No, if everything comes from the same digital master, then vinyl's difference in sound quality comes from imperfections in the medium itself.
Partially correct; You're missing a step. The engineering done for CDs/digital, especially starting in the 2000s, is typically massively over compressed. By compression I'm referring to dynamics compression. This isn't the case with vinyl.
I so get a kick out of people claiming this (and you're not the only one in this thread, so don't take it personally). Have you ever heard of an RIAA curve? Do you know what it is? It is, essentially, 40 dB of compression on an album, and it's required to not only increase the time available on each side but to keep the needle from bouncing out of the groove on big bass hits. Compression for "artistic reasons" - that which you speak of - still happens on LPs. But on EVERY record this is an additional 40 dB of compression (from bass to treble - it's a high pass filter, effectively) required to make it work. Vinyl has a LOT more compression than CD ever will; compression is simply required for vinyl to even work, independent of the music.
Some school districts in CA are pushing $40K in expenses per student, with the high being New Jerusalem Elementary School District coming in at $119,000 per student. Even it it was an average of $13K (which is about the average for California), the average class size is around 22, meaning close to $300K per classroom. A bit of math will show that teacher salary is around 20% of all student spending. That's the issue - so much money is going to things beyond education.
Silly troll AC, yes it was! That's the point - it was investigated, and the evidence points to no need with regards to drinking water. That's the data, that's the result of the evidence. Now, does silly troll AC have some data saying otherwise? No? Then it's conclusive - not an issue!
Although asbestos is a known human carcinogen by the inhalation route, available
epidemiological studies do not support the hypothesis that an increased cancer risk is
associated with the ingestion of asbestos in drinking-water. Moreover, in extensive feeding
studies in animals, asbestos has not consistently increased the incidence of tumours of the
gastrointestinal tract. There is therefore no consistent, convincing evidence that ingested
asbestos is hazardous to health, and it is concluded that there is no need to establish a
guideline for asbestos in drinking-water.
To reiterate the "money quote" from above: it is concluded that there is no need to establish a
guideline for asbestos in drinking-water. So discharge of asbestos - a natural fiber - into Lake Michigan is a problem because - why?
You probably hate vaccinations and worry about cell-phone radiation too, don't you?
You can probably emigrate to North Korea if you like... Dear Leader would probably love to have another white face to prove his beneficial effect on North Korean society!
It's simple - if it's not on the list, it's OK. Really, don't you understand that laws are prohibitive in nature? They say what you cannot do, not what you can do.
Except they didn't. The US Federal Government exempted fracking from the SWDA act in 2005, but the Clean Water Act still exists, and violations of the SWDA can still be enforced if the injection happens above 1000 feet deep (meaning within about 4X the depth of most wells). Get your facts straight, please...
A typical large tanker truck hauls about 11,000 gallons of liquid. So you are proposing they use ~640 tanker trucks EVERY DAY as the environmentally friendly replacement for a single pipe 16" pipe running at ~10 PSI? Seriously? Assuming a 20 mile round trip, you're looking at using about 4,500 gallons - minimum - of diesel consumption every day, or about the equivalent emissions of about 10,000 cars. Every day.
Or we could have a one-time cost of a 16" pipe, and one that is run under essentially zero pressure (10 PSI, less than 1 ATM) so there is zero danger if it breaks - low pressure, and it's just water.
That 67,000 tons a day? Total water we're talking here is 2.7 million gallons - about 10,000 tons of water. You're talking about 67,000 tons of solids IN ADDITION to the water. Again, this "new use" - which is 4 decades AFTER the Clean Water Act and will have no claim to grandfathering - is tiny by comparison.
Yes, too bad you really do not have recourse against the quasi-Governmental agencies that are utilities! Private industry tends to get held to a much higher standard. And since this factory will be built about 4 decades AFTER passage of the Clean Water Act (rather than a few decades before, as in Flint), the odds of it being enforced are quite a bit higher.
Lake Michigan can naturally evaporate around 100,000 times that amount per day in the first place; I don't think you'll see any significant change in local climate, other than from the greater expanse of parking lots, buildings, and localized electrical heating.
