When two or more instruments play a loud chord, the interference of the inaudible overtones from each instrument produce a distinct "ring" of audible difference tones, audible only at live gigs and on well reproduced SACD recordings. I've seldom heard the same effect to the same degree from a CD. Don't be fooled, this is a real and reliable enough effect for us classical musicians to use it to tune chords. This "ring" should be reproducible in 24/192 when these HF overtones in the stereo or surround channels interfere, which a CD cannot reproduce since there's nothing > 20kHz.
Granted, as mentioned in TA, the amp and speakers need to not be so rubbish as to introduce distortion > 20kHz.
Whilst I can tell in a blind test between the CD and SACD mode of the same disc of a recent BIS recording of Carmina Burana, it's only during certain passages of music where I am listening out for the difference tone "ring". Most of the rest of the time, I can't tell, and 16/44 CDs sound great. I don't think the fact that I am a classically trained musician matters.
That said, I think it's important NOT to be under the illusion that, just because you can't hear anything over 20 kHz (actually, ~16 kHz for most people), that there are no audible consequences when there is more than one channel.
In fact, given that well mastered vinyl played on good cartridges can reproduce fequencies to 60 kHz and beyond, this live "ring" may help explain why some folks still prefer vinyl recordings of classical music to the CD.
I meant that spending money improving teaching, while laudible, won't be as beneficial as spending money improving the home life of children by addressing poverty, domestic violence and healthcare, independent of schooling. Unfortunately this reality does not match up with the right-wing reality distortion field, so the chances of this boring truth getting any air time in the US is approximately naught.
Large quantitative HLM studies show that (the variance in) academic success at school is determined more by home life (social capital - upbringing basically, positive self concept) than by any other factor - the school, the teaching or genetics (although they are contributing factors). If governments - or indeed the Bill Gates Foundation - want to raise student results, then the best place to spend the money is to address poverty, domestic violence and healthcare.
My thoughts:
1. SugarCRM, at least when I was using/hacking it (version 4.5 - 5), was an unmitigated pile of PHP spaghetti crapness.
2. They are a proprietary software company that periodically dumps a six-month-old, pared-down zip file of their code on a "community" of people who haven't realised they're wasting their time.
3. They use "open source" as a marketing gimmick to attract people who don't want to pay shitloads of cash for Salesforce et al.
4. They are not in the slightest bit interested in community contributed patches, code, or design ideas.
5. Periodic requests on the forums for access to their SVN repo are not even denied, it's all "oh yeah, we'll do that next week".
And sorry, but all I've ever been able to get out of the vtiger developers is an inactive mailing list, a silent IRC channel, and one guy in India occasionally updating his blog with "went to some conference yesterday" every few weeks.
This makes no sense to me. [...] How does this hurt Apple?
Because Apple along with a bunch of other large institutions earn MPEG-LA royalties for usage and implementation of H.264. If everyone stopped using it in favour of VP8 then that's a bunch of investment in patents wasted, and a bunch of future royalty income down the tube.
Telcos don't want interconnected community wifi spots all over urban areas, because everyone with a phone or laptop would bypass their precious mobile networks and use VoIP over Wifi instead.
Like I said, you're wrong, and I'm sick of listening to you. I'm not going to bother pointing out why you're wrong either, because like I said, you are so obviously ignorant.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Every Slashdot story about climate change brings out all you whinging Americans spouting a load of nonsense you've read on the train in the Wall Street Journal. Clearly, none of you are conversant in the finer details of climatology. If you were, you would realise how ridiculous you sound. Honestly, you sound like the dribbling fuckwits who deny evolution. You may as well be trying to argue that the world is flat. It's embarrassing.
