound can be perfectly represented by a single signal which can then be sampled into individual discrete components. Of course, CDs are not perfect representations of the sound, but then, nothing is. "Infinite bandwidth" analog is always limited by manufacturing capability. Do you really think vinyl records are nanoscale-perfect? I stronly suggest that you look more into the field of signal processing,
Moving on to lossy encoding, indeed, some psychoacoustic compression models can strip out simultaneous tones, as you said. But this is easily combated using higher bitrate encoding schemes. That said, there's a reason these psychoacoustic models exist. Sure, you might be able to hear the glossed bits if you're listening to a ridiculously low-bitrate file, but I have my doubts about being able to distinguish a decent encoding in a blind test.
In cases of extreme compression (low quality mp3), it's all but removed and all you get to hear is that annoying tinny sound you may be familar with when listening to 64k mp3s.
64k mp3s? Where on Earth do you get such things? Every commercial vendor I've heard of sells at at least 128, and that's the 99.9% lower limit for mp3s I've seen elsewhere.>/p?
Yes, it's true that the human ear can not hear all frequencies at once well. But these sounds are put together not because we can hear them perfectly, but because they shape and compliment eachother.
You can't complement something that you can't hear. (Though apparently audiophiles can compliment things they can't hear...)
A mathmatical computer algorithm does not know or care about this and just removes what has a statistical probability to not be noticed. Well it is noticable.
Again, confusing lossy compression and lossless encoding.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a traditionalist myself. There's something special about owning an artifact that ties you to a feeling. But if you're looking for truly genuine music, perhaps you should listen to it live? I doubt there's really any more soul in the cold plastic of an LP than in the cold plastic of a CD.
While no doubt many people are clambering to speak to the evils of storing search queries, it's a very useful process, and blindingly obvious that Google would keep doing it. And we're not just talking about advertising. Advertising is just a section sliced out of a very complex structure approximating the character of a user. Google has shown a consistent goal of trying to categorize and understand all the information on the web. Why would they pass on an opportunity to build a persistent model of a user? With a nice AI, you could dramatically increase the relevance of a user's queries by looking at their past records and keeping a profile.
While I am well-aware of the potential dangers of trading anonymity and privacy for a little convenience, it may well be worth it in the long run. Those concerned about governmental influence aren't seeing the big picture. If the government is determined, they'll just look at a higher level. Ask the ISP to parse the input to Google (unless you're connecting to Google over an encrypted channel? I wasn't aware any such thing existed, outside of proxying). Or simply get Google to pass along the IPs of anyone making a hot-list query, no storage required.
"Begging the question" is a bad translation of a latin phrase, AFAIK. It never should have been used to refer to circular reasoning in the first place. All it creates is confusion.
I suspect it made more sense a century or so ago when "beg" meant something slightly different.
The quote "can't have your cake and eat it too" is WRONG WRONG WRONG.
It's "eat your cake and then have it too" . Think about it, your usage describes dessert.
Fair enough? I was, in fact, considering the merits of the phrase as I typed it.
You are also arguing with yourself about the merits of a descriptive dictionary versus a prescriptive dictionary.
How so? The parent of my post used a descriptive grammar as a source to say that certain usage was correct, when a descriptive grammar can't (and doesn't) make any reference to correctness.
According to the Wikipedia article this is indeed a correct usage of the modern interpretation of the phrase.
Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too. There is no such thing as "correct" usage when referencing a descriptive grammar (which is what the Wikipedia article is discussing). Either you have a defined language, where there are right and wrong ways of saying things (in which case, the phrase "begging the question" is used incorrectly), or you simply describe how people use words to express thoughts (in which case their is no such thing as correctness).
The problem isn't one of changing usage, it's of namespace collision. 'Begging the Question' is the name of a specific logical fallacy. By claiming that it means something else, we are reducing the communicative capacity of the language. Tell me, when I want to refer to a logical conclusion being assumed in one of the premises, what do I say?
The same goes for the word "literally". That word has a well-defined, rather unique, meaning and by claiming it as something else, the language is damaged. It becomes more difficult to express a particular thought (that something actually happened, when the typical usage would imply that it merely happened figuratively).