The Clean Water Act would be a good place to start... Anything on the banned list is, well, banned. And it's often true that discharged wastewater is actually cleaner than the original intake water.
According to this study, natural evaporative losses can be up to 0.6 inches per day. Assuming it's really just under half an inch (about 12mm), natural evaporation from Lake Michigan can reach 183 billion gallons per day. That 2.7 million gallons lost per day - and as the article says, most of it to evaporation - is about 0.0014% of the current evaporation. Is moving evaporation from the lake surface to a site right next to the lake surface an issue? In other words, relocating around 1 thousandth of 1 percent o the evaporation is the concern?
Look at total compensation package - a total compensation package around $120K/year would have you a solid GS9 - about $80K/year salary. Plus the benefits.
When I had a Gov't contract, I used to fly business class, around $1500, to visit the office. The ONE time they came to me, like you they drove. It was charged at $95/day for the car (3 days), plus 2.5 man-days to drive - which cost significantly more than my flight. Yes, I flew "expensively", but I spent 2 hours flying. They drove - cheaply - but they charged for 10 hours each way (and of course the per-diem that went with it). Cost quite a bit more, per person, for them to drive than for me to fly. But I guess you charge your time for free to the Government, right?
When are they going to get to 10K/week? Have they reached 2K/week consistently? First you need to get your volume, then you can start working on redesign/cost-downs...
Read that post. Fixed costs are high, and are what drive Tesla into the red. The Model 3 would need to sell for a LOT more margin that it is, and at a LOT higher volume, to get close to offsetting the fixed cost-based losses. And we're not even talking capital expenditures.
Well, to be fair, if those were Apple users who were buying the MikroTik devices, they NEED the hand-holding and biometrics to lock the device because passwords and user IDs are technical thingies and scary!
Slashdot Mirror
No, if everything comes from the same digital master, then vinyl's difference in sound quality comes from imperfections in the medium itself.
Partially correct; You're missing a step. The engineering done for CDs/digital, especially starting in the 2000s, is typically massively over compressed. By compression I'm referring to dynamics compression. This isn't the case with vinyl.
I so get a kick out of people claiming this (and you're not the only one in this thread, so don't take it personally). Have you ever heard of an RIAA curve? Do you know what it is? It is, essentially, 40 dB of compression on an album, and it's required to not only increase the time available on each side but to keep the needle from bouncing out of the groove on big bass hits. Compression for "artistic reasons" - that which you speak of - still happens on LPs. But on EVERY record this is an additional 40 dB of compression (from bass to treble - it's a high pass filter, effectively) required to make it work. Vinyl has a LOT more compression than CD ever will; compression is simply required for vinyl to even work, independent of the music.
Some school districts in CA are pushing $40K in expenses per student, with the high being New Jerusalem Elementary School District coming in at $119,000 per student. Even it it was an average of $13K (which is about the average for California), the average class size is around 22, meaning close to $300K per classroom. A bit of math will show that teacher salary is around 20% of all student spending. That's the issue - so much money is going to things beyond education.
There we go - troll AC admits their defeat, resorts to simple verbal assault with nothing to back up their indefensible position.
Silly troll AC, yes it was! That's the point - it was investigated, and the evidence points to no need with regards to drinking water. That's the data, that's the result of the evidence. Now, does silly troll AC have some data saying otherwise? No? Then it's conclusive - not an issue!
Silly AC, the original report was from 1996 - it's already been 20 years! Vaxxers, cellphone-phobics, and AC-asbestos-warriors - all anti-science!
Too bad france.sucks is already taken, I'd register it and just link back to this /. story about how France, well, sucks.
Although asbestos is a known human carcinogen by the inhalation route, available epidemiological studies do not support the hypothesis that an increased cancer risk is associated with the ingestion of asbestos in drinking-water. Moreover, in extensive feeding studies in animals, asbestos has not consistently increased the incidence of tumours of the gastrointestinal tract. There is therefore no consistent, convincing evidence that ingested asbestos is hazardous to health, and it is concluded that there is no need to establish a guideline for asbestos in drinking-water.