Who cares what some scientists are scheming or emailing each other? The facts will remain long after they've been and gone. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been this high for several million years. We know the excess can only have come from fossil fuels because the carbon isotope ratios would be wrong otherwise. We know that temperature tracks CO2. We know it's not vulcanism or solar variations (give me a fucking break) because of the trace element data. We know all this shit because oxygen isotope ratios, dating, trace elements, and so on in ice cores, deep sea sediments, coral reefs, tree rings, stalactites and thousands of other independent datasets from all around the world, all say the same thing.
No modeling required.
It's all actually very interesting, not that difficult, and you should read it all and attempt to understand it yourself. But seriously, trying to argue that either climate change isn't happening, or that it is but it isn't us, just makes you all look like a bunch of ignorant arse-hats, and I'm fucking sick of listening to your drivel.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Every Slashdot story about climate change brings out all the whinging Americans spouting a load of nonsense they read on the train in the Wall Street Journal. Clearly, none of you are conversant in the finer details of climatology. If you were, you would realise how ridiculous you sound. Honestly, you sound like the dribbling fuckwits who deny evolution. You may as well be trying to argue that the world is flat. It's embarrassing.
Who cares what some scientists are scheming or emailing each other? The facts will remain long after they've been and gone. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been this high for several million years. We know the excess is from fossil fuels because the carbon isotope ratios match what is expected. We know that temperature tracks CO2. We know it's not vulcanism or solar variations (give me a fucking break) because of the trace element data. We know all this shit because oxygen isotope ratios, dating, trace elements, and so on in ice cores, deep sea sediments, coral reefs, tree rings, stalactites and thousands of other independent datasets from all around the world, all say the same thing.
No modeling required.
It's all actually very interesting, not that difficult, and you should read it all and attempt to understand it yourself. But seriously, trying to argue that either climate change isn't happening, or that it is but it isn't us, just makes you all look like a bunch of ignorant arse-hats, and I'm fucking sick of listening to your drivel.
Hey - all I said was the parent post was bullshit. I hear it bandied about that the floors were strung up all flimsy and hammock-like from the outer load-bearing columns, which is completely wrong, as the load was designed to be transmitted to the ground through the central core.
However if you want to extrapolate from there that I obviously believe that it fell due to some crack government demolition squad, or aliens using gravity rays, or whatever, I couldn't care less, be my guest, but you'd be the idiot.
You do realize that the support structure in the towers was entirely on the perimeter, right? Each floor was hung like a (rigid) hammock from the outer walls. When the crossbeams softened just enough (no linger rigid) to pull inward rather than down, the outer walls buckled at that point. How else would you immagine a hammock would fall if you cut its strings?
Total bullshit.
The buildings had a central core complex made up of 47 box columns, each one metre square in cross-section, formed from six inch thick plate steel. This code housed elevator shafts, stairwells and support conduits, took up at least a quarter of each floor area and was designed to bear the total load of all 120 floors several times over.
It was designed to withstand hurricanes and plane impacts by allowing the building load to be distributed dynamically by allowing lateral forces (from winds and impacts) to be transmitted from the outside ring (250 columns) to the ground through the core via the floor trusses.
If it was built as you say it would collapse in the slightest breath of wind.
"Studies at Rutgers (PDF) have shown that caffeine applied to the skin reverses ultraviolet-induced damage and reduces skin cancer."
Caffeine applied to the skin? Reverses UV damage? Reduces skin cancer? I call bullshit. Reading TFA reveals:
this was a test on mice,
it measured the apoptosis (programmed cell death) incidence in sunburnt skin tissue, using a microscopy assessment,
the caffeine was orally administered, and
caffeine combined with voluntary exercise was greater than either effect alone.
The rest is mostly (well-informed) speculation about the possible mechanisms behind it, and the usual "requires further investigation" clauses to get more funding. A better summary would be:
"Studies at Rutgers (PDF) have shown that caffeine in combination with exercise greatly increases (more than either factor alone) the apoptosis (programmed cell death) rate in UV damaged skin tissue in mice, which may indicate a reduced risk of skin cancer."