But Wikipiedia isn't the same crowd as MySpace. People that just ramble incoherently about irrelevant subjects tend to quickly get bored after people speedy-delete their new band's article. The difference is that people aren't given a free hand. On MySpace, you can put up whatever you want, insightful or idiotic, and it won't matter. On Wikipedia, you have to contribute usefully, or you'll quickly find your thoughts erased. Wikipedia is not, in fact, generally contributed to by that many people. It's actually a shockingly small group that does most of the writing. It's great to have a long tail to fill in the blanks and fix typos, but there are still considerably more people reading than writing.
Complete and total bullshit. This sort of compensation only leads to inferiority complexes, condescent and jealousy. Women will think that they're outsiders that have to be helped. Men that succeeded on their own will think the women are less qualified (
"She only got in because she's a girl"), while those that didn't will be jealous of the women who they will perceive as getting an unfair advantage at their expense. How about judging people by their ideas instead of their gender? If you're so interested in fighting "supremacism", how about trying some other methods, like showcasing the opportunities that all individuals have to express themselves, and trying to change the system to allow that expression to happen? Hamfisted preferential treatment only causes problems.
It's high past time that the FDA Steps in. For far too long have these "Molecules" gone unregulated. The government needs to take a stand against these microscopic monsters before they destroy society.
That which is built decays, that which is loved endures.
The United States Constitution is a wonderful document. It struck a careful balance, and made explicit protection against specific fallacies that seem to be cropping up lately ("You have no constitutional right to X..."). The problem is, nobody seems to give a damn. No matter how cleverly worded it was, it won't make a difference if the people don't read it, understand it, and force the government to abide by it.
A trade secret is just what it sounds like, a secret. You develop something and don't tell anyone. So let's say I invent a way to turn lead in to gold at my company. I decide to keep it a secret. I release the plans to nobody and make all my employees sign an NDA. Thus I'm the only one who can do it. Fair enough, but there's no special legal protection. If a rival happens to discover how I do it, they are free to use it, it's not a secret anymore.
1) Come up with real objective standards, which are unquestionably censorship, and creates a huge backlash on the left
2) Legalize everything which creates a huge backlash on the right
There's a reason justices are appointed for life: So they can do what is right regardless of any "backlash".
Slashdot Mirror
Doc has foes. Even on Slashdot.
Incidentally, no it's not. Both arterial and veinal blood is red (i.e. reflects predominantly red light), it just appears to be a different color when the reflected light passes through the filter of the skin. You're welcome to open a vein and find out ;).
I can, of course, still appreciate your metaphor. But it, alas, belongs in the same category as "two-edged sword".
You're confusing compression and sampling. For sampling, I suggest you look at the Nyquist frequency. Human ears cannot hear past 20 KHz, and even that is diminished during the earliest parts of youth. Since CDs record at 44 KHz, they do in fact sample all the data. Sound can be perfectly represented by a single signal which can then be sampled into individual discrete components. Of course, CDs are not perfect representations of the sound, but then, nothing is. "Infinite bandwidth" analog is always limited by manufacturing capability. Do you really think vinyl records are nanoscale-perfect? I stronly suggest that you look more into the field of signal processing,
Moving on to lossy encoding, indeed, some psychoacoustic compression models can strip out simultaneous tones, as you said. But this is easily combated using higher bitrate encoding schemes. That said, there's a reason these psychoacoustic models exist. Sure, you might be able to hear the glossed bits if you're listening to a ridiculously low-bitrate file, but I have my doubts about being able to distinguish a decent encoding in a blind test.
64k mp3s? Where on Earth do you get such things? Every commercial vendor I've heard of sells at at least 128, and that's the 99.9% lower limit for mp3s I've seen elsewhere.>/p?
You can't complement something that you can't hear. (Though apparently audiophiles can compliment things they can't hear...)
Again, confusing lossy compression and lossless encoding.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a traditionalist myself. There's something special about owning an artifact that ties you to a feeling. But if you're looking for truly genuine music, perhaps you should listen to it live? I doubt there's really any more soul in the cold plastic of an LP than in the cold plastic of a CD.
