I don't know what your experience is, but every cop I know (that's more than a handful, from local deputies all the way up to federal agents) would much rather peacefully diffuse every situation if possible. They hate paperwork and the paperwork involved in dutiful discharge of a weapon is bad enough; the paperwork involved in shooting a suspect is hell for them.
Are there situations where this robot would not be ideal? Of course there are, quite a number of them; in fact, they're likely the majority. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option.
And yes, cops do make mistakes and it's not entirely unheard of for them to shoot or arrest the wrong person. It's not up to the cops to dole out punishment; their job is to apprehend and let the court system dole out punishment.
Again, that's why some of the better states in the union have the death penalty. And, again, that's for the courts to dole out, not the cops.
That's great if they can somehow guarantee that every Note 7 gets the update. Talk to the carriers about that one.
In case of a fault like this, the situation is "default unsafe". That is, the color the battery icon was before the fault, which existed before it was found, was discovered is the best indicator that there is a problem with the device; any device which does not change the color of its battery icon can be assumed to have a problem. That problem may be that it contains the faulty battery, that it did not receive the firmware update, or both. In either of the latter conditions, the update can be manually installed and the battery icon observed in order to check for the first condition.
Simply having the update change the icon color for phones containing the faulty battery does not cover that third condition and leaves a large number of users vulnerable to potentially exploding phones, which leaves Samsung liable.
They're probably betting they can settle with Google for less than the cost of settling (or being sued by) with burn victims. I'd make the same bet if I were them.
Oh, no, I fully get that. That's why some of the better states in the union have the death penalty. It's still up to the courts system to dole out that punishment, though; not the police.
Don't be so sure of what? That nobody had to die? Well, the robot went in and disarmed the suspect. Nobody died and the situation was diffused. The situation ended, no shots were fired, and nobody died. I'm absolutely sure nobody had to die to diffuse and end that situation.
Regardless of any claims of racism, or that they got the wrong guy, that may or may not arise, the situation was diffused with nobody having to die. Whether or not a scandal arises from the use of the robot, no scandal will arise from the death of the suspect (which is all I claimed) because the suspect didn't die. I'm, again, absolutely sure of that.
And if more police departments used these unarmed robots instead of putting their poorly trained and well-armed officers in situations they're really and truly not trained to handle (they used to be, but not so much in the past couple decades, ask any cop who's been on the force for that long), those poorly trained officers wouldn't feel threatened enough to (or be in a physical location where they even could) shoot and kill potentially innocent suspects. Not that this guy was (even potentially) innocent, but that's for the court system to decide, not the cops. That's two more things I'm absolutely sure of.
"The robot was a game changer here," said Capt. Jack Ewell, a tactical expert with the Sheriff's Department -- the largest sheriff's department in the nation. "We didn't have to risk a deputy's life to disarm a very violent man."
More importantly, nobody had to die. They were able to diffuse the situation without filling the guy with bullets, he gets his day in court, and there's no police scandal surrounding his death. This is a win; now, if every other PD would follow suit and use some of their "urban tank" budget on these instead.
In my first example, I was working a minimum wage job and it wasn't worth the effort to treat him any differently. In the second, the client is one with whom I have a long history and who literally refuses to make any changes to what they're asking for; I'd already done that dance with them on past projects, this time around I knew better.
Yes, it's always best to give your customers what is best for them, but if you can't get them to take it you give them what they ask for. They've also, since, come around to the idea that I might actually understand their business (better than they do in many cases) and know what I'm talking about; it only took 8 or so such projects before they started listening to me.
You seem to think it was disrespectful of me to take money they insisted on giving me; on the contrary, it would have been disrespectful to push them and argue with them once they had made their decision. I explained how what they were asking for didn't fit their needs (which they acknowledged), explained what I believed their needs were (which they agreed with), explained what would be provided by what they were asking for (which they also agreed with), and explained that the cost to take and application created to do what they were asking and modify it to do what they actually need would cost more than initially developing the applications correctly in the first place. Pushing beyond that would have been disrespectful.
That presenter was partially right, though; the customer is always the customer. He just failed to define "customer". He also failed to define "right".
