No it's not the same. Science translates what the German Wissenschaft and the Latin scientia try to cover: the academic, rigorous study of something.
Science does not mean "exact or physical science," which, as the academic, rigorous study of natural physical phenomena, is just a subset of the original term.
Mr Potor. Before you speak further I feel I should make you aware that the penalty for pretension here is DEATH BY HANGING!
It's odd how the trafficked women in Dubai are mostly from Eastern Europe. Back before colonialism, arab countries had Caucasian slave girls in their harems. Now even though the legal justification has changed, they still have enslaved women from almost the same part of the world.
Actually in Sudan, the oppression of africans, even muslim ones, by arab muslims is something the caliphs would probably recognize. So even though pressure from Britain and other european powers forced them to formally abolish slavery eventually, and it took until 1962 in Saudi Arabia, arabs still prey on vulnerable people from the same regions as they did in the hundreds of years when it was still legal.
This is what makes NTFS difficult to deal with. It has enough similarities to FAT that anyone that has background in using FAT can read from it.
That's not true. NTFS is not at all like FAT. It has inodes like Unix file systems. It uses B trees for directories. Reading this isn't too hard, but it has a log file with a complex undocuented structure. As you write to the volume you need to make sure that the log file has the right data to enable a Windows NTFS implementation to roll back uncompleted transactions should power fail at all times during a write transaction. That's the hard part.
As a gay man, I take positive representations where I can get them. Any time a same-gender relationship is portrayed in a positive but very real light benefits us all. The same can be said of Linux, which, much like being gay, will likely remain a minority OS in the a world that seems married to proprietary software, and never really "come out of the closet" and be truly ready for acceptance the desktop.
Does that mean if someone forces you to use Linux it's like going to prison?
Of course, their margins are already quite slim, and successful gas stations are not operated by fools. Therefore, if the cost of dispensing "One Temperature-Compensated US Gallon" rises above that of "One Old-School Volumetric US Gallon," then they'll just unilaterally increase prices to compensate, by whatever amount the market will bear.
Actually that makes you realise how absurd the complaint is. If you buy gas by volume don't complain that the mass of gas you get varies with temperature. That's just physics.
What if they just put the tanks deeper underground? would it affect it at all?
Saddam tried to bury tanks in the Iraq war which someone told me was mostly about oil prices, but I don't think it was very effective. Certainly gas prices have gone up a lot since then. I think we may have to bury goats or even people to appease the Gas Price Gods.
A free, competitive market is of no use to you if you don't compare prices. To compare prices, you need to know the volume of fuel sold as a "gallon".
Well if they sell it a room temperature then you can still compare prices. The estimates here say that we're talking about a 2% price differential over 20 degrees Celsius. So it doesn't affect price comparisons, even if a gallon in Texas may be 1% less energy than a gallon in Alaska.
Or, did you really mean to say, that it's great the oil company bothers to steal a penny a gallon from me, it implies that some other kind soul (Walmart ?) cares enough to toss a few cents my way every now and again ?
Well Walmart wants your business so it pushes down labour costs and passes on some of the savings to you. The oil company isn't stealing money either, they just decided not to fit a sensor which would save you 2% tops, assuming the gas is 20 degrees C hotter, which seems highly implausible. If you're really concerned about it, there are lawyers who will beat up on the gas companies and pass on some of the savings to you. But those lawyers and Walmart and the gas station are only bothering because they operate in a viciously competitive environment.
If you were in a nice civilised social democratic place like most of Europe, prices in both shops and (particularly) gas stations would be much higher. So my point is that you're better off somewhere where the gas companies pull stuff like this over a couple of percent all things considered, even though that seem a bit counter intuitive.
yes, in my opinion they are too high. As a result I don't pay it, because it is within my power not to.
Yeah, and it's within the RIAA's power to try to put you in jail if they catch you. Once you start to make might-makes-right arguments to justify doing something which causes someone else financial harm, don't complain if they they sic the lawyers on you.
Actually technologically there's no reason for cellphones not be used to connect your laptop to Wifi. They could support Bluetooth EDR and a modem or NIC profile for example to get 3Mbit/s, which is very convenient and fast enough for most web usage.
Or you could do much the same thing over USB and ~480Mbit/s. In a couple of years you could use wireless USB or Bluetooth over UWB and get ~400Mbit/s wirelessly.
Whether they want to offer the service is another matter.
It certainly isn't Calgary or Vancouver, because 50-60k will not cut it in either city.
I live in Calgary and make over that amount. (I also regularily spend time in Vancouver, and know for a fact its pretty comparable to Calgary as far as cost of living these days.)