There is a critical difference between nuclear pollution and ordinary air pollution. Aerosols and greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels are eventually absorbed relatively easily by the biosphere, with a comparitively short half-life. Some of the radioisotopes in nuclear waste have half lives of hundreds of thousands of years, which means that if there is any uncertainty about its adverse effects, we won't have any way of reversing its damage.
Meanwhile, for those of us who speak the Queen's English instead of modern American neologisms created mainly by ignorant semi-literate people in management, the transitive verb "lever" with exactly the same meaning will do just fine. c.f. administrate, obligate, architect (v.t.), etc.
Worthy sentiments, but would you feel the same way about living next door to Ken Lay if it was your pension fund he stole, your job from which he made you redundant, and your company and career that he turned into dust?
Unfortunately your argument is fatally flawed. You differentiation between violent and non-violent crime assumes a line in the sand where there is none. Ken Lay's crime has tens of thousands of victims, and I don't think they'd be terribly happy that this sociopathic lying swindler would be free to potentially repeat his crime.
Ken Lay is the worst sort of white collar criminal. Although many think he should be fucked and burned and hung from a tree by a butcher hook through his face and left to twist in the wind, luckily for Kenny the US has a justice system and (despite its flaws) he'll instead just rot in jail. Thus, Justice with a J is partly about protecting people from angry mobs taking "justice" into their own hands and causing even more suffering.
Honestly there are much bigger and more morally outrageous issues like the death penalty and (the absence of) gun regulation. "Guns don't kill people, people do." Really? Surely it's the bullets? And throwing bullets at people rarely works, so I'm pretty sure that the gun helps. Apologies to Eddie Izzard.
How exactly do you propose to qualify "small, trusted set of smart people"? Will these people be elected or appointed, and if so by whom? To whom are they accountable? Your argument goes round and round in circles, and nicely sums up one of the eternal dilemmae of human civilisation. All this without even starting to examine what exactly the "right thing" is.
Slashdot Mirror
When two or more instruments play a loud chord, the interference of the inaudible overtones from each instrument produce a distinct "ring" of audible difference tones, audible only at live gigs and on well reproduced SACD recordings. I've seldom heard the same effect to the same degree from a CD. Don't be fooled, this is a real and reliable enough effect for us classical musicians to use it to tune chords. This "ring" should be reproducible in 24/192 when these HF overtones in the stereo or surround channels interfere, which a CD cannot reproduce since there's nothing > 20kHz.
Granted, as mentioned in TA, the amp and speakers need to not be so rubbish as to introduce distortion > 20kHz.
Whilst I can tell in a blind test between the CD and SACD mode of the same disc of a recent BIS recording of Carmina Burana, it's only during certain passages of music where I am listening out for the difference tone "ring". Most of the rest of the time, I can't tell, and 16/44 CDs sound great. I don't think the fact that I am a classically trained musician matters.
That said, I think it's important NOT to be under the illusion that, just because you can't hear anything over 20 kHz (actually, ~16 kHz for most people), that there are no audible consequences when there is more than one channel.
In fact, given that well mastered vinyl played on good cartridges can reproduce fequencies to 60 kHz and beyond, this live "ring" may help explain why some folks still prefer vinyl recordings of classical music to the CD.
I meant that spending money improving teaching, while laudible, won't be as beneficial as spending money improving the home life of children by addressing poverty, domestic violence and healthcare, independent of schooling. Unfortunately this reality does not match up with the right-wing reality distortion field, so the chances of this boring truth getting any air time in the US is approximately naught.
Large quantitative HLM studies show that (the variance in) academic success at school is determined more by home life (social capital - upbringing basically, positive self concept) than by any other factor - the school, the teaching or genetics (although they are contributing factors). If governments - or indeed the Bill Gates Foundation - want to raise student results, then the best place to spend the money is to address poverty, domestic violence and healthcare.
T.S.Eliot wrote (in a play about religious decline, in 1933):
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
Which is pretty much the tl;dr of TFA.