Exactly. And even for those who don't care about audio quality, for whom bluetooth is more than adequate for listening to music (and I'll admit I do love my Apt-X enabled bluetooth headset for listening on the go, in noisy environments where it doesn't matter anyway, especially when working on mechanical items where wires can be a hazard), the delay is killer for gaming and makes video unwatchable. Wired headphones still have their place where audio timing matters.
No, the industries which most commonly use these plugs have just simplified the means of referring to them The 2.5mm and 3.5mm variants are truly 2.5mm and 3.5mm, with 1/16" and 1/8" being the closest common imperial measurements to those metric sizes. The 1/4" variant is truly 1/4", which is 6.4mm, but we simplify it to 6mm because there isn't another 6.x mm size we need to differentiate.
So, if you're more comfortable with metric, you have 2.5mm, 3.5mm, and 6mm, while everyone else has 1/16", 1/8", and 1/4", and it's all been simplified to the point that both groups can understand each other when asking for a certain size in either system of measurement.
Yes. At your desk it's simpler. I have a similar setup, except that it's a Thunderbolt hub that connects my display, ethernet, audio, and USB (2.0, 3.0, and 3.1) devices, as well as another Thunderbolt port, should I need it.
Do you carry that with you, or do you leave it set up on your desk?
If you carry it with you, it's no longer simpler to set up, as you have to connect all of that every time you move the computer; if you don't carry it with you, you lose those ports when you're not at your desk, so it's best to have them on the laptop itself for mobile use. That doesn't negate the value of the dock, nor does the dock negate the usefulness of the ports.
Actually, if you take a moment to think about what he's saying, it makes perfect sense.
In a laptop machine that is often used in a desktop environment, you want the ability to have the hubs and docks permanently set up in those locations so you only have to plug in power and the hub/dock at your desk, where you'll likely be using that machine 5 or more days per week. This makes your daily setup/takedown of the machine much simpler.
On the other hand, as it's a portable machine, you also want those ports available directly on the machine itself, so you don't have to carry the hub/dock with you in order to have the functionality those ports provide.
No, the customer is always right. If they're not paying you, they're not a customer, so if you can't bill them for what they want (and again for what they really wanted), they're no a customer.
Example:
When I used to work in a convenience store, a guy came in who I'd never seen before, demanding a free soda because "the cups cost a nickle and the soda costs two cents, why do you care? It's good customer service." My response was plainly "And I'd happily do it for a good customer, but you've never spent a cent here and aren't intending to make a purchase, so you're not a customer at all." He, then, decided to walk over and grab a pack of gum; meanwhile, I rang up the customer behind him, one of my regulars, and gave him a free soda just to make a point. The original "customer" comes back with a pack of gum and expects that his one-time purchase will entitle him to a free soda, an expectation which was met with the following: "Once I've seen you in here a few times and you happen to be next in line behind someone looking for a handout, we'll talk."
He got the message. He also became a regular and would hang out when I was on a night shift to keep me company, since they often had me working alone late at night. Yes, that did net him many a free soda, but snacks were always on him.
And this anecdote, which is more relevant to tech:
I had a client insist that a program I developed for them work one way, while their business logic was entirely different. I pointed out the discrepancy once and left the decision to them. They chose to go ahead as originally planned. I warned them that, should their decision prove to be incorrect, they'd still have to pay for my work, as well as any work necessary (which I informed them would likely be more than the original project) to correct it. They agreed, which made them a customer for both the original project and the fix, which made them right.
And right they were. I did want to implement it the way they insisted. And I did want to fix it. The fix cost twice as much as the original work; who would argue with a customer wanting to triple their billable hours?
Now, had they not agreed, up-front, to the potential cost of correcting the issue I brought to their attention should the project go forward as planned, the likelihood of them not paying at all would have shot through the roof and they'd have been neither customers nor right.
3.5mm (AKA 1/8") comes in TS, TRS, and TRRS variants, just like 1/4" (AKA 6mm); all three formats are also made in a 1/16" size (AKA 2.5mm).
TS is actually the more common 1/4" on a lot of consoles; two lines, one for the left channel and one for the right; TRS usually only exists on consoles as a headphone output. One reason for this is that, quite often, a stereo pair is actually split into two monaural channels to record, for example, two different instruments, two different vocal tracks, or one person's separate vocal and instrument track, none of which typically need to be recorded in stereo (save for a very few instruments, any stereo effect is typically added in mixing). We don't see a bunch of monaural inputs on mixers because there is also often the requirement for a stereo pair, but we do see those stereo inputs split out into two monaural jacks for the above reason.