I wouldn't consider anything 70-80k enough to afford a house, let alone "all the latest tech toys".
Maybe it's like iTunes where you pay extra for the non DRM version of the song.
The economics of the iPhone is interesting actually. I read that since the operators don't subsidise it, they pay Apple a cut of the monthly bill. Someone pointed out a $500 phone and $60 a month for one year minimum means people are actually paying $1220 for a phone. Or $1700 if you go for the $100 per month contract. In which case, a $1000 unlocked cellphone seems like a comparative bargain.
Look on the bright side - the fact that the US companies do this sort thing to a greater extent than in other countries is evidence that they operate in more competitive and less regulated environment where a few cents is noticed. And while you may pay a few extra cents for you petrol, you probably pay less for other things because of this.
True, but the higher the Nyquist freq, the more gentle the slope that the low pass filter can be. The more gentle the slope, the less phase that is introduced. Less phase means the more accurate the reproduction of the original audio which of course means it sounds better.
I can see when you record it helps to sample at a higher rate than the one you're trying to produce for just that reason. I had a friend from Uni who went into professional audio and they sampled at ridiculously high rates. Partly it was for this, partly it was because it was possible to do, and partly it was for marketing reasons.
And if you're mixing, it apparently helps to process at a higher bit depth, so the errors get chucked away when you downconvert at the end.
So for mixing and recording I can see a higher bit depth and sample rate is useful. But not for distribution.
IMHO, evolution runs always, as long as there is time progression and conservation laws apply (perhaps this conditions could even get loosened some more).
Biological evolution needs quite a complex system to be present before it can work. DNA stores a blueprint. Enzymes transcribe it into RNA which leaves the cell nucleus. Then Ribozymes transcribe into proteins, including the enzymes that do the transcription. Copying errors a long the way provide the mutations, and natural selection ensures that good organims with good mutations become more numerous whereas ones without them become less so. But the minimum organism for this is still really complex.
In Cairns-Smith's model, there is another simpler version of life which built DNA and proteins essentially as tools, but they took on a life of their own. Richard Dawkins even speculated that the same thing might happen to us. Silicon based machines built as tools may one day take over from biological systems, and a robot version of Cairns-Smith might note that life had jumped from being Silicon based clay, to Carbon based DNA and proteins and back to Silicon based microchips, switching to a more flexible architecture at each jump.
Which would have a fascination all its own, since I don't think anyone's ever argued that DNA has anything we'd call intelligence. If all of life arises out of swarm behavior at the molecular level, we've managed to take intelligence completely out of the equation.
DNA doesn't but the process of evolution manages to make perfect designs from swarm like rules I think. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that all intelligence is emergent behaviour from swarms actually.
The truly intriguing observation (from my point of view, anyway), though, is that this emergent phenomenon contains examples of exactly the same mechanism at so many levels of complexity. It wouldn't necessarily have to be true that simple interactions at the fundamental particle level would give rise to higher-order behaviors that can be macroscopically described as simple interactions at that higher level. It's the fractal nature of the mechanism that is most intriguing, I think
You know there's a hole in all this that I think means we don't understand it. Once DNA and proteins are there, evolution has booted up and can do anything. But DNA and proteins are two complex to appear by chance. My hunch is that some evolution like process which was not dependent on DNA and proteins must have been running first, and it made them as tools before they took over. But no one to my knowledge has explained how this could work, though some people have tried.
But life appeared pretty soon on earth, almost instantly, and I don't believe in luck or supernatural intervention, so I'd expect someone to figure it out sooner or later.
Sampling rate of 16-bit @ 44.1khz vs. 24-bit @ 192khz.
For 74 minutes of audio to the latter spec, you're talking about 2.5GB.
Look at what you're saying. Improving the sample rate from 44.1kHz to 192kHz moves the Nyqvist frequency from 22.05kHz to 96kHz. Increasing the sample size takes the SNR from 96dB to 144dB.
Now I'm pretty sure I don't care about frequencies between 22.05kHz and 96kHz. Double blind tests make it unlikely most people can even hear them. In fact I suspect the ones thay say they can would fail the test, and so they are actually kidding themselves.
And are all those signals below 96dB are vital to my enjoyment of music? I don't remember be annoyed by vinyl or tape in terms of quality and both of them are a lot worse than 16bit at 44.1kHz. Come to think of it MP3 will cut off at a lower frequency than 22.05kHz, and discard low amplitude components at lot more ruthlessly than even 16bit@44.1kHz and it sounds the same as CD to me.