My thoughts: 1. SugarCRM, at least when I was using/hacking it (version 4.5 - 5), was an unmitigated pile of PHP spaghetti crapness. 2. They are a proprietary software company that periodically dumps a six-month-old, pared-down zip file of their code on a "community" of people who haven't realised they're wasting their time. 3. They use "open source" as a marketing gimmick to attract people who don't want to pay shitloads of cash for Salesforce et al. 4. They are not in the slightest bit interested in community contributed patches, code, or design ideas. 5. Periodic requests on the forums for access to their SVN repo are not even denied, it's all "oh yeah, we'll do that next week". And sorry, but all I've ever been able to get out of the vtiger developers is an inactive mailing list, a silent IRC channel, and one guy in India occasionally updating his blog with "went to some conference yesterday" every few weeks.
This makes no sense to me. [...] How does this hurt Apple?
Because Apple along with a bunch of other large institutions earn MPEG-LA royalties for usage and implementation of H.264. If everyone stopped using it in favour of VP8 then that's a bunch of investment in patents wasted, and a bunch of future royalty income down the tube.
Telcos don't want interconnected community wifi spots all over urban areas, because everyone with a phone or laptop would bypass their precious mobile networks and use VoIP over Wifi instead.
What the fuck. Have you even looked at that graph? Here's a real one. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Like I said, you're wrong, and I'm sick of listening to you. I'm not going to bother pointing out why you're wrong either, because like I said, you are so obviously ignorant.
Oh fuck off. I don't know what planet you are on, but on Earth CO2 and temperature are linked. Try reading a paper about it instead of trying to look clever. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/324/5934/1551
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Every Slashdot story about climate change brings out all you whinging Americans spouting a load of nonsense you've read on the train in the Wall Street Journal. Clearly, none of you are conversant in the finer details of climatology. If you were, you would realise how ridiculous you sound. Honestly, you sound like the dribbling fuckwits who deny evolution. You may as well be trying to argue that the world is flat. It's embarrassing.
Who cares what some scientists are scheming or emailing each other? The facts will remain long after they've been and gone. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been this high for several million years. We know the excess can only have come from fossil fuels because the carbon isotope ratios would be wrong otherwise. We know that temperature tracks CO2. We know it's not vulcanism or solar variations (give me a fucking break) because of the trace element data. We know all this shit because oxygen isotope ratios, dating, trace elements, and so on in ice cores, deep sea sediments, coral reefs, tree rings, stalactites and thousands of other independent datasets from all around the world, all say the same thing.
No modeling required.
It's all actually very interesting, not that difficult, and you should read it all and attempt to understand it yourself. But seriously, trying to argue that either climate change isn't happening, or that it is but it isn't us, just makes you all look like a bunch of ignorant arse-hats, and I'm fucking sick of listening to your drivel.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Every Slashdot story about climate change brings out all the whinging Americans spouting a load of nonsense they read on the train in the Wall Street Journal. Clearly, none of you are conversant in the finer details of climatology. If you were, you would realise how ridiculous you sound. Honestly, you sound like the dribbling fuckwits who deny evolution. You may as well be trying to argue that the world is flat. It's embarrassing. Who cares what some scientists are scheming or emailing each other? The facts will remain long after they've been and gone. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not been this high for several million years. We know the excess is from fossil fuels because the carbon isotope ratios match what is expected. We know that temperature tracks CO2. We know it's not vulcanism or solar variations (give me a fucking break) because of the trace element data. We know all this shit because oxygen isotope ratios, dating, trace elements, and so on in ice cores, deep sea sediments, coral reefs, tree rings, stalactites and thousands of other independent datasets from all around the world, all say the same thing. No modeling required. It's all actually very interesting, not that difficult, and you should read it all and attempt to understand it yourself. But seriously, trying to argue that either climate change isn't happening, or that it is but it isn't us, just makes you all look like a bunch of ignorant arse-hats, and I'm fucking sick of listening to your drivel.