I've seen a 1/4" TRRS in the wild, commonly used on broadcast headsets. Hell, I've even seen TRRRS connectors, for quadraphonic audio, in both larger sizes.
Every single high-end pair of headphones, as well as most low-end "studio-style" headphones and headsets, includes an adapter from 1/4" TRS to 1/8" TRS; whether the adapter is 1/4" > 1/8" or 1/8" > 1/4" will depend on whether the headphones ship with a 1/4" or 1/8" TRS plug, but the adapter will be there. It is the single most common audio adapter in the world. TS adapters of this type will be somewhat less common in home audio, but you are virtually guaranteed to find a box, bin, basket, or drawer-full of the things sitting on or near any mixing console. TRRS and TRRRS adapters that go from 1/4" to 1/8" are going to be less common, but the need for them is virtually nonexistent, so that's fine; 1/8" to 1/16" TS, TRS, and TRRS adapters are also fairly common, one or more of them typically being included with equipment that utilizes 1/16" jacks. I'm sure there's a 1/16" TRRRS out there somewhere as well, but I've never heard of such a beast.
Here's a breakdown for you:
TS - Tip/Sleeve - Carries one monaural audio signal. Common in 1/4", 1/8", and 1/16". Adapters available between all sizes, commonly found for 1/4" to/from 1/8" and 1/8" to/from 1/16".
TRS - Tip/Ring/Sleeve - Carries one stereo or two monaural audio signals. Common in 1/4", 1/8", and 1/16". Adapters available between all sizes, commonly found for 1/4" to/from 1/8" and 1/8" to/from 1/16".
TRRS - Tip/Ring/Ring/Sleeve - Carries one stereo and one monaural audio signal, or three monaural audio signals. Commonly used in headsets to provide stereo audio and a monaural microphone. Common in 1/8" and 1/16". Adapters available between all sizes, commonly found for 1/8" to/from 1/16".
TRRRS - Tip/Ring/Ring/Ring/Sleeve - Carries one quadraphonic audio signal, two stereo audio signals, one stereo and two monaural audio signals, or four monaural audio signals. Commonly used on quadraphonic headphones and stereo headsets providing a stereo microphone. Uncommon in all sizes, available in 1/4" and 1/8". Adapters available for 1/4" to/from 1/8".
Since you clearly read my follow-up comment (and replied to it before writing this), this insult was wholly unnecessary. Here's a tip: if you want people to listen to you, don't call them uneducated retards.
Except that the difference is, in fact, enough to matter when taken in the excessive amounts seen in the current common diet. Before we started replacing fat and fiber in everything with sugar, 5% wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference, as 5% of almost nothing is still almost nothing. However, when you start talking about the average American's 130lb/yr sugar intake, 5% is 6.5lb. That's 6.5lb more fructose (taken without the fiber it's naturally bundled with, since we replaced fiber with sucrose, then replaced sucrose with HFCS) per year than we'd get eating sucrose.
In 1822, the average American consumed just 8.5lb of sugar per year, and even that was artificially more than we should be eating. Sucrose vs HFCS back then would have been negligible, a difference of less than half a pound. And remember, only half of that sucrose, 4.25lb, is fructose.
But now? That 5% is more than 150% of the average 1822 fructose consumption, which was already too high.
If you think that doesn't matter, you're not paying attention.
Try posting that reply to my follow-up post. You won't because you'd feel silly doing so.
While you did "get" me with the info on HFCS-42, you also claimed that sucrose would make the product too sweet rather than applying the same logic that was applied to soft-drinks: use less of it. Entaman's started out with a sucrose-instead-of-fat recipe and it went over quite well in the market; I haven't seen them on shelves since shortly after they switched to HFCS. Are they even still around, or did the switch to an inferior ingredient kill them?
There's also the matter of the question I ask at the end of my follow-up post, which is the real stone I was intending to throw. A claim was made that the additional small amount of fructose was moot, so I asked, then, "why even bring it up?"
And, as for those extra 10 calories...
They don't matter. If you don't have some other dietary issue, excess calories do not matter. They essentially get shit out.
