Obvious: take the picture first, and then help the man screaming for help!
But seriously, people screaming for help are not drowning (yet). People who are actually drowning, on the contrary, are quietly fighting for their life. The lungs are used for breathing, and when you can't get enough air to stay alive, as an automatic response none of it will be spent on speech or other vocalisation.
It's a small elevator on the large elevator. The elevator control surface is the horizontal tail which controls pitch (up-down), and the trim tab is a strip of separately controllable surface on the tail edge of the elevator (or other control surface), which gives the pilot the ability to semi-permanently give the plane an up/down bias (or left/right roll or rudder bias). Since it's part of the surface, if the trim tab disappears, the surface won't work as designed any more, and might be more unstable. In particular, only the left-hand side tab seems to have gone, which might mean that the trim setting would be unbalanced, possibly giving the left elevator more lift than the right, and so possibly causing the plane to roll right (among other things).
The plane banked to the right very suddenly, but with a kind of jerking motion, and continued until it was inverted. This put it in a position to go over the stands. However, a second later it went into a steep inverted nosedive towards the stands, and then going all the way into a half loop so that the plane was (barely) right side up again when it hit the ground right at the front of the crowd, probably because the pilot was pulling up to avoid the crowd. If the pilot had managed a fraction of a second more flight time, there would probably have been few casualties, since the crash was literally within meters of the crowd front, and people just meters to the sides escaped seemingly unharmed (at least according to some videos).
IANADoctor but I can't think of a medical emergency that causes that sort of erratic manoeuvring, passing out certainly doesn't. Moreover, the plane was already in trouble, since the pilot called in a mayday and started to pull up according to protocol when the fatal problems happened. Mechanical failure is simply more likely at this point: video showing the sequence of events
I do crossplatform stuff on Java every day, literally. And I'm not even making any effort to do so, in fact I have never experienced a situation where the OS made any difference. Which isn't saying that differences don't exist, just that they're tiny. It's also not saying that the software is necessarily cross-JVM compatible (different vendors), but that's hardly surprising.
If you actually read the blog, you'll see he mentions that he feels people sometimes want to use the robots just to show off, even though the same job has already been performed safely and more quickly by humans.
Bull. The fall not having occurred as in Genesis doesn't mean that mankind hasn't fallen. The parable implies that humans will always be imperfect (i.e. "sin") and so need a guide to look up to or follow, hence the need for a saviour. I always find it annoying when atheists accuse christians of too-literal bible reading, and then proceed to do it themselves. And I say that as an atheist myself.
Hitting someone is evidence of having followed too closely. Conversely, not having hit someone is evidence of not having followed too closely
It would seem then, that shooting someone is "safe" as long as the bullets miss.
Statistics on actual accidents involving rear-ending, and the distance between the cars in question, provide the evidence of what is following too closely.
Also, no need to explain the relation between speed and safe distance, I'd thought that was obvious to everyone.
People assign risk based on fear, ignoring all evidence.
And how do you assign risk? Obviously not using physics and statistics.
You do realise that following too closely is dangerous per definition? After all, that's what too close means: precisely that level of closeness that is excessive.
Now, you might argue that this level is closer than where most people would place it, and I would then argue that you're part of the problem of why driving is the most dangerous activity mankind partakes in.
Well, if least above average is dumbest... and I find it a bit strange that all users in 2006 were above average IQ. Not to mention the suspiciously ginormous difference of over 40 IQ points in the 2011 study (looks like 83 for IE vs. 125 for opera).
ID debate is not about proving or disproving god as such, it's about whether ID's a scientific theory or not. And it is is most certainly not, but this researcher seems to think it is. You're right that one cannot draw any conclusions from this, but in practice when fish smells, it really stinks.
Cats have a different eye structure geared toward night vision, while humans do not. Extra brain mass might be required for better night vision given the same basic eye design.
So in other words the problem will show up for everyone else, and will thus be obvious? There are flaws in the study, but your example is too simplistic, and shows absolutely nothing at all.
