*that people can hear the difference between high quality compressed audio...

You, again - quite clearly, claim that "Sciense and math exactly proof" that people can high quality compressed audio and uncompressed audio.

You then claim you can hear frequencies outside of the human range of hearing because they are "combined".

You do not seem to realize that you are, at this point, arguing that you can hear overtones through what you refer to as being "combined" but that compression algorithms cut off these overtones.

As per your usual method of discussing with people you insinuated that the person you were replying to was "braindead" (your other preferred term is "idiot".) I applied your own negative terms to you because you used the non-sensical "combined".

Reading all of your posts it is clear that English is not your first language and that you don't understand that when you talk to other people who are detail oriented that it isn't their responsibility to figure out what you meant to say but simply to deal with what you did say.

You didn't say anything about hearing the differences between "320kbps mp3s (using the highest-quality available compressor) and their uncompressed counterparts"?

Well, we know that isn't true.

Are you a crazy person?

Not agreeing with you at all.

You argued, quite clearly, that it is because of overtones that you can tell the difference between 320kbps mp3s (using the highest-quality available compressor) and uncompressed audio.

That's totally wrong.

Of course you do, and as usual, you're making an "idiot" out of yourself for everyone to see by claiming that you're hearing is "beyond human."

You DO hear when there's an overtone, but you don't hear the overtone, you hear the effect the overtone has on the audible range frequencies. See the "scientific facts" relating to destructive/constructive interference. This effect IS captured by the ADC, but can be filtered depending upon the overtone.

You can easily Google for it.

Last word, lol

I'm sure it doesn't, because you have demonstrated quite clearly that you don't understand abstraction.

How can you be a competent architect when you don't understand abstraction? LOL.

In any case, you're a programmer, right?

Are you an escaped inmate from a Guatemalan insane asylum?

The entire first post, including the title of the post, is explicitly about abstracting your persistence model.

"In other words, have your backend web services (presuming you're using them and not manually POSTing from a socket yourself to your own socket server) instantiate an instance of iMyDBAdapter and use it."

Maybe you don't find that clear, but that's because you apparently don't understand abstraction...

The stupidity of your statement really cannot be overstated. You dislike ValidateConnection because you claim you will simply catch an exception when you connect; ergo, you are either connected or you are not. This, alone, is proof that you do not understand abstraction.

And you'll apparently never get any further, because you'll need to understand abstraction before you can be an architect. I'm also not a programmer, I'm a software engineer (there's a difference that you're not aware of), a software architect, a founder, a co-founder, and I also perform technical due diligences for multiple Vencture Capital firms.

Actually, this is EXACTLY what you should abstract away. Yet again you demonstrate your lack of basic understanding of the purpose of abstraction. You think that abstracting away 'locality' is bad and leads to problems? Why on earth would it do that? LOL. Your abstraction layer should satisfy the requirements of the business logic, if locality is an issue (i.e. for performance) then your adapter implementation must account for that. The only time anyone using your abstraction layer should ever know anything about locality would be if that knowledge would be required so that the business logic could make a decision - otherwise, that sort of information should be encapsulated totally.

Sure, I believe you, and you understand abstraction too.

Great, I hope you have a competent architect.

Did you even bother to read the article you linked to? LOL. It clearly states that it oxidizes several metals. It then goes on to describe the reaction that you're trying to claim is the only oxidation case. In fact, the article you linked lists at least four chemical oxidations above and beyond those involving metals.

You seem to only capable of reading about the ones that have to do with water. Rather selective of you.

Don't let basic reading skills stand in your way of looking silly [sic].

Yes, you can. The article you linked points this out to you as well.

You appear to be obsessed with the colloquial definition of 'oxidize.' You should check out the formal definition; especially the part that relates it entirely to electron transfer.

See the stupid people who agree with me:

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/ino...

Don't just read the first part (the beginners' definition), read down to the "most important use of the terms oxidation" part...

Maybe I should have typed that in all caps so you could read it...

I guess those electrochemists who study high pressure oxygen plasmas are a bunch of idiots...

Yes, I'm guilty of very loosely (as in 'incorrectly') using the term combustion to describe the visual equivalent. I thought it would save me some time, it did not. ;)

Running shoes sounds 'optimistic' ;)...

Using the term combustion was shortcut to avoiding discussing the details of highly oxygenated plasmas. BTW, oxygen plasmas are yellow, much like flames...

You mean like Chlorine trifluoride? Lol...