I love how on Slashdot how threads frequently go, Poster A:"Well, this is true (with not citations)" Poster B: "No, that is wrong (with no citations)." Poster C: "No, B is wrong because they provide no citations (still no citations for A or C)". No one is providing concrete numbers or citations. You chew someone out for not being concrete, but then turn around and still are no concrete yourself, making vague comparisons because the word "argument" gets used in a lot of places that have no relevance to the issue. I would assume that most people who actually cared about the subject would take a quick Google search because it is a heavily researched topic.

You're not a victim of anything, as much as you wish to draw it that way.

As poster B, if you feel poster A needed held to account then do so - but two wrongs don't make a right. What Poster A needed was to be ignored. The post wasn't modded up, it was drawing no attention until you used it as a springboard for your totally offtopic ranting about taxes in general. If anything you gave it the credence you were attempting to deny it.

And despite your chest-inflating portrayal of the situation as the poor misguided bearer of light into this quagmire of no proof and faulty assumptions as to which arguments I "like", you really have no idea.

I can't help that my OT rant was modded up +2, but then again somehow so was yours. /. has become the land of easy OT karma it appears.

Your bullshit would be more compelling if only more concrete.

A lot of argument already suggests the taxes are disproportionate to any impact.

A lot of argument suggests the morning after pill causes abortions. A lot of argument suggests homosexuality is a choice. A lot of argument doesn't make it so.

Are the taxes disproportionate to impact or not? Say something real.

I assume they only do that when behind schedule, same as the GE jet final assembly plant in Peebles, Ohio does. Truck or rail if on schedule, big honking cargo jet if behind.

Now it suddenly makes sense to me, I "get it". Infinite samples of a repeating function will create a unique pattern.

You're getting closer.

You seem to be forgetting that the signal is bandpassed before encoding. Thus any frequency below the Nyquest limit maps to a unique pattern.

A sound recording of duration 1/R second will generate one sample. The value of that single sample tells us virtually nothing about the sound.

Obviously,
For that signal has a period twice the lowpass frequency.

Since real-life sounds are not infinitely long repetitions, samples of real sounds can be pretty good approximations, only.

But you know what? The ear can't distinguish those either. What does a sub-cycle-length 21 Khz tone sound like?

It doesn't sounds like a continuous 21 Khz tone.

Such signals, in the context of hearing exist only in theory.

There is an increasingly large number of devices (just about every lower power device of the last 5-7 years) which will play h.264 and not divx. Since the era of the iPod 5th gen ("iPod Video") the trend has been for h.264 hardware decoders paired to relatively weak CPUs.

disingenuous sarcasm never got anyone anywhere, so good luck with that.

As if suggesting DivX wasn't sarcasm...

Seems to me like the current pics have pixels thinner than 0.5 meters... I feel like I am missing something?

In many (most?) developed western areas the images are from planes, not satellites. There is a great deal of high-res aerial photography on the open market and Google has used much.

The development being discussed in the article will benefit outlying areas and places where having temporal density is useful.

If you're so confident, why not short bitcoin?

For someone to short there has to not only be a robust market, but also a person (or people) taking equal and opposite long positions you can borrow from.

Do any of the trusted and established exchanges offer shorts?

At that point, the people with the massive computing power are going to have incentive to throw at least some of these Bitcoins into the market just to generate more trade volume.

Bitcoin's exchange rate against the USD has no bearing on its utility as a token of exchange.

With fast enough exchanges and sufficient enough liquidity ("enough" being the key word) the total amount of Bitcoins in circulation doesn't even have a large impact on trade volume. Bitcoins don't get consumed in the process of trading.

Therefore I don't see how those with massive computing power (for generating income through transaction processing) benefit by selling previously-hoarded coins. If anything they benefit by not selling their coins, maintain artificial scarcity and thus high exchange prices since they get paid in coin.

What bubble? Plenty of people perform transactions using bitcoin to pay for goods and services every day and go away happy. How is that a bubble?

What bubble? Plenty of people performed transactions for houses in 2006 and went away happy. How was that a bubble?

What bubble? Plenty of people performed transactions of dot-com stocks up through early 2010 and went away happy. How was that a bubble?

If deadmanwalking != skitchen8 I apologize, but the verbiage smells the same.

He was responding to someone talking about the efficiency of non-pitch-shifting rotors. He commented on how efficiency doesn't improve much once you introduce blade pitch-control. He used fixed-wing aircraft as a contrast.

That's all.

You were the one who chose this subthread as your Nteenth location for saying the same thing, ignoring relevance to the specific discussion at hand.

Sure this overall story is about QCs and rescue. But the subthread you chose to lose your mind in isn't.

As I said. A nit which wasn't offered. GPP mentioned the efficiency but in no way suggested that made them unfit for the job at hand. The only person running with that claim is you.

You appear to be picking a nit which wasn't offered.

Bah! Forgot link.

http://www.sensorgen.info/