It sounds like you think that "apologist" means "one who apologizes". It doesn't.
Yes, it's a subjective psychoacoustic phenomenon, one which has been studied extensively and can be addressed using the methods I mentioned. What's your point?
This is not that difficult a problem. The industry apologists, and many people here, talk as if peak signal level were the only measure of loudness. It isn't. It isn't even one of the usual ones. There are quite a few ways of measuring volume. In addition to those routinely used by electrical engineers, such as RMS power, there are measures that take into account the properties of the human auditory system, which exhibits differential sensitivity to different frequencies. Measurements made for purposes such as concert hall remediation, by-law enforcement, and industrial safety, are usually made with instruments that filter the input according to a filter contour based on that of the auditory system. Look up the "A-contour", the "B-contour", and the "C-contour". There is a whole little corner of psychoacoustics devoted to the perception of loudness as a function of the spectrum of the signal.
Some decisions would need to be made as to which loudness measure to use and over what time window to compute it, but once this choice is made, we can either use it as the criterion in legislation or use it as the basis for a more sophisticated system of automatic gain control. With digital TV, implementing such processing should not be too difficult, and individuals could even adjust it to suit their preferences and auditory systems.
Well, that depends on your definition of speech. In most jurisdictions if you are driving a motor vehicle on a public road you are required to produce your driver's licence, registration, and proof of insurance on demand of a police officer. You can do so without speaking, but you are legally required to provide this information.
One interesting point in the Times Herald article is that Watt was not leaving the US as the other accounts indicate but was entering the US. If this account is correct, it wasn't an unexpected stop while leaving the US but a far from uncommon secondary customs inspection while entering the US.
l
That's true, but it isn't as bad as it sounds. You can apply for "rehabilitation". If the offense was more than ten years ago (five in the case misdemeanors), rehabilitation is pretty much automatic. It is said to take a few weeks. So these old offenses don't really prevent entry - you just have to apply in advance.
Once you have permanent resident status in Canada you must reside in Canada for three years before applying for citizenship. In the US it is five years except in certain special cases. So, yes, it does take less time to become a citizen once you're a permanent resident. I would say that the Canadian citizenship test is more difficult than the American one, though I don't know if either is hard enough to cut out a lot of people.
I'm not so sure that it is easier to become a permanent resident though. This may not have a straightforward answer since the countries have different criteria for evaluating potential immigrants.
Handguns aren't completely illegal here, but pretty close. Other than peace officers and soldiers, hardly anyone is permitted to carry a handgun. For ordinary people, licenses are available only for collectors and target shooters.
Interesting. I've never encountered this. What is the stated purpose of these exit inspections? While the government has a lot of authority to regulate who and what comes in, it has only limited authority to regulate what goes out (restricted exports, fugitives, not a lot else).
Are you so sure that they have video cameras covering the exit area? One weird thing about this is that the incident happened as he was leaving the US, where you normally don't stop at all.
I'm not clear on exactly where he was. The articles really don't do a very good job of describing what happened. At the border crossings I am familiar with, there is no barrier on leaving the US. There's a place where you can park and go in if you have some business there (e.g. notifying them that you're leaving the US at the end of a limited term stay), but there is no place where you pull up and are asked questions. Of course, they can close off the lane if they are looking for a fugitive or something, but in normal circumstances you just drive right on through to the Canadian side. So, was he singled out for some reason and pulled over as he left the US?
Sorry, but this simply isn't true: censorship is not limited by definition to censorship exercised by the state. State censorship is probably the most dangerous kind of censorship since the state is the most powerful and pervasive institution, but it is perfectly appropriate to talk about censorship by other entities.
It is true that in the United States only censorship by the government is restricted by the First Amendment, but that has nothing to do with the definition of censorship.
On more than one occasion I have started an article and made the mistake of saving it after writing only a sentence or two (a habit going back to noisy acoustic modems and such), whereupon some idiot watching the new article list decided on this basis that the subject was not notable and tagged it for deletion! You'd think that anybody capable of making decisions about notability would be able to take note of the time stamp and realize that the article had just been created and was likely still in progress. Some deletions are appropriate, but a lot of deletionists really are jerks.
I think you're confusing two different things. The reason that people get out of photo tickets is because the photo doesn't identify the driver. That's not a matter of strict liability - that's a matter of inability to identify the offender. Even if intent is not an element of the offense, the prosecution must be able to prove that the defendant is the one who committed the offense.
The doctrine of joint and several liability governs the allocation of damages among those liable for the commission of a tort. The the users of a wifi connection or the other customers of an ISP are not liable for a wrongful act committed by just one of them. "joint and several liability" has nothing to do with this.
What gets me are the confident assertions that people cannot unintentionally download child pornography by prosecutors who have no idea what they are talking about. It's disturbing both that people pay attention to them and that they are more interested in getting convictions than in consulting real experts.