Hell most of the music I really like I first heard in very low fidelity environments, much worse than even an MP3.
You can well go to a company and test with a Manager and young new employee, but I don't think that biologically there are any significant difference (at least not correlated with the dominant/subordinate biological trait).
Are you kidding? Very senior managers are exactly analogous to the silverback gorillas, the pack alpha males. Middle managers are more like their bitches to be honest than alpha males, though they'll bare their fangs at subordinates a bit if they can get away with it. Mind you as you go down the hierarchy it quickly becomes more meritocratic, mostly because it has to be if the troup is to survive. But watch some documentaries about primates and suddenly the management culture of companies, particularly small ones, will suddenly be sickeningly comprehensible.
Even if there are no insurers to raise prices, the actual health care providers - doctors and so on can still do so. And you don't even have any individual control of health care, so if the doctors do a bad job on average and people complain, their union can just demand more cash from the government. In reality of course, the quality of doctors varies widely, especially as they have no commercial pressure to improve. But if government puts in more cash it will be spread evenly between the good doctors, bad doctors and a sea of bureaucrats.
Even if individual doctors do a terrible job their liability is covered by the NHS trust so if they get sued successfully the payment comes out of the money the government puts into the system. I.e. it's the only system in the world where customers end up paying the costs of their own lawsuits.
Another fatal problem is that each new government tries to improve things in a various ways, all of which usually end up adding more bureaucrats to monitor things. There isn't really any feedback mechanism to correct this, all you can do is to vote them out but that just restarts the improvement cycle. And you can't take money away from the government in this system - they take your money and use it however they want. At best you can continue to pay, pay for private health insurance and use that instead.
All of which is pretty much what seems to happen with the NHS. Both Labour and the Tories have tried with varying degrees of success to introduce more market mechanisms into the system in fact to try to fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
No it's not the same. Science translates what the German Wissenschaft and the Latin scientia try to cover: the academic, rigorous study of something.
Science does not mean "exact or physical science," which, as the academic, rigorous study of natural physical phenomena, is just a subset of the original term.
Mr Potor. Before you speak further I feel I should make you aware that the penalty for pretension here is DEATH BY HANGING!
It's odd how the trafficked women in Dubai are mostly from Eastern Europe. Back before colonialism, arab countries had Caucasian slave girls in their harems. Now even though the legal justification has changed, they still have enslaved women from almost the same part of the world.
Actually in Sudan, the oppression of africans, even muslim ones, by arab muslims is something the caliphs would probably recognize. So even though pressure from Britain and other european powers forced them to formally abolish slavery eventually, and it took until 1962 in Saudi Arabia, arabs still prey on vulnerable people from the same regions as they did in the hundreds of years when it was still legal.
This is what makes NTFS difficult to deal with. It has enough similarities to FAT that anyone that has background in using FAT can read from it.
That's not true. NTFS is not at all like FAT. It has inodes like Unix file systems. It uses B trees for directories. Reading this isn't too hard, but it has a log file with a complex undocuented structure. As you write to the volume you need to make sure that the log file has the right data to enable a Windows NTFS implementation to roll back uncompleted transactions should power fail at all times during a write transaction. That's the hard part.
As a gay man, I take positive representations where I can get them. Any time a same-gender relationship is portrayed in a positive but very real light benefits us all. The same can be said of Linux, which, much like being gay, will likely remain a minority OS in the a world that seems married to proprietary software, and never really "come out of the closet" and be truly ready for acceptance the desktop.
Does that mean if someone forces you to use Linux it's like going to prison?
what do you think suppressing and jailing the BDSM community will do for everyone?
Not much for us, they might enjoy it though.
Of course, their margins are already quite slim, and successful gas stations are not operated by fools. Therefore, if the cost of dispensing "One Temperature-Compensated US Gallon" rises above that of "One Old-School Volumetric US Gallon," then they'll just unilaterally increase prices to compensate, by whatever amount the market will bear.
Actually that makes you realise how absurd the complaint is. If you buy gas by volume don't complain that the mass of gas you get varies with temperature. That's just physics.
What if they just put the tanks deeper underground? would it affect it at all?
Saddam tried to bury tanks in the Iraq war which someone told me was mostly about oil prices, but I don't think it was very effective. Certainly gas prices have gone up a lot since then. I think we may have to bury goats or even people to appease the Gas Price Gods.
A free, competitive market is of no use to you if you don't compare prices. To compare prices, you need to know the volume of fuel sold as a "gallon".
