If we really must have a car analogy, that's like making a packed 27-lane freeway going at 100 mph become a 1-lane road and still go at 100 mph. So for it to work they make the cars 27 times shorter in length.
It seems like it could, provided that the lines can handle the bandwidth (which you claim, I'll take your word for it). As for the other end, if I got it right the process can be reversed to restretch out small chunks of the signal into something slow enough to be readable.
I wonder something though, can't they just send a bunch of parallel signals each at different frequencies instead of bothering with serialising the whole thing onto the same carrier? I mean it would use the same bandwidth in the end, so why bother making it all be on one carrier?
It's irrelevant, all that matters is that you accommodate for enough bandwidth for the final signal, naturally. The trick here is to overcome the limitations in rate of regular carrier modulation. No big theoretical problem, only the technical issues that nothing can modulate at those rates. In other words that's a neat trick to serialise a signal into faster rates.
Wow, I actually got it! I feel privileged. I think an algorithmic equivalent could be done by taking the slow modulated carrier's analytic signal, modulating it with a complex chirp, convolving it with another chirp as to make the upper end of the chirp get closer in time to the lower end, modulating it again with a complex chirp that would flatten it and there you go. Correct?
I'm underweight so I find it quite annoying that they do all they can to prevent anyone from getting an excess in calories. But the real problem is their overall approach. While I agree on the approach taken with cigarettes, and I also think that it's reasonable to make sure fast food restaurant don't serve grossly unhealthy food, I think a line is crossed when they basically try to force you into a calorifically lighter diet. It seems that the approach is about making sure you wouldn't be able to get fat even if you wanted to.
I think a better approach is to take a shot at the root of the problem, namely, the national food culture. I'm from France and I noticed something quite striking when moving to Ireland, people there are much chubbier/fatter. Their McDonald's are no better tasting than in France or any less healthy, but the national food culture is different. While French people would stuff themselves with ratatouille, Irish people would eat, I don't know, potatoes? The point is, both enjoy their food, but the French food culture is healthier. People get to eat as much as they like and not grow any fatter. Well, obviously things have changed a bit with the introduction of fast food restaurants with hamburgers and kebabs, so the French are seeing their national food culture being modified for the worse.
But that's the point, if a food culture can be changed (mainly through foreign cultural imports), then you should modify yours for the better. My point is, don't ban hamburgers, eat ratatouille, it's pretty yummy too!
My observations were that I'd much rather be in an old tank like that in a minor accident. Anything major, and I'd rather be in a modern car with things like seatbelts, crumple zones and air bags.
Yep, that's why before getting involved in any traffic accident, I always carefully choose the car I own which would be best suited. Now if you'll excuse me, I might accidentally run over my neighbour in his backyard while I'm on my way to the store. I think I'll pick the Hummer, it's the better one to get through wooden fences.
I'm also feeling compelled to point out that you barely even tried to fight my claims. All the fuck you could say was "there's patterns in random things", which is a dumbass thing to say when someone is accusing you of not understanding how the sample sized that's being talked about here affects the certainty that we're looking at a non-random pattern. Instead you chose to go "oh you're a bad person because you use profanity". Damn right I use profanity, fagget. But you can't even explain why you think I'm wrong, no matter how hard you try to deflect or use dumb analogies. Cause you don't know shit about the underlying math. You probably wouldn't know a normal distribution if you saw one.
What's to be said about my "grasp of concepts like sample size"? Dumbass. You're just the typical nerd who's gotta act like he knows about it all to sound smart, knowledgeable and relevant when your expertise on what you're talking about is very thin and shallow.
You take much for granted. My politeness was not an apology. But, I can expect no less considering the quality of the discussion so far.
lol, dumbass, learn to not take everything on the first degree.
There were less that 6 thousand data points for this analysis. So, your seeming belief this was based on a "huge sample size (tens of thousands of numbers)" is also at risk.
Holy shit retarded batman. It could as well be only 100 points, the different between eights and ones would still be very significant. God damn!
BTW. The Max "8" at 676 is not "twice more often than" the Min "1" at 431. I'm sure it was just a rounding error on your part, in the middle of a discussion of statistics.;)
Who gives a shit, I didn't even bother to verify in the article. Cause no one gives a shit. Except a sucker like you who'll try to hang on to anything that would help make him sound less like the dumb one of the two of us. If you're not completely retarded you can see that there's no way you can have 676 8's and 431 1's with random numbers of those ranges and distributions.
Yes, because the fact that I use insults and profanity validates your original claims! "Hur dur there's shapes in clouds therefore it's perfectly normal that out of tens of thousands of random numbers there should be numbers that occur twice more often than others. Teh expret is teh stupid!!11"
You're a dumbass. RTFA and you'll see how likely these "patterns" are given the huge sample size (tens of thousands of numbers).
I mean seriously, what fucking arrogant cunt would think that a well regarded expert would fall for the most basic of mistakes of his domain of expertise, and that you'd be the one to point it out? Goddamn basement intellectuals...