I've been waiting for something like this for years. I want one! The critics may well be right that this is not a good interface for the average OO user, but multi-button mice can be terrific timesavers for people who use do a great deal of work with certain kinds of software. It isn't just gamers: one task for which I would use one of these would be making repetitive measurements of speech data. When I was a grad student, we had a homebrew box with four knobs, four switches, and two pushbuttons that we used the same way.
How did the other 11 get into office then? Council members are normally elected in England, aren't they? Were these eleven appointed to fill out the terms of a bunch who died in an accident or something?
I think that the characterization "almost completely undocumented" is pretty accurate. The fact that you can find something if you expressly search for it doesn't mean much. The problem is that ldd works in an unexpected way: a program that looks for dependencies is not expected to run anything other than itself. Someone making routine use of ldd is likely just to look at the man page or run ldd -i, neither of which produces any warning about this. The author isn't saying that nobody else knows about this behavior - he's saying that one doesn't find it widely mentioned in places in which most people are likely to see it, which is true.
It looks like they haven't fixed my biggest peeve, namely the refusal the default to the current directory when opening files. When I start up OO in a certain directory, create a document, and save, the overwhelming majority of the time I want to save the new document in the current directory. The same if I open an existing document: I want to look for it by default in the current directory. Instead, in both cases OO defaults to whatever directory it was last in, or the Desktop if it doesn't havdon't impose it on the rest of us. e a directory saved. I understand that this is the behavior that MS Windows users expect, but it is not what Unix users expect, and in my opinion, it is much inferior to the Unix approach. It makes sense to provide the option of MS Windows-type behavior for people switching from MS Windows, but the absence of Unix behavior on Unix systems is really unfortunate. Many of us use Unix because we prefer it, not simply to save money or avoid unfree software. Imposing MS Windows approaches as a lowest common denominator in order to spread FLOSS is not a good idea.
Somewhat less irritating is the fact that when I do want to open a file in a non-default directory, I have to browse using a slow GUI. I'd love to have the option of something that worked like a UNIX shell, in which I could cd and ls.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in Western Canada we call them "udders".
It sounds like you think that "apologist" means "one who apologizes". It doesn't. Yes, it's a subjective psychoacoustic phenomenon, one which has been studied extensively and can be addressed using the methods I mentioned. What's your point?
This is not that difficult a problem. The industry apologists, and many people here, talk as if peak signal level were the only measure of loudness. It isn't. It isn't even one of the usual ones. There are quite a few ways of measuring volume. In addition to those routinely used by electrical engineers, such as RMS power, there are measures that take into account the properties of the human auditory system, which exhibits differential sensitivity to different frequencies. Measurements made for purposes such as concert hall remediation, by-law enforcement, and industrial safety, are usually made with instruments that filter the input according to a filter contour based on that of the auditory system. Look up the "A-contour", the "B-contour", and the "C-contour". There is a whole little corner of psychoacoustics devoted to the perception of loudness as a function of the spectrum of the signal.
Some decisions would need to be made as to which loudness measure to use and over what time window to compute it, but once this choice is made, we can either use it as the criterion in legislation or use it as the basis for a more sophisticated system of automatic gain control. With digital TV, implementing such processing should not be too difficult, and individuals could even adjust it to suit their preferences and auditory systems.
Well, that depends on your definition of speech. In most jurisdictions if you are driving a motor vehicle on a public road you are required to produce your driver's licence, registration, and proof of insurance on demand of a police officer. You can do so without speaking, but you are legally required to provide this information.
One interesting point in the Times Herald article is that Watt was not leaving the US as the other accounts indicate but was entering the US. If this account is correct, it wasn't an unexpected stop while leaving the US but a far from uncommon secondary customs inspection while entering the US.
l That's true, but it isn't as bad as it sounds. You can apply for "rehabilitation". If the offense was more than ten years ago (five in the case misdemeanors), rehabilitation is pretty much automatic. It is said to take a few weeks. So these old offenses don't really prevent entry - you just have to apply in advance.
Once you have permanent resident status in Canada you must reside in Canada for three years before applying for citizenship. In the US it is five years except in certain special cases. So, yes, it does take less time to become a citizen once you're a permanent resident. I would say that the Canadian citizenship test is more difficult than the American one, though I don't know if either is hard enough to cut out a lot of people.
I'm not so sure that it is easier to become a permanent resident though. This may not have a straightforward answer since the countries have different criteria for evaluating potential immigrants.
Handguns aren't completely illegal here, but pretty close. Other than peace officers and soldiers, hardly anyone is permitted to carry a handgun. For ordinary people, licenses are available only for collectors and target shooters.