These codecs are designed on top of those very quirks of human audio perception. And no sane person runs audio tests in a consumer shop that wants to sell you the expensive gear. Anyway, Subjective audio comparison is the only meaningful way to compare them (apart from models based on human hearing). Controlling for variables is a different problem however, you might argue tests run by random internet visitors are useless, and you might be right. Or you might not, it depends on how large the differences turn out to be.
"I can't hear it" isn't an argument. It's an extremely subjective individual observation which cannot be challenged or refuted.
If nobody can hear it, then I'd say it is an argument. This is perception we're dealing with, after all, so subjectivity in the test subjects is rather to be expected, no?
My previous statement, that frequency-domain codecs can never produce transparent audio,
I'm not sure what you mean by this. A codec operating at what bitrate?
If I make a codec that simply transforms between domains (hence using the same bitrate as the original signal), it's going to be transparent. Surely you're not claiming that by e.g throwing away only one bit from the entire signal, it will suddenly become non-transparent to human ears?
"the idea that compression technology keeps on improving is a myth." -- Leonardo Chiariglione (co-founder of MPEG)
Looking in context, it seems Chiariglione was referring to compression technology in general, while the GP was referring to implementations of codecs. He was somewhat "wrong" too, AAC has received some additions/improvements in low-bitrate applications since he wrote that.
The problem is precisely that it is subjective, and usually non-blind. Most people would be able to perceive a difference between CD quality and 24/96. But if you don't tell them which is which, you might as well toss a coin (assuming the 16/44.1 is a direct conversion of the 24/96, of course, otherwise it's a pointless comparison).
If there's a real difference, it's because someone fiddled around with the master before the CDs were pressed, not because CDs are somehow magically flawed in ways unknown to physics.
This is not to say that a particular CD cannot be flawed, as 16/44 has its limitations if mastering isn't done properly.
It's not just audio as such that can be encoded at low bitrates, more important is the audio track emdedded in a streaming video. The video is already hogging bandwidth just to look halfway decent, especially if streaming over a mobile connection, so you would want the best low-bitrate audio encoder to go with it.
Slashdot Mirror
But seriously, people screaming for help are not drowning (yet). People who are actually drowning, on the contrary, are quietly fighting for their life. The lungs are used for breathing, and when you can't get enough air to stay alive, as an automatic response none of it will be spent on speech or other vocalisation.
It's a small elevator on the large elevator. The elevator control surface is the horizontal tail which controls pitch (up-down), and the trim tab is a strip of separately controllable surface on the tail edge of the elevator (or other control surface), which gives the pilot the ability to semi-permanently give the plane an up/down bias (or left/right roll or rudder bias). Since it's part of the surface, if the trim tab disappears, the surface won't work as designed any more, and might be more unstable. In particular, only the left-hand side tab seems to have gone, which might mean that the trim setting would be unbalanced, possibly giving the left elevator more lift than the right, and so possibly causing the plane to roll right (among other things).
IANADoctor but I can't think of a medical emergency that causes that sort of erratic manoeuvring, passing out certainly doesn't. Moreover, the plane was already in trouble, since the pilot called in a mayday and started to pull up according to protocol when the fatal problems happened. Mechanical failure is simply more likely at this point: video showing the sequence of events
I do crossplatform stuff on Java every day, literally. And I'm not even making any effort to do so, in fact I have never experienced a situation where the OS made any difference. Which isn't saying that differences don't exist, just that they're tiny. It's also not saying that the software is necessarily cross-JVM compatible (different vendors), but that's hardly surprising.
Don't you have a library for textbooks?
I'd say most of those hundreds really aren't good enough.
Most of /.'s readers are western, and the OP seemed to be under some us-compared-to-them illusion.
Jesus H. Christ. What part of your quote does not apply to every western nation?
If you actually read the blog, you'll see he mentions that he feels people sometimes want to use the robots just to show off, even though the same job has already been performed safely and more quickly by humans.