Oh shut the fuck up. The guy's a statistician and has proven quite a good one at that. You barely grasp the law of large numbers. Fucking know-it-alls thinking they get all about anything and dismiss claims of experts without even a grasp of the basics of the topic at hand, get the fuck off my Internet.
Dude, just shut the fuck up and read about the laws of large numbers/statistics in general because that's all it's about. I don't see how anyone can fail to see that the fact that people weren't systematically infected has no statistical relevance. Fucking morons. I understand why you're posting as AC.
Wow, I already knew that people on Slashdot had a very tenuous understanding on economic or scientific topics, but damn, most of you have an awfully tenuous grasp of statistics too!
If they weren't tracking and testing all sexual partners I do not understand how they could come up with any statistically valid result.
Why would they need to track anyone? People are still going to do what it takes to catch HIV in the same way in both groups. Why would you want one group to catch HIV more than the other, besides for what randomness allows?
it should be taken with a grain of salt.
If it should, then it's not for the reasons you're thinking of.
Their results could mean that the group recieving the test vaccine came into contact with the virus 31.2% less.
And how the fuck would that work? They're random groups, no one knows who got what. That means anyone is still as likely to get in contact with HIV. If you took two groups and gave them both placebo then you might have something like 75 in on and 70 in the other, cause that's the kind of margin the randomness allows for. 74 and 51 clearly means that it's something the vaccine does.
No you dumb cunt, if you had any clue what you're talking about you'd know it is comfortably significant. Can't do the math to tell you the precise odds because I forgot how, but it's big enough to tell you that it works for sure.
"global warming" actually confuses the issue because climate change doesn't evenly modify the temperature of our climate. In fact, some areas of the globe have cooled of late
That's a stupid thing to say. Globally the temperature effectively rises, that's the main trait of the change being talked about. But a number of cretins out there can't see that "global" doesn't imply "uniform". That it gets colder in some places is irrelevant.
By the way, in France it was always called "climate warming" (le rechauffement climatique), even back in the 1990s, when only scientific literature would talk about it. It was never very politicised there anyway, since no one there was enough of a dumbass to consider debating a scientific consensus.
Slashdot Mirror
If we really must have a car analogy, that's like making a packed 27-lane freeway going at 100 mph become a 1-lane road and still go at 100 mph. So for it to work they make the cars 27 times shorter in length.
It seems like it could, provided that the lines can handle the bandwidth (which you claim, I'll take your word for it). As for the other end, if I got it right the process can be reversed to restretch out small chunks of the signal into something slow enough to be readable.
I wonder something though, can't they just send a bunch of parallel signals each at different frequencies instead of bothering with serialising the whole thing onto the same carrier? I mean it would use the same bandwidth in the end, so why bother making it all be on one carrier?
It's irrelevant, all that matters is that you accommodate for enough bandwidth for the final signal, naturally. The trick here is to overcome the limitations in rate of regular carrier modulation. No big theoretical problem, only the technical issues that nothing can modulate at those rates. In other words that's a neat trick to serialise a signal into faster rates.
Wow, I actually got it! I feel privileged. I think an algorithmic equivalent could be done by taking the slow modulated carrier's analytic signal, modulating it with a complex chirp, convolving it with another chirp as to make the upper end of the chirp get closer in time to the lower end, modulating it again with a complex chirp that would flatten it and there you go. Correct?
Wouldn't that be more like plain old resampling (like playing a tape faster)?
I'm underweight so I find it quite annoying that they do all they can to prevent anyone from getting an excess in calories. But the real problem is their overall approach. While I agree on the approach taken with cigarettes, and I also think that it's reasonable to make sure fast food restaurant don't serve grossly unhealthy food, I think a line is crossed when they basically try to force you into a calorifically lighter diet. It seems that the approach is about making sure you wouldn't be able to get fat even if you wanted to.
I think a better approach is to take a shot at the root of the problem, namely, the national food culture. I'm from France and I noticed something quite striking when moving to Ireland, people there are much chubbier/fatter. Their McDonald's are no better tasting than in France or any less healthy, but the national food culture is different. While French people would stuff themselves with ratatouille, Irish people would eat, I don't know, potatoes? The point is, both enjoy their food, but the French food culture is healthier. People get to eat as much as they like and not grow any fatter. Well, obviously things have changed a bit with the introduction of fast food restaurants with hamburgers and kebabs, so the French are seeing their national food culture being modified for the worse.
But that's the point, if a food culture can be changed (mainly through foreign cultural imports), then you should modify yours for the better. My point is, don't ban hamburgers, eat ratatouille, it's pretty yummy too!
kmph? If mph is miles per hour, does it make kmph kilo miles per hour?
My observations were that I'd much rather be in an old tank like that in a minor accident. Anything major, and I'd rather be in a modern car with things like seatbelts, crumple zones and air bags.