Well if they sell it a room temperature then you can still compare prices. The estimates here say that we're talking about a 2% price differential over 20 degrees Celsius. So it doesn't affect price comparisons, even if a gallon in Texas may be 1% less energy than a gallon in Alaska.
Or, did you really mean to say, that it's great the oil company bothers to steal a penny a gallon from me, it implies that some other kind soul (Walmart ?) cares enough to toss a few cents my way every now and again ?
Well Walmart wants your business so it pushes down labour costs and passes on some of the savings to you. The oil company isn't stealing money either, they just decided not to fit a sensor which would save you 2% tops, assuming the gas is 20 degrees C hotter, which seems highly implausible. If you're really concerned about it, there are lawyers who will beat up on the gas companies and pass on some of the savings to you. But those lawyers and Walmart and the gas station are only bothering because they operate in a viciously competitive environment.
If you were in a nice civilised social democratic place like most of Europe, prices in both shops and (particularly) gas stations would be much higher. So my point is that you're better off somewhere where the gas companies pull stuff like this over a couple of percent all things considered, even though that seem a bit counter intuitive.
DON'T ENCOURAGE THE DUPES!!!
;-)
They're not dupes, they're backups and the US Constitution guarantees our right to make them. Stop oppressing me, fascist
yes, in my opinion they are too high. As a result I don't pay it, because it is within my power not to.
Yeah, and it's within the RIAA's power to try to put you in jail if they catch you. Once you start to make might-makes-right arguments to justify doing something which causes someone else financial harm, don't complain if they they sic the lawyers on you.
I would have thought someone called adolf would be immune from criticism from grammar Nazis.
Actually technologically there's no reason for cellphones not be used to connect your laptop to Wifi. They could support Bluetooth EDR and a modem or NIC profile for example to get 3Mbit/s, which is very convenient and fast enough for most web usage.
Or you could do much the same thing over USB and ~480Mbit/s. In a couple of years you could use wireless USB or Bluetooth over UWB and get ~400Mbit/s wirelessly.
Whether they want to offer the service is another matter.
Out of curiosity, where is "up here"?
/ducks.
It certainly isn't Calgary or Vancouver, because 50-60k will not cut it in either city.
I live in Calgary and make over that amount. (I also regularily spend time in Vancouver, and know for a fact its pretty comparable to Calgary as far as cost of living these days.)
I wouldn't consider anything 70-80k enough to afford a house, let alone "all the latest tech toys".
Umm, maybe he's talking about Newfoundland?
Maybe it's like iTunes where you pay extra for the non DRM version of the song.
h tml
The economics of the iPhone is interesting actually. I read that since the operators don't subsidise it, they pay Apple a cut of the monthly bill. Someone pointed out a $500 phone and $60 a month for one year minimum means people are actually paying $1220 for a phone. Or $1700 if you go for the $100 per month contract. In which case, a $1000 unlocked cellphone seems like a comparative bargain.
And if you don't have the cash up front, Apple has a credit plan with a 180 day no interest payment intro period -
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2001/12/06.4.s
Gotta love Steve Jobs.
Didn't the name ColdFusion tip you off that the software might be dodgy?
Look on the bright side - the fact that the US companies do this sort thing to a greater extent than in other countries is evidence that they operate in more competitive and less regulated environment where a few cents is noticed. And while you may pay a few extra cents for you petrol, you probably pay less for other things because of this.
Don't be pendantic.
True, but the higher the Nyquist freq, the more gentle the slope that the low pass filter can be. The more gentle the slope, the less phase that is introduced. Less phase means the more accurate the reproduction of the original audio which of course means it sounds better.
I can see when you record it helps to sample at a higher rate than the one you're trying to produce for just that reason. I had a friend from Uni who went into professional audio and they sampled at ridiculously high rates. Partly it was for this, partly it was because it was possible to do, and partly it was for marketing reasons.
And if you're mixing, it apparently helps to process at a higher bit depth, so the errors get chucked away when you downconvert at the end.
So for mixing and recording I can see a higher bit depth and sample rate is useful. But not for distribution.
IMHO, evolution runs always, as long as there is time progression and conservation laws apply (perhaps this conditions could even get loosened some more).
Biological evolution needs quite a complex system to be present before it can work. DNA stores a blueprint. Enzymes transcribe it into RNA which leaves the cell nucleus. Then Ribozymes transcribe into proteins, including the enzymes that do the transcription. Copying errors a long the way provide the mutations, and natural selection ensures that good organims with good mutations become more numerous whereas ones without them become less so. But the minimum organism for this is still really complex.