I know that flies in the face of everything we've been told for the past few decades but, well, we see just how reliable that information is, don't we? Really, follow the logic.
You can burn 10 calories per minute jumping rope. Not childsplay rope-jumping, not double dutch, but full-on heavy breathing, heart pumping cardio rope jumping. How long can you sustain a full cardio workout? 15-20 minutes? Maybe a half hour? The best of us can probably do so for an hour on a regular basis.
14 minutes will burn a can of Coke. 31 minutes burns a 20oz bottle.
Eat a Big Mac? Go do intense cardio for 54 minutes. Make that 2hr 40min because you made it a meal; large, of course. That's an extra 56min for the 32oz Coke and 50min for the fries. Can you do 2hr 40min of intense cardio in one go? No? Of course not, nobody can on a regular enough basis to counter overeating.
Yet, there are a lot of people out there who eat that every day, on top of their other meals, who somehow manage to maintain their ideal weight and not develop diabetes in the process.
How?
Dietary balance.
They give their bodies the calories they need in the form of a nutritionally balanced diet, then they eat whatever they want after that. It's surprising how well this works; your body stops processing incoming calories for storage once it has everything it needs. It really and truly does.
I mean, come on, that Big Mac meal is 1600 calories. That's more than the daily required intake for most of the people who eat it. Yes, we're a nation (neigh, world) of fatasses, but it's not due to calories, or everyone eating that stuff would be a diabetic fatass, and they're not; really, it's just those who only eat like that, because their bodies keep processing incoming calories due to a lack of nutritional balance.
Seriously. Follow the logic.
And why is any of this relevant to your post? Because the 10 calorie difference between American Coke and Mexican Coke does not matter. On the other hand, the 5% increase in leptin-inhibiting fructose does; because it's not a 5% increase, because it inhibits leptin, so you keep eating, you keep drinking, and you take in a lot more of it as a result.
It ain't the calories, it's the source of the calories; but if you've gotten your calories from a non-shitty source already, it ceases to matter. That's why this problem only seems to affect some of the people who eat this crap, and not all of them.
In the 2nd paragraph, "ration" should be "ratio" and in the 3rd "just be used" should be "must be used".
And in the 4th, I should have said "formulations which to not contain added glucose."
Additionally, to clarify, as corn syrup, itself, is considered to be "100%" glucose: In reality, it is the product of heating a mixture of hydrochloric acid and corn starch, yielding some amount of glucose, but also maltose and other saccharides. A more modern method of producing corn syrup is to add a series of enzymes to a mixture of corn starch and water, resulting in a similar blend of saccharides. Corn syrup is, in fact, not 100% glucose, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, nor does the end product of further enzymatic processing of corn syrup (e.g. HFCS) ever have a fructose to glucose ratio lower than 11:9 (e.g. 55% to 45%).
However, just for the sake of argument, let's assume I'm wrong and you're right. Let's assume HFCS can have a better fructose to glucose ratio than sucrose. You assert that the difference isn't enough to matter. So, then, why even bring it up?
Sucrose and HFCS have roughly the same fructose to glucose ratio. Yes, it can and does vary, but not much, in fact in many cases HFCS is lower.
Speaking of highly uneducated comments...
Fructose is C6H12O6. It contains no glucose, the fructose to glucose ration of fructose is 1:0. Your liver does convert a small amount of it into glucose but, unlike sucrose (which is one fructose molecule bonded to one glucose molecule), it does not contain a glucose molecule.
HFCS, as a finished product, may or may not have added glucose to compensate, but the end result of adding glucose is a reduced sweetness index, which means more of that specific formulation just be used to achieve the same level of sweetness, negating any benefit that may arise from the addition of glucose in the first place.
Or, to put it another way, manufacturers of HFCS, in fact, do not add glucose to their product, as doing so comes at an added cost and renders the product inferior to HFCS formulations which to not contain glucose. And I'll remind you that fructose, itself, does not contain glucose.
Slashdot Mirror
It would have to be white for safe devices, didn't you read the summary?
I don't know what your experience is, but every cop I know (that's more than a handful, from local deputies all the way up to federal agents) would much rather peacefully diffuse every situation if possible. They hate paperwork and the paperwork involved in dutiful discharge of a weapon is bad enough; the paperwork involved in shooting a suspect is hell for them.