Yep, that's why before getting involved in any traffic accident, I always carefully choose the car I own which would be best suited. Now if you'll excuse me, I might accidentally run over my neighbour in his backyard while I'm on my way to the store. I think I'll pick the Hummer, it's the better one to get through wooden fences.
I'm also feeling compelled to point out that you barely even tried to fight my claims. All the fuck you could say was "there's patterns in random things", which is a dumbass thing to say when someone is accusing you of not understanding how the sample sized that's being talked about here affects the certainty that we're looking at a non-random pattern. Instead you chose to go "oh you're a bad person because you use profanity". Damn right I use profanity, fagget. But you can't even explain why you think I'm wrong, no matter how hard you try to deflect or use dumb analogies. Cause you don't know shit about the underlying math. You probably wouldn't know a normal distribution if you saw one.
What's to be said about my "grasp of concepts like sample size"? Dumbass. You're just the typical nerd who's gotta act like he knows about it all to sound smart, knowledgeable and relevant when your expertise on what you're talking about is very thin and shallow.
You take much for granted. My politeness was not an apology. But, I can expect no less considering the quality of the discussion so far.
lol, dumbass, learn to not take everything on the first degree.
There were less that 6 thousand data points for this analysis. So, your seeming belief this was based on a "huge sample size (tens of thousands of numbers)" is also at risk.
Holy shit retarded batman. It could as well be only 100 points, the different between eights and ones would still be very significant. God damn!
I accept your apology!
BTW. The Max "8" at 676 is not "twice more often than" the Min "1" at 431. I'm sure it was just a rounding error on your part, in the middle of a discussion of statistics. ;)
Who gives a shit, I didn't even bother to verify in the article. Cause no one gives a shit. Except a sucker like you who'll try to hang on to anything that would help make him sound less like the dumb one of the two of us. If you're not completely retarded you can see that there's no way you can have 676 8's and 431 1's with random numbers of those ranges and distributions.
Yes, because the fact that I use insults and profanity validates your original claims! "Hur dur there's shapes in clouds therefore it's perfectly normal that out of tens of thousands of random numbers there should be numbers that occur twice more often than others. Teh expret is teh stupid!!11"
You're a dumbass. RTFA and you'll see how likely these "patterns" are given the huge sample size (tens of thousands of numbers).
I mean seriously, what fucking arrogant cunt would think that a well regarded expert would fall for the most basic of mistakes of his domain of expertise, and that you'd be the one to point it out? Goddamn basement intellectuals...
Oh shut the fuck up. The guy's a statistician and has proven quite a good one at that. You barely grasp the law of large numbers. Fucking know-it-alls thinking they get all about anything and dismiss claims of experts without even a grasp of the basics of the topic at hand, get the fuck off my Internet.
Perhaps you could enlighten us with your genius.
Read my other comments, they're sufficiently redundant with each other, I'm not repeating myself once again.
Unless my balls becoming blue giants kill me before that.
Dude, just shut the fuck up and read about the laws of large numbers/statistics in general because that's all it's about. I don't see how anyone can fail to see that the fact that people weren't systematically infected has no statistical relevance. Fucking morons. I understand why you're posting as AC.
Wow, I already knew that people on Slashdot had a very tenuous understanding on economic or scientific topics, but damn, most of you have an awfully tenuous grasp of statistics too!
If they weren't tracking and testing all sexual partners I do not understand how they could come up with any statistically valid result.
Why would they need to track anyone? People are still going to do what it takes to catch HIV in the same way in both groups. Why would you want one group to catch HIV more than the other, besides for what randomness allows?
it should be taken with a grain of salt.
If it should, then it's not for the reasons you're thinking of.
Their results could mean that the group recieving the test vaccine came into contact with the virus 31.2% less.
And how the fuck would that work? They're random groups, no one knows who got what. That means anyone is still as likely to get in contact with HIV. If you took two groups and gave them both placebo then you might have something like 75 in on and 70 in the other, cause that's the kind of margin the randomness allows for. 74 and 51 clearly means that it's something the vaccine does.
It doesn't mean anything. too small of a sample
No you dumb cunt, if you had any clue what you're talking about you'd know it is comfortably significant. Can't do the math to tell you the precise odds because I forgot how, but it's big enough to tell you that it works for sure.
Cool! Hopefully by the time I become sexually active it will have improved much more!
Translation : Sometimes people are wrong. Therefore let's dismiss anything we don't like as potentially wrong.
"global warming" actually confuses the issue because climate change doesn't evenly modify the temperature of our climate. In fact, some areas of the globe have cooled of late
That's a stupid thing to say. Globally the temperature effectively rises, that's the main trait of the change being talked about. But a number of cretins out there can't see that "global" doesn't imply "uniform". That it gets colder in some places is irrelevant.
By the way, in France it was always called "climate warming" (le rechauffement climatique), even back in the 1990s, when only scientific literature would talk about it. It was never very politicised there anyway, since no one there was enough of a dumbass to consider debating a scientific consensus.
Dur, if the weed was as contagious as you claim then it would be all over the USA already. So obviously it's not. Hence your point is moot.