Stodgy old telcos figured this out years ago - the bulk of the switching center equipment runs on 48 VDC. This also makes power backup simple - lead-acid cells in big batteries...
Did you really miss the part about intentional, defamatory falsehood? Or was it the 'stayed that way for months' part you missed? Or perhaps the mealy-mouthed defense of why it should be ok that a total fabrication escapes even basic fact checking (hey, its a democratically santioned libel)? Or maybe its the 'peer review' (or lack thereof, in this case) by any damn-fool with ethernet in his dorm room?
Which of those aspects do you consider the most 'useful'?
"Wikipedia's quality is usually no worse than that of a Newspaper. This is more of a statement of how low Newspapers have sunk than a statement to vindicate Wikipedia."
Simply bullshit. Newspapers can't hide in the grey zone of an online 'publication', and can be sued for printing libels. There's not a newspaper in North America that wouldn't have done a basic fact check on the Seigenthaler entry before publishing it.
Before this bit of cheesy colonial smugness ripens further, recall that the event that started this discussion was an intentional, admitted (and outrageous) falsehood, libeling an upstanding citizen.
Now tell me again about Wikipedia peer review and why its obviously superior to appealing to drab old experts?
"If peer review is good enough for science, medicine, and open source it is certainly good enough for history as well."
Peer review in medicine and science is fundamentally different - the reviewing peers are sanctioned by established and authoritative bodies, and qualified by education, experience, and reputation (rather than by being the only other guy in the freshman dorm who can't sleep that night). The process isn't perfect, being susceptible to inertia, intellectual fashions, lassitude, and even occasional fraud. But it beats hell out of 'anyone can change it, knock yourselves out'.
Rand is extremely popular among college freshmen, most of whom outgrow it after a few years. So-called "Objectivism" breaks down the same way her philosophical nemesis Marx's theories do - people simply don't work that way.
"Who is John Galt?" ranks up there with "Frodo Lives" in the pantheon of Heroic Sounding Catch-Phrases; at least Tolkien wasn't culpable for the Hobbit kerfuffle.
God bless the internet - where we're accustomed to this sort of inane, yet cynical, speculation from someone who has never seen an xbox2. (Consider this a meta-meta-moderation. Raspberries to those moderators that thought this little prose turd was insightful)
Anyone remember, or still able to read, Knuth? He was Mix'ing it up before most/. readers were born. Real computer scientists can disassemble core dumps at the console
"In this case, you need bandpass anti-aliasing filters and not lowpass bandlimiting ones."
You also need A/D converters specified for the top of the actual "carrier" frequency band, i.e., with sample-hold times and aperture-jitter specs suitable for - in your example - the 1.1 MHz top-end frequency of the original signal. This is where this apparent miracle meets the real world - and why there are still analog mixers in the front ends of digital radios
Like the man said in "The Right Stuff", "No bucks, no Buck Rogers".
We all wish that being "righteous" held the world up; it hasn't, doesn't, and won't. Being a beta tester entitles you to precisely nothing, save an early look at the product.
Its the responsibility of the CEO and CFO to make the numbers, make the payroll, satisfy the investors. Their job is, among other things, to isolate the folks nearer your end of the cube-farm from the realities of the cruel world. Would you prefer a shit-hot coder at the helm? After all, any good programmer can run a company, right? Messrs. Hevizi and Hammie seem to have excellent credentials.
Again, you're free with the presumption. How do you know that "they" (whom you don't know) forgot anyone? How do you know what the (presumably righteous) co-founders think? You don't.
I'll give you a hint; you haven't a clue about operating a business. Hide and watch about 15 years, then post again.
Slashdot Mirror
Stodgy old telcos figured this out years ago - the bulk of the switching center equipment runs on 48 VDC. This also makes power backup simple - lead-acid cells in big batteries...
Did you really miss the part about intentional, defamatory falsehood? Or was it the 'stayed that way for months' part you missed? Or perhaps the mealy-mouthed defense of why it should be ok that a total fabrication escapes even basic fact checking (hey, its a democratically santioned libel)? Or maybe its the 'peer review' (or lack thereof, in this case) by any damn-fool with ethernet in his dorm room?
Which of those aspects do you consider the most 'useful'?
Of course it *is* free.
"Wikipedia's quality is usually no worse than that of a Newspaper. This is more of a statement of how low Newspapers have sunk than a statement to vindicate Wikipedia."
Simply bullshit. Newspapers can't hide in the grey zone of an online 'publication', and can be sued for printing libels. There's not a newspaper in North America that wouldn't have done a basic fact check on the Seigenthaler entry before publishing it.
Wait, I get it.. Satire, right?
Before this bit of cheesy colonial smugness ripens further, recall that the event that started this discussion was an intentional, admitted (and outrageous) falsehood, libeling an upstanding citizen.
Now tell me again about Wikipedia peer review and why its obviously superior to appealing to drab old experts?
"If peer review is good enough for science, medicine, and open source it is certainly good enough for history as well."
Peer review in medicine and science is fundamentally different - the reviewing peers are sanctioned by established and authoritative bodies, and qualified by education, experience, and reputation (rather than by being the only other guy in the freshman dorm who can't sleep that night). The process isn't perfect, being susceptible to inertia, intellectual fashions, lassitude, and even occasional fraud. But it beats hell out of 'anyone can change it, knock yourselves out'.
Rand is extremely popular among college freshmen, most of whom outgrow it after a few years. So-called "Objectivism" breaks down the same way her philosophical nemesis Marx's theories do - people simply don't work that way.
"Who is John Galt?" ranks up there with "Frodo Lives" in the pantheon of Heroic Sounding Catch-Phrases; at least Tolkien wasn't culpable for the Hobbit kerfuffle.
God bless the internet - where we're accustomed to this sort of inane, yet cynical, speculation from someone who has never seen an xbox2. (Consider this a meta-meta-moderation. Raspberries to those moderators that thought this little prose turd was insightful)
terriffic.. another dire warning from an undergraduate.
Write us again in 15 years.
Anyone remember, or still able to read, Knuth? He was Mix'ing it up before most /. readers were born. Real computer scientists can disassemble core dumps at the console
"In this case, you need bandpass anti-aliasing filters and not lowpass bandlimiting ones."
You also need A/D converters specified for the top of the actual "carrier" frequency band, i.e., with sample-hold times and aperture-jitter specs suitable for - in your example - the 1.1 MHz top-end frequency of the original signal. This is where this apparent miracle meets the real world - and why there are still analog mixers in the front ends of digital radios
I'll ready the Lysol.
I just can't help it. I'm the old man from above.
Like the man said in "The Right Stuff", "No bucks, no Buck Rogers".
We all wish that being "righteous" held the world up; it hasn't, doesn't, and won't. Being a beta tester entitles you to precisely nothing, save an early look at the product.
Its the responsibility of the CEO and CFO to make the numbers, make the payroll, satisfy the investors. Their job is, among other things, to isolate the folks nearer your end of the cube-farm from the realities of the cruel world. Would you prefer a shit-hot coder at the helm? After all, any good programmer can run a company, right? Messrs. Hevizi and Hammie seem to have excellent credentials.
Again, you're free with the presumption. How do you know that "they" (whom you don't know) forgot anyone? How do you know what the (presumably righteous) co-founders think? You don't.
I'll give you a hint; you haven't a clue about operating a business. Hide and watch about 15 years, then post again.