Are there situations where this robot would not be ideal? Of course there are, quite a number of them; in fact, they're likely the majority. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be an option.
And yes, cops do make mistakes and it's not entirely unheard of for them to shoot or arrest the wrong person. It's not up to the cops to dole out punishment; their job is to apprehend and let the court system dole out punishment.
Again, that's why some of the better states in the union have the death penalty. And, again, that's for the courts to dole out, not the cops.
That's great if they can somehow guarantee that every Note 7 gets the update. Talk to the carriers about that one.
In case of a fault like this, the situation is "default unsafe". That is, the color the battery icon was before the fault, which existed before it was found, was discovered is the best indicator that there is a problem with the device; any device which does not change the color of its battery icon can be assumed to have a problem. That problem may be that it contains the faulty battery, that it did not receive the firmware update, or both. In either of the latter conditions, the update can be manually installed and the battery icon observed in order to check for the first condition.
Simply having the update change the icon color for phones containing the faulty battery does not cover that third condition and leaves a large number of users vulnerable to potentially exploding phones, which leaves Samsung liable.
They're probably betting they can settle with Google for less than the cost of settling (or being sued by) with burn victims. I'd make the same bet if I were them.
Oh, no, I fully get that. That's why some of the better states in the union have the death penalty. It's still up to the courts system to dole out that punishment, though; not the police.
Don't be so sure of what? That nobody had to die? Well, the robot went in and disarmed the suspect. Nobody died and the situation was diffused. The situation ended, no shots were fired, and nobody died. I'm absolutely sure nobody had to die to diffuse and end that situation.
Regardless of any claims of racism, or that they got the wrong guy, that may or may not arise, the situation was diffused with nobody having to die. Whether or not a scandal arises from the use of the robot, no scandal will arise from the death of the suspect (which is all I claimed) because the suspect didn't die. I'm, again, absolutely sure of that.
And if more police departments used these unarmed robots instead of putting their poorly trained and well-armed officers in situations they're really and truly not trained to handle (they used to be, but not so much in the past couple decades, ask any cop who's been on the force for that long), those poorly trained officers wouldn't feel threatened enough to (or be in a physical location where they even could) shoot and kill potentially innocent suspects. Not that this guy was (even potentially) innocent, but that's for the court system to decide, not the cops. That's two more things I'm absolutely sure of.
And yes, that would be a win. That makes 5.
Why yes, that's what a robot is. You're thinking androids.
"The robot was a game changer here," said Capt. Jack Ewell, a tactical expert with the Sheriff's Department -- the largest sheriff's department in the nation. "We didn't have to risk a deputy's life to disarm a very violent man."
More importantly, nobody had to die. They were able to diffuse the situation without filling the guy with bullets, he gets his day in court, and there's no police scandal surrounding his death. This is a win; now, if every other PD would follow suit and use some of their "urban tank" budget on these instead.
It has both until you use one or the other; when you use one, the other disappears. Because both functions share the same port.
You almost made me snort my coke..
Liquid or line?
In my first example, I was working a minimum wage job and it wasn't worth the effort to treat him any differently. In the second, the client is one with whom I have a long history and who literally refuses to make any changes to what they're asking for; I'd already done that dance with them on past projects, this time around I knew better.
Yes, it's always best to give your customers what is best for them, but if you can't get them to take it you give them what they ask for. They've also, since, come around to the idea that I might actually understand their business (better than they do in many cases) and know what I'm talking about; it only took 8 or so such projects before they started listening to me.
You seem to think it was disrespectful of me to take money they insisted on giving me; on the contrary, it would have been disrespectful to push them and argue with them once they had made their decision. I explained how what they were asking for didn't fit their needs (which they acknowledged), explained what I believed their needs were (which they agreed with), explained what would be provided by what they were asking for (which they also agreed with), and explained that the cost to take and application created to do what they were asking and modify it to do what they actually need would cost more than initially developing the applications correctly in the first place. Pushing beyond that would have been disrespectful.
That presenter was partially right, though; the customer is always the customer. He just failed to define "customer". He also failed to define "right".
Exactly. And even for those who don't care about audio quality, for whom bluetooth is more than adequate for listening to music (and I'll admit I do love my Apt-X enabled bluetooth headset for listening on the go, in noisy environments where it doesn't matter anyway, especially when working on mechanical items where wires can be a hazard), the delay is killer for gaming and makes video unwatchable. Wired headphones still have their place where audio timing matters.