Try this: rar x myretardedrarfile.rar
Hey - all I said was the parent post was bullshit. I hear it bandied about that the floors were strung up all flimsy and hammock-like from the outer load-bearing columns, which is completely wrong, as the load was designed to be transmitted to the ground through the central core.
However if you want to extrapolate from there that I obviously believe that it fell due to some crack government demolition squad, or aliens using gravity rays, or whatever, I couldn't care less, be my guest, but you'd be the idiot.
You do realize that the support structure in the towers was entirely on the perimeter, right? Each floor was hung like a (rigid) hammock from the outer walls. When the crossbeams softened just enough (no linger rigid) to pull inward rather than down, the outer walls buckled at that point. How else would you immagine a hammock would fall if you cut its strings?
Total bullshit.
The buildings had a central core complex made up of 47 box columns, each one metre square in cross-section, formed from six inch thick plate steel. This code housed elevator shafts, stairwells and support conduits, took up at least a quarter of each floor area and was designed to bear the total load of all 120 floors several times over.
It was designed to withstand hurricanes and plane impacts by allowing the building load to be distributed dynamically by allowing lateral forces (from winds and impacts) to be transmitted from the outside ring (250 columns) to the ground through the core via the floor trusses.
If it was built as you say it would collapse in the slightest breath of wind.
- this was a test on mice,
- it measured the apoptosis (programmed cell death) incidence in sunburnt skin tissue, using a microscopy assessment,
- the caffeine was orally administered, and
- caffeine combined with voluntary exercise was greater than either effect alone.
The rest is mostly (well-informed) speculation about the possible mechanisms behind it, and the usual "requires further investigation" clauses to get more funding. A better summary would be:There is a critical difference between nuclear pollution and ordinary air pollution. Aerosols and greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels are eventually absorbed relatively easily by the biosphere, with a comparitively short half-life. Some of the radioisotopes in nuclear waste have half lives of hundreds of thousands of years, which means that if there is any uncertainty about its adverse effects, we won't have any way of reversing its damage.
Meanwhile, for those of us who speak the Queen's English instead of modern American neologisms created mainly by ignorant semi-literate people in management, the transitive verb "lever" with exactly the same meaning will do just fine. c.f. administrate, obligate, architect (v.t.), etc.
What is wrong with you? Can we PLEASE not use the word "leverage" as a frickin verb?
For God's sake can we NOT use the word "leverage" as a frickin VERB --
Worthy sentiments, but would you feel the same way about living next door to Ken Lay if it was your pension fund he stole, your job from which he made you redundant, and your company and career that he turned into dust?
Unfortunately your argument is fatally flawed. You differentiation between violent and non-violent crime assumes a line in the sand where there is none. Ken Lay's crime has tens of thousands of victims, and I don't think they'd be terribly happy that this sociopathic lying swindler would be free to potentially repeat his crime.
Ken Lay is the worst sort of white collar criminal. Although many think he should be fucked and burned and hung from a tree by a butcher hook through his face and left to twist in the wind, luckily for Kenny the US has a justice system and (despite its flaws) he'll instead just rot in jail. Thus, Justice with a J is partly about protecting people from angry mobs taking "justice" into their own hands and causing even more suffering.
Honestly there are much bigger and more morally outrageous issues like the death penalty and (the absence of) gun regulation. "Guns don't kill people, people do." Really? Surely it's the bullets? And throwing bullets at people rarely works, so I'm pretty sure that the gun helps. Apologies to Eddie Izzard.
How exactly do you propose to qualify "small, trusted set of smart people"? Will these people be elected or appointed, and if so by whom? To whom are they accountable? Your argument goes round and round in circles, and nicely sums up one of the eternal dilemmae of human civilisation. All this without even starting to examine what exactly the "right thing" is.
And you tell kids these days, and they won't believe you.