People make music, little discs don't.
Ironically enough, you forgot how to spell the name of Kahless the Unforgettable.
Sure. Just like all those elephants that are mutating and eating monkeys.
While no doubt many people are clambering to speak to the evils of storing search queries, it's a very useful process, and blindingly obvious that Google would keep doing it. And we're not just talking about advertising. Advertising is just a section sliced out of a very complex structure approximating the character of a user. Google has shown a consistent goal of trying to categorize and understand all the information on the web. Why would they pass on an opportunity to build a persistent model of a user? With a nice AI, you could dramatically increase the relevance of a user's queries by looking at their past records and keeping a profile.
While I am well-aware of the potential dangers of trading anonymity and privacy for a little convenience, it may well be worth it in the long run. Those concerned about governmental influence aren't seeing the big picture. If the government is determined, they'll just look at a higher level. Ask the ISP to parse the input to Google (unless you're connecting to Google over an encrypted channel? I wasn't aware any such thing existed, outside of proxying). Or simply get Google to pass along the IPs of anyone making a hot-list query, no storage required.
Fair enough? I was, in fact, considering the merits of the phrase as I typed it.
How so? The parent of my post used a descriptive grammar as a source to say that certain usage was correct, when a descriptive grammar can't (and doesn't) make any reference to correctness.The problem isn't one of changing usage, it's of namespace collision. 'Begging the Question' is the name of a specific logical fallacy. By claiming that it means something else, we are reducing the communicative capacity of the language. Tell me, when I want to refer to a logical conclusion being assumed in one of the premises, what do I say?
The same goes for the word "literally". That word has a well-defined, rather unique, meaning and by claiming it as something else, the language is damaged. It becomes more difficult to express a particular thought (that something actually happened, when the typical usage would imply that it merely happened figuratively).
Just briefly looking at the list, it seems to include Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Syriana, the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie...
But Wikipiedia isn't the same crowd as MySpace. People that just ramble incoherently about irrelevant subjects tend to quickly get bored after people speedy-delete their new band's article. The difference is that people aren't given a free hand. On MySpace, you can put up whatever you want, insightful or idiotic, and it won't matter. On Wikipedia, you have to contribute usefully, or you'll quickly find your thoughts erased. Wikipedia is not, in fact, generally contributed to by that many people. It's actually a shockingly small group that does most of the writing. It's great to have a long tail to fill in the blanks and fix typos, but there are still considerably more people reading than writing.
...I think I'll skip the "+5 Funny" posts this time around. I think I can see half of them coming.
...if the police haven't done anything wrong, they haven't got anything to hide?
Complete and total bullshit. This sort of compensation only leads to inferiority complexes, condescent and jealousy. Women will think that they're outsiders that have to be helped. Men that succeeded on their own will think the women are less qualified ( "She only got in because she's a girl"), while those that didn't will be jealous of the women who they will perceive as getting an unfair advantage at their expense. How about judging people by their ideas instead of their gender? If you're so interested in fighting "supremacism", how about trying some other methods, like showcasing the opportunities that all individuals have to express themselves, and trying to change the system to allow that expression to happen? Hamfisted preferential treatment only causes problems.
It's high past time that the FDA Steps in. For far too long have these "Molecules" gone unregulated. The government needs to take a stand against these microscopic monsters before they destroy society.
Anything else degenerates into disqualifying intellect as a trait to help survival.
Claiming that something must be false because the source is biased is an ad hominem attack, and not valid in rational debate.
That which is built decays, that which is loved endures.
The United States Constitution is a wonderful document. It struck a careful balance, and made explicit protection against specific fallacies that seem to be cropping up lately ("You have no constitutional right to X..."). The problem is, nobody seems to give a damn. No matter how cleverly worded it was, it won't make a difference if the people don't read it, understand it, and force the government to abide by it.
...that every penny of profit that The Pirate Bay takes in goes straight to Al-Qaeda.
Sweet! New version of Paint!
Farscape at least had an ending. And I felt it went downhill sharply after the third season.