No, the industries which most commonly use these plugs have just simplified the means of referring to them The 2.5mm and 3.5mm variants are truly 2.5mm and 3.5mm, with 1/16" and 1/8" being the closest common imperial measurements to those metric sizes. The 1/4" variant is truly 1/4", which is 6.4mm, but we simplify it to 6mm because there isn't another 6.x mm size we need to differentiate.
So, if you're more comfortable with metric, you have 2.5mm, 3.5mm, and 6mm, while everyone else has 1/16", 1/8", and 1/4", and it's all been simplified to the point that both groups can understand each other when asking for a certain size in either system of measurement.
Yes. At your desk it's simpler. I have a similar setup, except that it's a Thunderbolt hub that connects my display, ethernet, audio, and USB (2.0, 3.0, and 3.1) devices, as well as another Thunderbolt port, should I need it.
Do you carry that with you, or do you leave it set up on your desk?
If you carry it with you, it's no longer simpler to set up, as you have to connect all of that every time you move the computer; if you don't carry it with you, you lose those ports when you're not at your desk, so it's best to have them on the laptop itself for mobile use. That doesn't negate the value of the dock, nor does the dock negate the usefulness of the ports.
You appear to contradict yourself.
Actually, if you take a moment to think about what he's saying, it makes perfect sense.
In a laptop machine that is often used in a desktop environment, you want the ability to have the hubs and docks permanently set up in those locations so you only have to plug in power and the hub/dock at your desk, where you'll likely be using that machine 5 or more days per week. This makes your daily setup/takedown of the machine much simpler.
On the other hand, as it's a portable machine, you also want those ports available directly on the machine itself, so you don't have to carry the hub/dock with you in order to have the functionality those ports provide.
No, the customer is always right. If they're not paying you, they're not a customer, so if you can't bill them for what they want (and again for what they really wanted), they're no a customer.
Example:
When I used to work in a convenience store, a guy came in who I'd never seen before, demanding a free soda because "the cups cost a nickle and the soda costs two cents, why do you care? It's good customer service." My response was plainly "And I'd happily do it for a good customer, but you've never spent a cent here and aren't intending to make a purchase, so you're not a customer at all." He, then, decided to walk over and grab a pack of gum; meanwhile, I rang up the customer behind him, one of my regulars, and gave him a free soda just to make a point. The original "customer" comes back with a pack of gum and expects that his one-time purchase will entitle him to a free soda, an expectation which was met with the following: "Once I've seen you in here a few times and you happen to be next in line behind someone looking for a handout, we'll talk."
He got the message. He also became a regular and would hang out when I was on a night shift to keep me company, since they often had me working alone late at night. Yes, that did net him many a free soda, but snacks were always on him.
And this anecdote, which is more relevant to tech:
I had a client insist that a program I developed for them work one way, while their business logic was entirely different. I pointed out the discrepancy once and left the decision to them. They chose to go ahead as originally planned. I warned them that, should their decision prove to be incorrect, they'd still have to pay for my work, as well as any work necessary (which I informed them would likely be more than the original project) to correct it. They agreed, which made them a customer for both the original project and the fix, which made them right.
And right they were. I did want to implement it the way they insisted. And I did want to fix it. The fix cost twice as much as the original work; who would argue with a customer wanting to triple their billable hours?
Now, had they not agreed, up-front, to the potential cost of correcting the issue I brought to their attention should the project go forward as planned, the likelihood of them not paying at all would have shot through the roof and they'd have been neither customers nor right.
Haha I was like "WTF is this guy talking about" and had to go back up and re-read the comment. Then I saw it... Nice catch!
3.5mm (AKA 1/8") comes in TS, TRS, and TRRS variants, just like 1/4" (AKA 6mm); all three formats are also made in a 1/16" size (AKA 2.5mm).
TS is actually the more common 1/4" on a lot of consoles; two lines, one for the left channel and one for the right; TRS usually only exists on consoles as a headphone output. One reason for this is that, quite often, a stereo pair is actually split into two monaural channels to record, for example, two different instruments, two different vocal tracks, or one person's separate vocal and instrument track, none of which typically need to be recorded in stereo (save for a very few instruments, any stereo effect is typically added in mixing). We don't see a bunch of monaural inputs on mixers because there is also often the requirement for a stereo pair, but we do see those stereo inputs split out into two monaural jacks for the above reason.