In Cairns-Smith's model, there is another simpler version of life which built DNA and proteins essentially as tools, but they took on a life of their own. Richard Dawkins even speculated that the same thing might happen to us. Silicon based machines built as tools may one day take over from biological systems, and a robot version of Cairns-Smith might note that life had jumped from being Silicon based clay, to Carbon based DNA and proteins and back to Silicon based microchips, switching to a more flexible architecture at each jump.
Which would have a fascination all its own, since I don't think anyone's ever argued that DNA has anything we'd call intelligence. If all of life arises out of swarm behavior at the molecular level, we've managed to take intelligence completely out of the equation.
DNA doesn't but the process of evolution manages to make perfect designs from swarm like rules I think. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that all intelligence is emergent behaviour from swarms actually.
The truly intriguing observation (from my point of view, anyway), though, is that this emergent phenomenon contains examples of exactly the same mechanism at so many levels of complexity. It wouldn't necessarily have to be true that simple interactions at the fundamental particle level would give rise to higher-order behaviors that can be macroscopically described as simple interactions at that higher level. It's the fractal nature of the mechanism that is most intriguing, I think
You know there's a hole in all this that I think means we don't understand it. Once DNA and proteins are there, evolution has booted up and can do anything. But DNA and proteins are two complex to appear by chance. My hunch is that some evolution like process which was not dependent on DNA and proteins must have been running first, and it made them as tools before they took over. But no one to my knowledge has explained how this could work, though some people have tried.
But life appeared pretty soon on earth, almost instantly, and I don't believe in luck or supernatural intervention, so I'd expect someone to figure it out sooner or later.
He's probably a audiophile. A single bit error in their music causes them to haywire and then explode. This is the same effect applied to text.
Sampling rate of 16-bit @ 44.1khz vs. 24-bit @ 192khz.
For 74 minutes of audio to the latter spec, you're talking about 2.5GB.
Look at what you're saying. Improving the sample rate from 44.1kHz to 192kHz moves the Nyqvist frequency from 22.05kHz to 96kHz. Increasing the sample size takes the SNR from 96dB to 144dB.
Now I'm pretty sure I don't care about frequencies between 22.05kHz and 96kHz. Double blind tests make it unlikely most people can even hear them. In fact I suspect the ones thay say they can would fail the test, and so they are actually kidding themselves.
And are all those signals below 96dB are vital to my enjoyment of music? I don't remember be annoyed by vinyl or tape in terms of quality and both of them are a lot worse than 16bit at 44.1kHz. Come to think of it MP3 will cut off at a lower frequency than 22.05kHz, and discard low amplitude components at lot more ruthlessly than even 16bit@44.1kHz and it sounds the same as CD to me.
Hell most of the music I really like I first heard in very low fidelity environments, much worse than even an MP3.
You can well go to a company and test with a Manager and young new employee, but I don't think that biologically there are any significant difference (at least not correlated with the dominant/subordinate biological trait).
Are you kidding? Very senior managers are exactly analogous to the silverback gorillas, the pack alpha males. Middle managers are more like their bitches to be honest than alpha males, though they'll bare their fangs at subordinates a bit if they can get away with it. Mind you as you go down the hierarchy it quickly becomes more meritocratic, mostly because it has to be if the troup is to survive. But watch some documentaries about primates and suddenly the management culture of companies, particularly small ones, will suddenly be sickeningly comprehensible.
so thats us all ruled out
You're so gonna get a wedgie after school.
Even if there are no insurers to raise prices, the actual health care providers - doctors and so on can still do so. And you don't even have any individual control of health care, so if the doctors do a bad job on average and people complain, their union can just demand more cash from the government. In reality of course, the quality of doctors varies widely, especially as they have no commercial pressure to improve. But if government puts in more cash it will be spread evenly between the good doctors, bad doctors and a sea of bureaucrats.
Even if individual doctors do a terrible job their liability is covered by the NHS trust so if they get sued successfully the payment comes out of the money the government puts into the system. I.e. it's the only system in the world where customers end up paying the costs of their own lawsuits.
Another fatal problem is that each new government tries to improve things in a various ways, all of which usually end up adding more bureaucrats to monitor things. There isn't really any feedback mechanism to correct this, all you can do is to vote them out but that just restarts the improvement cycle. And you can't take money away from the government in this system - they take your money and use it however they want. At best you can continue to pay, pay for private health insurance and use that instead.
All of which is pretty much what seems to happen with the NHS. Both Labour and the Tories have tried with varying degrees of success to introduce more market mechanisms into the system in fact to try to fix it.