Interesting. I've never encountered this. What is the stated purpose of these exit inspections? While the government has a lot of authority to regulate who and what comes in, it has only limited authority to regulate what goes out (restricted exports, fugitives, not a lot else).
Are you so sure that they have video cameras covering the exit area? One weird thing about this is that the incident happened as he was leaving the US, where you normally don't stop at all.
I'm not clear on exactly where he was. The articles really don't do a very good job of describing what happened. At the border crossings I am familiar with, there is no barrier on leaving the US. There's a place where you can park and go in if you have some business there (e.g. notifying them that you're leaving the US at the end of a limited term stay), but there is no place where you pull up and are asked questions. Of course, they can close off the lane if they are looking for a fugitive or something, but in normal circumstances you just drive right on through to the Canadian side. So, was he singled out for some reason and pulled over as he left the US?
Sorry, but this simply isn't true: censorship is not limited by definition to censorship exercised by the state. State censorship is probably the most dangerous kind of censorship since the state is the most powerful and pervasive institution, but it is perfectly appropriate to talk about censorship by other entities.
It is true that in the United States only censorship by the government is restricted by the First Amendment, but that has nothing to do with the definition of censorship.
On more than one occasion I have started an article and made the mistake of saving it after writing only a sentence or two (a habit going back to noisy acoustic modems and such), whereupon some idiot watching the new article list decided on this basis that the subject was not notable and tagged it for deletion! You'd think that anybody capable of making decisions about notability would be able to take note of the time stamp and realize that the article had just been created and was likely still in progress. Some deletions are appropriate, but a lot of deletionists really are jerks.
Counterfeit $100s can be identified by the absence of cocaine residue.:)
Not to mention the fact that they expelled us Jews in 1492...
I think you're confusing two different things. The reason that people get out of photo tickets is because the photo doesn't identify the driver. That's not a matter of strict liability - that's a matter of inability to identify the offender. Even if intent is not an element of the offense, the prosecution must be able to prove that the defendant is the one who committed the offense.
The doctrine of joint and several liability governs the allocation of damages among those liable for the commission of a tort. The the users of a wifi connection or the other customers of an ISP are not liable for a wrongful act committed by just one of them. "joint and several liability" has nothing to do with this.
What gets me are the confident assertions that people cannot unintentionally download child pornography by prosecutors who have no idea what they are talking about. It's disturbing both that people pay attention to them and that they are more interested in getting convictions than in consulting real experts.
I've been waiting for something like this for years. I want one! The critics may well be right that this is not a good interface for the average OO user, but multi-button mice can be terrific timesavers for people who use do a great deal of work with certain kinds of software. It isn't just gamers: one task for which I would use one of these would be making repetitive measurements of speech data. When I was a grad student, we had a homebrew box with four knobs, four switches, and two pushbuttons that we used the same way.
In Canada it is legal, under Section 80 of the Copyright Act, to copy a recording for one's personal use. It is not legal to distribute copies.
How did the other 11 get into office then? Council members are normally elected in England, aren't they? Were these eleven appointed to fill out the terms of a bunch who died in an accident or something?
Sheesh, I must be hungry or sleepy. That should be ldd -h, not ldd -i.
I think that the characterization "almost completely undocumented" is pretty accurate. The fact that you can find something if you expressly search for it doesn't mean much. The problem is that ldd works in an unexpected way: a program that looks for dependencies is not expected to run anything other than itself. Someone making routine use of ldd is likely just to look at the man page or run ldd -i, neither of which produces any warning about this. The author isn't saying that nobody else knows about this behavior - he's saying that one doesn't find it widely mentioned in places in which most people are likely to see it, which is true.
It looks like they haven't fixed my biggest peeve, namely the refusal the default to the current directory when opening files. When I start up OO in a certain directory, create a document, and save, the overwhelming majority of the time I want to save the new document in the current directory. The same if I open an existing document: I want to look for it by default in the current directory. Instead, in both cases OO defaults to whatever directory it was last in, or the Desktop if it doesn't havdon't impose it on the rest of us. e a directory saved. I understand that this is the behavior that MS Windows users expect, but it is not what Unix users expect, and in my opinion, it is much inferior to the Unix approach. It makes sense to provide the option of MS Windows-type behavior for people switching from MS Windows, but the absence of Unix behavior on Unix systems is really unfortunate. Many of us use Unix because we prefer it, not simply to save money or avoid unfree software. Imposing MS Windows approaches as a lowest common denominator in order to spread FLOSS is not a good idea.
Somewhat less irritating is the fact that when I do want to open a file in a non-default directory, I have to browse using a slow GUI. I'd love to have the option of something that worked like a UNIX shell, in which I could cd and ls.
That would be way better than cherry-bombing the toilets, wouldn't it? Somebody is sure to try it.