Bull. The fall not having occurred as in Genesis doesn't mean that mankind hasn't fallen. The parable implies that humans will always be imperfect (i.e. "sin") and so need a guide to look up to or follow, hence the need for a saviour. I always find it annoying when atheists accuse christians of too-literal bible reading, and then proceed to do it themselves. And I say that as an atheist myself.
Just one small but important tl;dr addendum: "...use a RANDOM unique salt per password."
Hitting someone is evidence of having followed too closely. Conversely, not having hit someone is evidence of not having followed too closely
It would seem then, that shooting someone is "safe" as long as the bullets miss.
Statistics on actual accidents involving rear-ending, and the distance between the cars in question, provide the evidence of what is following too closely.
Also, no need to explain the relation between speed and safe distance, I'd thought that was obvious to everyone.
People assign risk based on fear, ignoring all evidence.
And how do you assign risk? Obviously not using physics and statistics.
Now, you might argue that this level is closer than where most people would place it, and I would then argue that you're part of the problem of why driving is the most dangerous activity mankind partakes in.
Well, if least above average is dumbest... and I find it a bit strange that all users in 2006 were above average IQ. Not to mention the suspiciously ginormous difference of over 40 IQ points in the 2011 study (looks like 83 for IE vs. 125 for opera).
ID debate is not about proving or disproving god as such, it's about whether ID's a scientific theory or not. And it is is most certainly not, but this researcher seems to think it is. You're right that one cannot draw any conclusions from this, but in practice when fish smells, it really stinks.
Cats have a different eye structure geared toward night vision, while humans do not. Extra brain mass might be required for better night vision given the same basic eye design.
The codecs are not head-to-head, they are rated based on how close they sound to the original, not how well they can be distinguished from each other.
You mean the bits change if the cable isn't Golden enough?
So in other words the problem will show up for everyone else, and will thus be obvious? There are flaws in the study, but your example is too simplistic, and shows absolutely nothing at all.
Those schmoes don't really frequent hydrogenaudio.
These codecs are designed on top of those very quirks of human audio perception. And no sane person runs audio tests in a consumer shop that wants to sell you the expensive gear. Anyway, Subjective audio comparison is the only meaningful way to compare them (apart from models based on human hearing). Controlling for variables is a different problem however, you might argue tests run by random internet visitors are useless, and you might be right. Or you might not, it depends on how large the differences turn out to be.
"I can't hear it" isn't an argument. It's an extremely subjective individual observation which cannot be challenged or refuted.
If nobody can hear it, then I'd say it is an argument. This is perception we're dealing with, after all, so subjectivity in the test subjects is rather to be expected, no?
My previous statement, that frequency-domain codecs can never produce transparent audio,
I'm not sure what you mean by this. A codec operating at what bitrate?
If I make a codec that simply transforms between domains (hence using the same bitrate as the original signal), it's going to be transparent. Surely you're not claiming that by e.g throwing away only one bit from the entire signal, it will suddenly become non-transparent to human ears?
"the idea that compression technology keeps on improving is a myth." -- Leonardo Chiariglione (co-founder of MPEG)
Looking in context, it seems Chiariglione was referring to compression technology in general, while the GP was referring to implementations of codecs. He was somewhat "wrong" too, AAC has received some additions/improvements in low-bitrate applications since he wrote that.
The problem is precisely that it is subjective, and usually non-blind. Most people would be able to perceive a difference between CD quality and 24/96. But if you don't tell them which is which, you might as well toss a coin (assuming the 16/44.1 is a direct conversion of the 24/96, of course, otherwise it's a pointless comparison).
If there's a real difference, it's because someone fiddled around with the master before the CDs were pressed, not because CDs are somehow magically flawed in ways unknown to physics.
This is not to say that a particular CD cannot be flawed, as 16/44 has its limitations if mastering isn't done properly.
It's not just audio as such that can be encoded at low bitrates, more important is the audio track emdedded in a streaming video. The video is already hogging bandwidth just to look halfway decent, especially if streaming over a mobile connection, so you would want the best low-bitrate audio encoder to go with it.
Of course. One way or another we are all hypocritical, hence the mutual reminding.