To reiterate the "money quote" from above: it is concluded that there is no need to establish a guideline for asbestos in drinking-water. So discharge of asbestos - a natural fiber - into Lake Michigan is a problem because - why?
You probably hate vaccinations and worry about cell-phone radiation too, don't you?
You can probably emigrate to North Korea if you like... Dear Leader would probably love to have another white face to prove his beneficial effect on North Korean society!
It's simple - if it's not on the list, it's OK. Really, don't you understand that laws are prohibitive in nature? They say what you cannot do, not what you can do.
Except they didn't. The US Federal Government exempted fracking from the SWDA act in 2005, but the Clean Water Act still exists, and violations of the SWDA can still be enforced if the injection happens above 1000 feet deep (meaning within about 4X the depth of most wells). Get your facts straight, please...
We'll still figure out how to guarantee President Trump gets zero credit for this foreign policy win!
Educate yourself about what is restricted from all wastewater emissions...
A typical large tanker truck hauls about 11,000 gallons of liquid. So you are proposing they use ~640 tanker trucks EVERY DAY as the environmentally friendly replacement for a single pipe 16" pipe running at ~10 PSI? Seriously? Assuming a 20 mile round trip, you're looking at using about 4,500 gallons - minimum - of diesel consumption every day, or about the equivalent emissions of about 10,000 cars. Every day.
Or we could have a one-time cost of a 16" pipe, and one that is run under essentially zero pressure (10 PSI, less than 1 ATM) so there is zero danger if it breaks - low pressure, and it's just water.
That 67,000 tons a day? Total water we're talking here is 2.7 million gallons - about 10,000 tons of water. You're talking about 67,000 tons of solids IN ADDITION to the water. Again, this "new use" - which is 4 decades AFTER the Clean Water Act and will have no claim to grandfathering - is tiny by comparison.
Yes, too bad you really do not have recourse against the quasi-Governmental agencies that are utilities! Private industry tends to get held to a much higher standard. And since this factory will be built about 4 decades AFTER passage of the Clean Water Act (rather than a few decades before, as in Flint), the odds of it being enforced are quite a bit higher.
Lake Michigan can naturally evaporate around 100,000 times that amount per day in the first place; I don't think you'll see any significant change in local climate, other than from the greater expanse of parking lots, buildings, and localized electrical heating.
The Clean Water Act would be a good place to start... Anything on the banned list is, well, banned. And it's often true that discharged wastewater is actually cleaner than the original intake water.
According to this study, natural evaporative losses can be up to 0.6 inches per day. Assuming it's really just under half an inch (about 12mm), natural evaporation from Lake Michigan can reach 183 billion gallons per day. That 2.7 million gallons lost per day - and as the article says, most of it to evaporation - is about 0.0014% of the current evaporation. Is moving evaporation from the lake surface to a site right next to the lake surface an issue? In other words, relocating around 1 thousandth of 1 percent o the evaporation is the concern?
light temperatures higher than 3,000 Kelvin
Like, say, daylight? I guess a person must always sit in the dark to avoid cancer...
Look at total compensation package - a total compensation package around $120K/year would have you a solid GS9 - about $80K/year salary. Plus the benefits.
When I had a Gov't contract, I used to fly business class, around $1500, to visit the office. The ONE time they came to me, like you they drove. It was charged at $95/day for the car (3 days), plus 2.5 man-days to drive - which cost significantly more than my flight. Yes, I flew "expensively", but I spent 2 hours flying. They drove - cheaply - but they charged for 10 hours each way (and of course the per-diem that went with it). Cost quite a bit more, per person, for them to drive than for me to fly. But I guess you charge your time for free to the Government, right?
When are they going to get to 10K/week? Have they reached 2K/week consistently? First you need to get your volume, then you can start working on redesign/cost-downs...
Read that post. Fixed costs are high, and are what drive Tesla into the red. The Model 3 would need to sell for a LOT more margin that it is, and at a LOT higher volume, to get close to offsetting the fixed cost-based losses. And we're not even talking capital expenditures.
Spooky!
Well, to be fair, if those were Apple users who were buying the MikroTik devices, they NEED the hand-holding and biometrics to lock the device because passwords and user IDs are technical thingies and scary!