I've seen a 1/4" TRRS in the wild, commonly used on broadcast headsets. Hell, I've even seen TRRRS connectors, for quadraphonic audio, in both larger sizes.
Every single high-end pair of headphones, as well as most low-end "studio-style" headphones and headsets, includes an adapter from 1/4" TRS to 1/8" TRS; whether the adapter is 1/4" > 1/8" or 1/8" > 1/4" will depend on whether the headphones ship with a 1/4" or 1/8" TRS plug, but the adapter will be there. It is the single most common audio adapter in the world. TS adapters of this type will be somewhat less common in home audio, but you are virtually guaranteed to find a box, bin, basket, or drawer-full of the things sitting on or near any mixing console. TRRS and TRRRS adapters that go from 1/4" to 1/8" are going to be less common, but the need for them is virtually nonexistent, so that's fine; 1/8" to 1/16" TS, TRS, and TRRS adapters are also fairly common, one or more of them typically being included with equipment that utilizes 1/16" jacks. I'm sure there's a 1/16" TRRRS out there somewhere as well, but I've never heard of such a beast.
Here's a breakdown for you:
TS - Tip/Sleeve - Carries one monaural audio signal. Common in 1/4", 1/8", and 1/16". Adapters available between all sizes, commonly found for 1/4" to/from 1/8" and 1/8" to/from 1/16".
TRS - Tip/Ring/Sleeve - Carries one stereo or two monaural audio signals. Common in 1/4", 1/8", and 1/16". Adapters available between all sizes, commonly found for 1/4" to/from 1/8" and 1/8" to/from 1/16".
TRRS - Tip/Ring/Ring/Sleeve - Carries one stereo and one monaural audio signal, or three monaural audio signals. Commonly used in headsets to provide stereo audio and a monaural microphone. Common in 1/8" and 1/16". Adapters available between all sizes, commonly found for 1/8" to/from 1/16".
TRRRS - Tip/Ring/Ring/Ring/Sleeve - Carries one quadraphonic audio signal, two stereo audio signals, one stereo and two monaural audio signals, or four monaural audio signals. Commonly used on quadraphonic headphones and stereo headsets providing a stereo microphone. Uncommon in all sizes, available in 1/4" and 1/8". Adapters available for 1/4" to/from 1/8".
And there you go with the insults again. Get fucked.
Since you clearly read my follow-up comment (and replied to it before writing this), this insult was wholly unnecessary. Here's a tip: if you want people to listen to you, don't call them uneducated retards.
Except that the difference is, in fact, enough to matter when taken in the excessive amounts seen in the current common diet. Before we started replacing fat and fiber in everything with sugar, 5% wouldn't have made a whole lot of difference, as 5% of almost nothing is still almost nothing. However, when you start talking about the average American's 130lb/yr sugar intake, 5% is 6.5lb. That's 6.5lb more fructose (taken without the fiber it's naturally bundled with, since we replaced fiber with sucrose, then replaced sucrose with HFCS) per year than we'd get eating sucrose.
In 1822, the average American consumed just 8.5lb of sugar per year, and even that was artificially more than we should be eating. Sucrose vs HFCS back then would have been negligible, a difference of less than half a pound. And remember, only half of that sucrose, 4.25lb, is fructose.
But now? That 5% is more than 150% of the average 1822 fructose consumption, which was already too high.
If you think that doesn't matter, you're not paying attention.
Try posting that reply to my follow-up post. You won't because you'd feel silly doing so.
While you did "get" me with the info on HFCS-42, you also claimed that sucrose would make the product too sweet rather than applying the same logic that was applied to soft-drinks: use less of it. Entaman's started out with a sucrose-instead-of-fat recipe and it went over quite well in the market; I haven't seen them on shelves since shortly after they switched to HFCS. Are they even still around, or did the switch to an inferior ingredient kill them?
There's also the matter of the question I ask at the end of my follow-up post, which is the real stone I was intending to throw. A claim was made that the additional small amount of fructose was moot, so I asked, then, "why even bring it up?"
And, as for those extra 10 calories...
They don't matter. If you don't have some other dietary issue, excess calories do not matter. They essentially get shit out.
I know that flies in the face of everything we've been told for the past few decades but, well, we see just how reliable that information is, don't we? Really, follow the logic.
You can burn 10 calories per minute jumping rope. Not childsplay rope-jumping, not double dutch, but full-on heavy breathing, heart pumping cardio rope jumping. How long can you sustain a full cardio workout? 15-20 minutes? Maybe a half hour? The best of us can probably do so for an hour on a regular basis.
14 minutes will burn a can of Coke. 31 minutes burns a 20oz bottle.
Eat a Big Mac? Go do intense cardio for 54 minutes. Make that 2hr 40min because you made it a meal; large, of course. That's an extra 56min for the 32oz Coke and 50min for the fries. Can you do 2hr 40min of intense cardio in one go? No? Of course not, nobody can on a regular enough basis to counter overeating.
Yet, there are a lot of people out there who eat that every day, on top of their other meals, who somehow manage to maintain their ideal weight and not develop diabetes in the process.
How?
Dietary balance.
They give their bodies the calories they need in the form of a nutritionally balanced diet, then they eat whatever they want after that. It's surprising how well this works; your body stops processing incoming calories for storage once it has everything it needs. It really and truly does.
I mean, come on, that Big Mac meal is 1600 calories. That's more than the daily required intake for most of the people who eat it. Yes, we're a nation (neigh, world) of fatasses, but it's not due to calories, or everyone eating that stuff would be a diabetic fatass, and they're not; really, it's just those who only eat like that, because their bodies keep processing incoming calories due to a lack of nutritional balance.
Seriously. Follow the logic.
And why is any of this relevant to your post? Because the 10 calorie difference between American Coke and Mexican Coke does not matter. On the other hand, the 5% increase in leptin-inhibiting fructose does; because it's not a 5% increase, because it inhibits leptin, so you keep eating, you keep drinking, and you take in a lot more of it as a result.
It ain't the calories, it's the source of the calories; but if you've gotten your calories from a non-shitty source already, it ceases to matter. That's why this problem only seems to affect some of the people who eat this crap, and not all of them.
Gah... didn't proofread...
In the 2nd paragraph, "ration" should be "ratio" and in the 3rd "just be used" should be "must be used".
And in the 4th, I should have said "formulations which to not contain added glucose."
Additionally, to clarify, as corn syrup, itself, is considered to be "100%" glucose: In reality, it is the product of heating a mixture of hydrochloric acid and corn starch, yielding some amount of glucose, but also maltose and other saccharides. A more modern method of producing corn syrup is to add a series of enzymes to a mixture of corn starch and water, resulting in a similar blend of saccharides. Corn syrup is, in fact, not 100% glucose, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, nor does the end product of further enzymatic processing of corn syrup (e.g. HFCS) ever have a fructose to glucose ratio lower than 11:9 (e.g. 55% to 45%).
However, just for the sake of argument, let's assume I'm wrong and you're right. Let's assume HFCS can have a better fructose to glucose ratio than sucrose. You assert that the difference isn't enough to matter. So, then, why even bring it up?
Sucrose and HFCS have roughly the same fructose to glucose ratio. Yes, it can and does vary, but not much, in fact in many cases HFCS is lower.
Speaking of highly uneducated comments...
Fructose is C6H12O6. It contains no glucose, the fructose to glucose ration of fructose is 1:0. Your liver does convert a small amount of it into glucose but, unlike sucrose (which is one fructose molecule bonded to one glucose molecule), it does not contain a glucose molecule.
HFCS, as a finished product, may or may not have added glucose to compensate, but the end result of adding glucose is a reduced sweetness index, which means more of that specific formulation just be used to achieve the same level of sweetness, negating any benefit that may arise from the addition of glucose in the first place.
Or, to put it another way, manufacturers of HFCS, in fact, do not add glucose to their product, as doing so comes at an added cost and renders the product inferior to HFCS formulations which to not contain glucose. And I'll remind you that fructose, itself, does not contain glucose.
Probably a's much rea'son a's putting an apo'strophe before every "'s" that you encounter.
Fixed that for you...
To spit in Britain's face, I suppose. Doesn't make sense to me, so I do it the logical (British) way.